# STATUS AND TRENDS OF WATER QUALITY IN THE NORTHERN COASTAL BASIN

Jan D. Miller Division of Environmental Sciences

Department of Water Resources St. Johns River Water Management District Palatka, FL 32177

### The Environmental Sciences Division of th e Department of Water Resources, St. Johns River Water Management District , has reviewed this report.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District 

### i 

# STATUS AND TRENDS OF

WATER QUALITY IN THE NORTHERN COASTAL BASIN

In cooperation with: Palm Coast Community Service Corp. SJRWMD St. Johns County

Volusia County

Suggested citation of this report:
Miller, J.D. 2004. Status and trends of water quality in the Northe rn Coastal Basin. St. Johns River Water M anagement District, Palatka, FL 124 pp.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District 

### ii 

# ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to thank the following in dividuals for their support of the Northern Coastal Basin Water Quality Assessment Program:

Mrs. Stacy Kowlsen and the staff of the St. Johns County Environmental and Utility Laboratory

Mr. Jack Rawlins and the staff of the Volusia County Environmental and Health Laboratory

Mr. John Moden, Palm Coast Co mmunity Service Corporation

Dr. Gilbert C. Sigua, PhD, USDA

Staff of St. Johns River Wa ter Management District

Watershed Action Volunteers

M.M. Fisher, M.A. Lasi, and J.S. Steward for their assistance in reviewing this manuscriptStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District 

### iii 

# TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................................................................................ii TABLE OF CONTENTS.....................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................ v LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 7 Project Area ................................................................................................................... ...7 METHODS ........................................................................................................................ . 11 Water Quality Assessment in the NCB...........................................................................11 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................. 15 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ ... 17 I. WATER QUALITY STATUS ...............................................................................17 A. Tolomato - Matanzas Estuary ...............................................................................17 Physical Measurements...........................................................................................17 Salinity ................................................................................................................17 pH........................................................................................................................17 Dissolved Oxygen...............................................................................................20 Water Clarity...........................................................................................................20 Turbidity .............................................................................................................20 Total Suspended Solids.......................................................................................20 Chlorophyll a ......................................................................................................20 Color ...................................................................................................................21 Nutrients..................................................................................................................21 Total Nitrogen.....................................................................................................21 Total Phosphorus ................................................................................................21 Trophic Status .....................................................................................................22 B. Flagler County Waterways....................................................................................23 Physical Measurements...........................................................................................23 Salinity ................................................................................................................23 pH........................................................................................................................23 Dissolved Oxygen...............................................................................................26 Water Clarity...........................................................................................................26 Turbidity .............................................................................................................26 Total Suspended Solids.......................................................................................26 Chlorophyll a ......................................................................................................27 Color ...................................................................................................................27 Nutrients..................................................................................................................28 Total Nitrogen.....................................................................................................28 Total Phosphorus ................................................................................................28 Trophic Status .....................................................................................................29 C. Halifax River Watershed.......................................................................................30 Physical Measurements...........................................................................................30 Salinity ................................................................................................................30 pH........................................................................................................................34Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District 

### iv Dissolved Oxygen...............................................................................................35 Water Clarity...........................................................................................................35 Turbidity .............................................................................................................35 Total Suspended Solids.......................................................................................36 Chlorophyll a ......................................................................................................37 Color ...................................................................................................................38 Nutrients..................................................................................................................39 Total Nitrogen.....................................................................................................39 Total Phosphorus ................................................................................................40 Trophic Status .....................................................................................................41 D. Comparison of Water Bodies................................................................................43 Physical Measurements...........................................................................................43 Salinity ................................................................................................................43 pH........................................................................................................................43 Dissolved Oxygen...............................................................................................43 Water Clarity...........................................................................................................43 Turbidity .............................................................................................................43 Total Suspended Solids.......................................................................................43 Chlorophyll a ......................................................................................................44 Color ...................................................................................................................44 Nutrients..................................................................................................................44 Total Nitrogen.....................................................................................................44 Total Phosphorus ................................................................................................44 Trophic Status .....................................................................................................44 II. Bacterial Status .......................................................................................................47 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 53 APPENDIX A..................................................................................................................... 55 APPENDIX B ..................................................................................................................... 71 APPENDIX C ..................................................................................................................... 91 APPENDIX D................................................................................................................... 11 1Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District 

### v 

# LIST OF TABLES Page

Table 1. Water quality monitoring stati ons in the Northern Coastal Basin.................... 13 Table 2. Water column physical paramete rs for the Northern Coastal Basin Water Quality Assessment Program.......................................................................... 14 Table 3. Water column (near-surface) chem ical parameters for the Northern Coastal Basin Water Quality Assessment Program..................................................... 14 Table 4. Tolomato-Matanzas water quali ty monitoring site descriptions....................... 19 Table 5. Summary statistics of selected water quality parameters for the TolomatoMatanzas Estuary from 1997 to 2000. ............................................................ 19 Table 6. Flagler County water quality monitoring site descriptions............................... 25 Table 7. Summary statistics of selected wa ter quality parameters for Flagler County for data from 1997 to 2000................................................................................... 25 Table 8. Volusia County water quality monitoring site descriptions.............................. 32 Table 9. Summary statistics of selected water quality parameters for Volusia County waterways for data from 1991 to 1999. .......................................................... 32Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District 

### vi 

# LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Figure 1. The Northern Coastal project area showing sub basins and agency water quality monitoring sites..................................................................................... 8 Figure 2. The Northern Coastal Basin projec t area showing the wa ter quality monitoring sites in St. Johns, Flagler, and Volusia counties............................................. 12 Figure 3. Water quality monitoring site loca tions in the Tolomato and Matanzas Rivers. ......................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 4. Tolomato – Matanzas trophic state index for individual sites and for all sites combined for data from 1997 to 2000

. ............................................................ 22 Figure 5. Water quality monitoring site locations in Flagler County. ............................ 24 Figure 6. Flagler County Water Quality Inde x (WQI) for individual freshwater sites and all sites combined............................................................................................ 29 Figure 7. Water quality monitoring site locations in Volusia County. ........................... 31 Figure 8. Halifax River Wate rshed Trophic State Index (TSI) for individual sites from 1991 to 1999.. ................................................................................................. 41 Figure 9. Tomoka River Water Quality I ndex for freshwater sites from 1991 to 1999. 42 Figure 10. Trophic State Index of the estuar ine water bodies in the Northern Coastal Basin.. ............................................................................................................. 45 Figure 11. Water Quality Index of the freshwater water bodie s in the Northern Coastal Basin... ............................................................................................................ 46 Figure 12. Fecal coliform geomeans for sites in Tolomato-Matanzas Estuary from 1997 to 2000 and a comparison with both the NSSP 14/43 and NSSP 88/260 standards for shellfish harvesting in Class II waters....................................... 49 Figure 13. Comparison of fecal and total co liforms at Pellicer Creek from 1997 to 2000 with both the one-time fecal (800 MP N/100 ml) and total (2400 MPN/100 ml) coliform standards for Class III waters........................................................... 50 Figure 14. Fecal (FC) and total coliform (T C) geomeans for Volusia County sites from 1991 to 1999. Sites beginning with HL ar e estuarine sites. Sites beginning with RB, SC, or TR are tributary sites............................................................ 51Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Executive Summary 

### 1 

# EXECUTIVE SUMMAR Y

The Northern Coastal Basin (NCB) proj ect area extends nearly 100 miles along the east coast of Florida from Ponte Vedra in the north to Ponce de Leon Inlet in the south. It encompasses parts of three counties, St. Johns, Flag ler, and Volusia, and several major estuarine systems and their tributaries. Water quality monitoring has been carried out on a monthly basis throughout the NCB in order to characterize water qualit y and identify water qua lity problems and trends. This report summarizes data colle cted between 1997 and 2000 for the Tolomato - Matanzas River estuary and Pe llicer Creek and other Flagle r County waterways and data collected between 1991 and 1999 in the Halifax River estuary and its tributaries in Volusia County.
Tolomato –Matanzas Estuary The major estuarine system of St. Johns County is comprised of the Tolomato and Matanzas rivers. The Tolomato - Matanzas estuarine system showed pH (7.34 SI) within state standards (6.00 - 8.50 SI), good averag e dissolved oxygen (6.13 mg/L), low color (74 pcu), relatively high salinity (30. 42 ppt), and low average chlorophyll a (4.40 μg/L). This system, as a whole, had high aver age total suspended solids (30.81 mg/L) and somewhat elevated turbidity (5.77 ntu), which likely reflect tribut ary loading, and bottom scouring and resuspension due to strong tidal current velocities. Mean total phosphorus concentration (0.12 mg/L) was elevated comp ared to other estuarine systems on the southeast Atlantic coast (NOAA 1996) and higher than the state median value of 0.07 mg/L (FDEP 1996) but was quite similar to phosphorus concentrations found in the Mosquito Lagoon (0.10 mg/L) and the southern Indian River Lagoon (0.14 mg/L) (Sigua et al. 1999). Mean total n itrogen concentrati on (0.57 mg/L) would be classified as “Medium” (0.1 to <1 mg/L) by the criteria of a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Estuarine Eutrophication st udy (NOAA, 1996) and was lower than the state median concentration of 0.8 mg/L (FDEP 1996). Average wet season (May to October) va lues exceeded dry season (November to April) values for all parameters except pH and DO. Salinity was highly positively correlated with pH, total suspended solids, and total phosphorus and highly negatively correlated with color, total nitrogen, tota l coliforms, and fecal coliforms. The relationship of high color, ni trogen, and coliforms with low salinity indicates that the source of these parameters could be freshwater discharges. System wide, average salinity has significantly increase d over the period of record by 1.8 ppt per year (p<0.0001, R 2 

### =0.12), perhaps in response to drou ght conditions in the region. Some individual sites exhibited signifi cant trends of incr easing or decreasing concentrations of some parameters, which were not realized for the system as a whole. The Matanzas River site near the SR312 bridge (MR312) show ed an increase in total nitrogen from 1997 to 2000 of 0.08 mg/L/year. A ll sites in the Matanzas River showed a significant increase in pH over the period of record and the site at the confluence of Moultrie Creek and the Intracoastal Wa terway (ICW) (MCICW) also showed aStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Executive Summary 

### 2 significant increase in chlorophyll a concentration. Spatially, there were no significant differences between sites for the following parameters: total phosphorus, total nitrogen, chlorophyll a , total suspended solids, and dissolv ed oxygen. For the parameters where significant spatial differences did occur, tri butary sites had generally higher color and turbidity, and lower pH and salinity than the si tes in the main stem of the estuary. Using a calculation developed by Florida Depart ment of Environmental Protection (FDEP) (1996) the Trophic State Index (TSI) of this water body is 43.02, which is classified as GOOD (0 to < 50) and additionally all individua l sites were classified as GOOD. Several sites showed exceedance of Class II standard s for bacteria levels. The Tolomato - Matanzas river estuary is fo rtunate, however, to have good tidal flushing and relatively low levels of urban development.
Pellicer Creek and the Flagler County Waterways The waterways of Flagler County include Pe llicer Creek, a major tributary to the Matanzas River, and several natural and ma n-made storm water drainage canals for the City of Palm Coast. In it’s middle reach at the U.S. 1 Bridge, Pellicer Creek , had pH (6.46 SI) within state standards, good aver age dissolved oxygen content (5.06 mg/L), high average color (236 pcu), low average salinity (1.70 ppt ), average turbidity (3.55 ntu), total suspended solids (2.48 mg/L), and average chlorophyll a concentration (6.27μg/L). Average total phosphorus concen tration (0.12 mg/L) was lower than the other freshwater Flagler County sites but the same as in the Tolomato-Matanzas estuary, and considered “high” when compared to other southeast Atla ntic estuaries (NOAA 1996). Average total nitrogen concentration ( 0.94 mg/L) was consider ably lower than the state median for fresh water (1.2 mg/L) but higher than in the Tolomato-Matanzas estuary. Pellicer Creek is likely a major source of total nitrogen flowing into the Matanzas River. Pellicer Creek (at a depth of collection of 0.5 meters) is considered to be fresh water (specific conductivity < 5,000 μm hos), therefore, the Water Quality Index (WQI) was calculated to be 53.2, which is classified as FAIR (45 to <60). There were no significant s easonal differences for any parameter except the dry season (November to April) average DO wa s greater than the wet season (May to October) average. Salinity in Pellicer Creek at U.S. 1 was highly positively correlated with pH and total coliforms and highly negati vely correlated with color, total nitrogen, and DO. The average pH in Pellicer Creek s howed a significantly increasing trend, rising 0.40 SI per year. Both color and total ni trogen decreased significantly from 1997 to 2000. Of most concern was the realization that Pellicer Creek had high levels of fecal coliform (481.1 MPN/100 ml) a nd total coliform (1468.7 MPN/ 100 ml) calculated as geometric means, and are well above both the Cl ass II shellfish harves ting criteria and the Class III freshwater or marine r ecreational criteria. It is not clear as to the source of these bacteria, or even if it is of human origin. Preliminary inves tigations into these questions have been undertaken and it is also recomm ended that additional study of Pellicer Creek and its watershed be considered. The remaining Flagler County sites, south of Pellicer Creek, had average pH within state standards, good average dissolved oxygen levels (5.44 mg/L) (Class III fresh water dissolved oxygen standard is 5 mg/L ) and low turbidity (4.68 ntu) and totalStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Executive Summary 

### 3 suspended solids (6.95 mg/L). They were also highly colored (177 pcu). Total phosphorus was elevated (0.15 mg/L), in the 60 th 

### percentile of freshwater streams and average total nitrogen concen tration (1.33 mg/L) was high, which likely reflects the sluggish runoff from several swampy wetlands . The average WQI of 53.9 classified these water bodies combined as FAIR (45 to <6 0) with 7 sites classified as FAIR, 1 site classified as GOOD (0 to <45) , and 3 sites classified as P OOR (60 to 100). One site in this region, D10, with an average specific c onductivity > 5,000 μmhos/cm, was classified as estuarine. Its TSI value, 51.3, was FAIR. There were few significant seasonal di fferences; average wet season (May to October) values exceeded dry season (November to April) values for chlorophyll a and total coliforms and average dry season DO was greater than that of the wet season. The lack of seasonal differences could be explai ned by the high variabil ity of some of the data. The average pH in this area has increa sed significantly ( 0.26 SI per year) and most of the individual sites showed a simila r significantly increas ing trend ranging from 0.17 SI to 0.61 SI per year. Drought conditi ons leading to reduced runoff of low-pH, organic rich water may be partia lly responsible for this trend.
Several individual sites showed trends of significan tly increasing or decreasing concentrations of certain parameters. There wa s a significant decrease in color at 6 sites and DO decreased at 3 sites but increased in the Korona Canal (KOR), perhaps in response to canal improvements. Salinit y increased in Ditch 10 and chlorophyll a increased in the St. Joe Canal (JOE). St. Joe Canal (JOE), Mulberry Bran ch (MUL), and Ditch 10 (D10) had high levels of both fecal and total coliforms.
The Halifax River System The Halifax River watershed in Volusi a County includes the Halifax River, its main tributaries (Bulow Creek, Tomoka Ri ver, Spruce Creek), and Rose Bay. The Halifax River had an average pH (7.68 SI) within state standards, sufficient DO (6.59 mg/L) and moderately high salinity (23.46 ppt). Turbidity (9.50 ntu) and total suspended solids (25.4 mg/L) were high, likely reflecti ng increased runoff from urban areas and tributaries as well as resuspension by tidal current velocities. Chlorophyll a concentration (7.50 μg/L) was comparable to the other estuaries and in the “Medium” classification of the NOAA study (1996). Av erage total phosphorus concentration (0.17 mg/L) was higher than most estuaries in th e southeastern states. The average total nitrogen (1.06 mg/L) was also quite high but has been decr easing at a rate of 0.19 mg/L per year since 1991 perhaps in response to increased reuse by wa stewater treatment plants. Wet season (May to October) concentr ations were significantly higher than dry season (November to April) concentrations for most parameters except pH, DO, color, and both fecal and total coliforms. In addition to the general decrease over ti me in nitrogen concen tration reflected at all individual sites in the Halif ax River, one site showed a si gnificant increase in TP and a decrease in TSS and another showed an in crease in salinity. The overall TSI for theStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Executive Summary 

### 4 Halifax River estuary was 53.12 (FAIR). Indi vidual sites were a ll FAIR except the 3 sites closest to Ponce Inlet, which were GOOD.
Bulow Creek had an average pH (7.31 SI) within state standards and sufficient DO (5.99 mg/L) and moderate salinity (11.23 ppt). Turbidity ( 6.04 ntu) and total suspended solids (15.56 mg/L) were consider ably lower than the Halifax River and chlorophyll a (12.11μg/L) was higher than the othe r tributaries in the Halifax River watershed. Average total phosphorus (0.22 mg/L) is comparable to the other tributaries but average total nitrogen (1.22 mg/L), the sa me as in Tomoka River, was highest among the tributaries. Average wet season (May to October) salinity and total suspended solids were significantly greater than dry season (Nove mber to April) averages with the reverse for dissolved oxygen. Bulow Creek showed a significant increase in pH of 0.26 SI per year and an increase in turbidity of 1.92 nt u per year over the period of record (1997 – 2000). The overall TSI for Bulow Creek wa s 56.70, which is classed as FAIR.

Tomoka River had a low average salinity (5.13 ppt), good average pH (7.05 SI) and DO (4.60 mg/L), low turbidity (5.13 ntu) and TSS (7.89 mg/L), and low chlorophyll

a (6.74 μg/L). Average tota l nitrogen (1.22 mg/L) was high and the average total phosphorus (0.22 mg/L) concentration was higher than most estuarie s in the southeast (NOAA 1996). Wet season (May to October) av erages were higher than dry (November to April) for salinity, chlorophyll a , and TSS and the reverse for DO, likely due to drought conditions. Spatially, average salinity in the Tomoka River ranged from 13.07 ppt at TR01 to 0.10 ppt at TR05, decreasing wi th increasing distance from the Halifax River. DO and pH also followed this genera l pattern, decreasing with increasing distance from the estuary. Color, nutrients, chlorophyll a , and bacteria generally increased with distance from the Halifax River. Significant temporal trends were appare nt for some of th e individual sites. TR01and TR05 showed a decrease in TN, TR 02 decreased in TN and TSS, and TR04 decreased in chlorophyll a content. The average TSI fo r Tomoka River sites TR01 and TR02 combined was 52.1, classed as FAIR a nd each of the individual sites was also classed as FAIR. Sites TR03, TR04, and TR05, with specific conductivity < 5,000 μmhos/cm, were considered to be fresh water. The average WQI for TR03, TR04, and TR05 combined was 58.6, FAIR, with both TR 03 and TR04 individually classified as FAIR and TR05 classified as POOR. Low DO a nd high nutrients contributed most to this classification. Spruce Creek had pH (7.21 SI), and DO (4.68 mg/L) within state standards. Turbidity (6.68 ntu) was similar to that found in Tomoka River and Bulow Creek. TSS was high in Spruce Creek (12.59 mg/L) and th e water was also highly colored (187.00 pcu). Average total nitrogen (1.12 mg/L) wa s high and total phosphorus (0.28 mg/L) was the highest in the Halifax River watershed. Wet season (May to October) averages were higher than dry season (November to April) averages for turbidity and TSS and the reverse for DO. Spatially, DO and TSS in Spruce Creek decreased with distance from the Halifax River while pH, color, TN, TP, and bacteria followed a general pattern of increase with increasing distance from th e Halifax River. SC01 and SC02 showed significant decreases in tota l nitrogen. TSS at SC05 decreased significantly by 1.75Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Executive Summary 

### 5 mg/L/year. The TSI for Spruce Creek wa s 52.92, FAIR. All individual sites were classified as FAIR except SC01, which was GOOD.
Rose Bay had the most degraded water qualit y, in terms of water clarity, of the Volusia County water bodies. This could be explained by the lack of circulation due to the existence of two causeways that restrict flow into and out of the bay. Salinity was moderate (19.40 ppt). Average turbidity ( 8.26 ntu), TSS (19.39 mg/L), and chlorophyll a (10.79 μg/L) concentrations were elevated in addition to high phosphorus (0.27 mg/L). Average total nitrogen (1.00 mg/L) was elev ated but has also shown a significantly decreasing trend of 0.13 mg/L per year sinc e 1991. The overall TSI for Rose Bay was 54.33, FAIR. Wet season averages were higher than dry season averages for salinity, pH, turbidity, TSS, and chlorophyll a , likely due to drought conditions, and the reverse for DO, color, and coliforms. The Department of Transportation ha s reconfigured the structure of the U.S 1 causeway (Summer, 2001) and will soon remove an abandoned causeway. It is hoped that this will improve the water quality of Rose Bay by increasing tidal flushing of the bay. Comparison of all Northern Coastal Basin water bodies showed, in general, that the Tolomato-Matanzas estuary, the Halifax River, and Rose Bay had the highest salinities. They also generally had the hi ghest pH, DO, turbidity, and TSS and the least colored water. Tolomato-Matanzas and Halif ax River had generally lower chlorophyll a, TN, and TP concentrations as well. Rose Bay had comparatively low concentrations of TN but had a generally higher concentration of TP than the other creeks or estuaries in the NCB.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Executive Summary 

### 6Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Introduction 

### 7 

# INTRODUCTION
The goal of the ambient water quality m onitoring program is to generally characterize water quality in the NCB and identify water quality problems and trends. Specific objectives of the am bient monitoring approach (S igua and Steward 1997) are presented below: 1. To describe the spatial and temporal (annual and seasonal) trends of selected water quality constituents that help i ndicate the trophic condition of the NCB system (e.g., nutrients, dissolved organi c matter, and suspended matter); and 2. To assess the water quality relative to state water quality standards, shellfish consumer health standards, and othe r resource-based targets that may be developed in the future. 

# Project Area

The Northern Coastal Basin (NCB) projec t area includes the coastal watersheds along the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) from the north part of St. Johns County, extending south through Flagler County to Ponce de Leon Inlet in Volusia County (Figure 1). The NCB encompasses over 679 square miles of coastal lo wlands; a series of flat sandy plains differing sli ghtly in elevation, and inters persed with numerous creeks and small rivers draining into shallow ba ys and lagoons that are separated from the Atlantic Ocean by an almost uninterrupted ba rrier island system and from the St. Johns River basin by the Atlantic Coastal Ridge (Bonnie Holub & Associates 1998). Major watershed drainage sub basins co mprising the NCB, from north to south, include the Tolomato River, Matanzas Rive r, Pellicer Creek, a nd Halifax River. A description of these sub basins and their sub basin drainage features can be found in the Northern Coastal Basin R econnaissance Report (Bonnie Holub & Associates 1998), which is briefly summarized below.
The Tolomato River watershed has a drainage area of approximately 55,000 acres. Major freshwater drainage to the Tolomato River estuary comes from several tributaries including Smith Creek, Stokes Cree k, and Casa Cola Creek. The Tolomato River converges with the Guana River and Matanzas River from the south, before flowing into the Atlantic Ocean at the St. Augustine Inlet. The northern end of the Tolomato River is also tidally influenced by the St. Johns River and the Atlantic Ocean.
The Matanzas River sub basin has a drai nage area of approximately 70,000 acres. Major freshwater drainage to the Matanzas River estuary comes from San Sebastian River, Moultrie Creek, and Pellicer Creek. The St. Augustine Inlet in the north and the Matanzas Inlet, located about midway down the river, tidally influence this estuary. For ease of continuity, the Tolomato and Matanzas sub basins have been combined in this report The Pellicer Creek sub basin has a draina ge area of approximately 102,000 acres. Pellicer Creek, which forms the boundary between St. Johns and Flagler counties, is theStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Introduction 

### 8 Figure 1. The Northern Coastal project area showing sub basins and agency water quality monitoring sites. Halifax River Subbasin
SJRWMD Sites PCCSC Sites
VCEMD Sites Pellicer Creek Subbasin Tolomato-Matanzas Subbasin

Water Land County Boundaries 

### St. Augustine Inlet 

### St. Augustine

Matanzas Inlet

Ponce de Leon Inlet 

### Palm Coast

Daytona Beach St. Johns County Flagler County

Flagler County
Volusia County St. Johns County T o l o m a t o R i v e r

M a t a n z a s R i v e r

H a l i f a x R i v e r 

# Northern Coastal Basin Project Area

Pellicer Creek Halifax River Subbasin
SJRWMD Sites PCCSC Sites
VCEMD Sites Pellicer Creek Subbasin Tolomato-Matanzas Subbasin

Water Land County Boundaries 

### St. Augustine Inlet 

### St. Augustine

Matanzas Inlet

Ponce de Leon Inlet 

### Palm Coast

Daytona Beach St. Johns County Flagler County

Flagler County
Volusia County St. Johns County T o l o m a t o R i v e r

M a t a n z a s R i v e r

H a l i f a x R i v e r 

# Northern Coastal Basin Project Area

Pellicer Creek Halifax River Subbasin
SJRWMD Sites PCCSC Sites
VCEMD Sites Pellicer Creek Subbasin Tolomato-Matanzas Subbasin

Water Land County Boundaries Halifax River Subbasin
SJRWMD Sites PCCSC Sites
VCEMD Sites Pellicer Creek Subbasin Tolomato-Matanzas Subbasin

Water Land County Boundaries Halifax River Subbasin
SJRWMD Sites PCCSC Sites
VCEMD Sites Pellicer Creek Subbasin Tolomato-Matanzas Subbasin

Water Land County Boundaries 

### St. Augustine Inlet 

### St. Augustine

Matanzas Inlet

Ponce de Leon Inlet 

### Palm Coast

Daytona Beach St. Johns County Flagler County

Flagler County
Volusia County St. Johns County T o l o m a t o R i v e r

M a t a n z a s R i v e r

H a l i f a x R i v e r 

# Northern Coastal Basin Project Area

Pellicer CreekStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Introduction 

### 9 only natural drainage in the ge neral area that cuts through th e marine terraces and ridges flowing east into the Matanzas River. The Halifax River sub basin encompasse s an area of nearly 208,000 acres and includes portions of Volusia and Flagler countie s. Major drainage into the estuary comes from Bulow Creek, Tomoka River, Spruce Creek , and their natural tributaries. Tidal flow primarily originates th rough the Ponce de Leon Inlet in the south. Six causeways, within a distance of 10.5 miles, cross the Halif ax River estuary between Port Orange and Ormond Beach inhibiting circulation.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Introduction 

### 10Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Methods 

### 11 

# METHODS

Water Quality Assessment in the NCB

The water quality monitoring and assessment program for the NCB as described by Sigua and Steward (1997) calls for consis tent monitoring throughout the NCB system maintained by cooperative multi-agency projects. To ensure consistency, the coordination of multi-agency monitoring e fforts, demands standardized methods, procedures, and equipment. A map showing the distribution of stations within the NCB project area for water quality assessment is provided in Figure 2. A description of the locations of the water quality monitoring sites in the three coun ties in the NCB is provided in Table 1. The list of water column physical and chem ical properties, as well as methods of analyses, is shown in Tabl es 2 and 3, respectively. A summary of the water quality monitori ng effort for the three counties in the NCB was as follows: St. Johns County

• St. Johns County Utility and Environm ental Laboratory (SJCUEL) and St. Johns River Water Management Distri ct (SJRWMD) personnel sampled 13 sites, established in January 1997, on a monthly basis at a collection depth of 0.5 meters.

• Samples were analyzed for nutrients, coliforms, etc. (Tables 1 and 2) by SJCUEL.

• The period of record for this da ta for this report is 1997 to 2000.
Flagler County

• Palm Coast Community Service Co rporation (PCCSC) and SJRWMD WAV volunteers sampled 14 sites on a m onthly basis at a collection depth of 0.5 meters.

• Samples were analyzed for nutrients, coliforms, etc. (Tables 1 and 2) by SJCUEL.

• The period of record for this data for this report is 1997 to 2000.
Volusia County

• Volusia County Environmental Management Division (VCEMD) personnel sampled 32 sites on a monthly basis at a collection dept h of 0.5 meters.

• Samples were analyzed for nutrients, coliforms, etc. (Tables 1 and 2) by VCEMD.

• The period of record for this da ta for this report is 1991 to 1999.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Methods 

### 12 Figure 2. The Northern Coastal Basin projec t area showing the wa ter quality monitoring sites in St. Johns, Flagler, and Volusia counties. HL20 HL17

HL18 HL11

HL14 MOS

KOR

HL07

HL09

HL12 TR04

TR05 HL13 HL10

RB03

HL19 SC01 SC05 SC02 RB01 SC04 Ponce de Leon Inlet TR01

TR03 HL05

HL08 IRO LEH SMITHSCR

STOKESCR GAR

SSB MR312

MCICW

JXTR21 TOL

CCC JXTR17

MRT

MAT

JXTR26 MUL HUL PEL HOM

D10 JOE

GRA

IRW

BBR HL01
HL02 HL03 HL04 BUL Matanzas Inlet St. Augustine Inlet

Halifax River Sub basin
SJRWMD Sites PCCSC Sites
VCEMD Sites Pellicer Creek Sub basin Tolomato-Matanzas Sub basin

Wate r Land
Count y Boundaries 

# Northern Coastal Basin Project Area

TR02 HL06

HL15 HL16 RB02Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Methods 

### 13 Table 1. Water quality monitoring stat ions in the Northern Coastal Basin.

COUNTY STATION SAMPLING AGENCY LOCATION

ST. JOHNS 1 SMITHSCR SJCUEL 1 Smith's Cree k 2 TOL SJCUEL ICW 5 @ Tolomato River, north of Pine Island 3 STOKESCR SJCUEL Stoke's Creek 4 GAR SJCUEL Guana River, 100 yds. south of the Dam 5 JXTR17 SJCUEL Confluence of Tolomato River and Guana River 6 CCC SJCUEL Casa Cola Creek 7 SSB SJRWMD 2 San Sebastian River @ US 1 8 MR312 SJRWMD Matanzas River @ SR 312 9 MCICW SJRWMD Confluence of Moultrie Creek and ICW 10 JXTR21 SJRWMD Matanzas River north of Crescent Beach 11 MRT SJRWMD Mouth of Pellicer Creek 12 MAT SJRWMD Matanzas River south of Washington Oaks @ CM 6 109 13 JXTR26 SJRWMD ICW @ Fox Cut, discharge from St. Joe Canal FLAGLER 1 PEL PCCSC 3 Pellicer Ck. @ US 1 2 HUL PCCSC Hulett Br. @ US 1 3 HOM PCCSC Hominy Br. @ Old Kings Rd. 4 MUL PCCSC Mulberry Br. @ Palm Harbor Pkwy 5 JOE PCCSC St. Joe Canal at bike path 6 D10 PCCSC Ditch 10 on east side of Colbert Ln. 7 MOS PCCSC Mosquito Ditch 8 LEH PCCSC Lehigh Canal @ Old Kings Rd. 9 GRA PCCSC Graham Swamp culvert @ State Rd. 100 10 BBR PCCSC Black Branch @ U.S. 1 11 IRW PCCSC Iroquois waterway @ Belle Terre Pkwy 12 IRO PCCSC Confluence of Iroquois and Little Canals 13 KOR PCCSC Korona Canal @ Old Kings Rd. 14 BUL PCCSC Bulow Creek @ Walter Boardman Ln. VOLUSIA 1 HL01 VCEMD 4 Halifax River near Hi g hbrid g e Rd. 2 HL02 VCEMD Halifax River at ICW CM 29 3 HL03 VCEMD Halifax River center of Tomoka Basin 4 HL04 VCEMD Halifax River At ICW CM 6 5 HL05 VCEMD Halifax River At ICW CM 11 6 HL06 VCEMD Halifax River At ICW CM 16 7 HL07 VCEMD Halifax River At ICW CM 21 8 HL08 VCEMD Halifax River At ICW CM 25 9 HL09 VCEMD Halifax River At ICW CM 30 10 HL10 VCEMD Halifax River At ICW CM 33 11 HL11 VCEMD Halifax River 100 Yds N. of Orange Ave. Bridge 12 HL12 VCEMD Halifax River At Entrance To Halifax Harbor 13 HL13 VCEMD Halifax River At ICW CM 44 14 HL14 VCEMD Halifax River At ICW CM 47 15 HL15 VCEMD Halifax River At ICW CM 56 16 HL16 VCEMD Halifax River At ICW CM 57 17 HL17 VCEMD Halifax River At ICW CM 63 18 HL18 VCEMD Halifax River At ICW CM 1 19 HL19 VCEMD Halifax River At ICW CM 7 20 HL20 VCEMD Ponce Inlet - Center Channel 21 TR01 VCEMD Tomoka River at Old Dixie Highway 22 TR02 VCEMD Tomoka River downstream of U.S. 1 Bridge 23 TR03 VCEMD Tomoka River upstream of S.R. 40 Bridge 24 TR04 VCEMD Tomoka River upstream of 11 th St. Bridge 25 TR05 VCEMD Tomoka River upstream of U.S. 92 Bridge 26 SC01 VCEMD Spruce Creek - center U.S. 1 Bridge 27 SC02 VCEMD Spruce Creek - west of SSC Railroad 28 SC04 VCEMD Spruce Creek - west of Airport Rd. 29 SC05 VCEMD Spruce Creek - dock at Gamble Place 30 RB01 VCEMD Rose Bay - west of U.S. 1 Bridge 31 RB02 VCEMD Rose Bay - south of Nova Rd. Bridge 32 RB03 VCEMD Rose Bay - canal at Main St. Bridge

1 St. Johns County Utility and Environmental Laboratory 2 St. Johns River Water Management District 3 Palm Coast Community Service Corp. 4 Volusia County Environmental Management Division 5 Intracoastal Waterway 6 Channel MarkerStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Methods 

### 14 Table 2. Water column physical paramete rs for the Northern Coastal Basin Water Quality Assessment Program.

Table 3. Water column (near-surface) chem ical parameters for the Northern Coastal Basin Water Quality Assessment Program.

least squares (SAS 1988). While temporal trends with slopes di fferent from zero 

## Physical Parameters Unit
Water Tem p erature de g rees Celsius p H SI units Dissolved Ox yg en m g /L Conductivit y μ mhos/c m Salinit y p arts p er thousan d Secchi meters De p th of Collection meters De p th of Sam p le Site meters Air Tem p erature de g rees Celsius Wind Direction de g rees Wind Velocit y miles p er hou r

Cloud Cove r percent



## Near-Surface Chemical Parameters Unit Analytical Method
Colo r p cu EPA 110.2 Turbidit y ntu EPA 180.1 Total Sus p ended Solids m g /L EPA 160.2 Chloro p h y ll a μg /L SM*17-10200H Chloro p h y ll b μg /L SM17-10200H Chloro p h y ll c μg /L SM17-10200H Pheo p i g ments μg /L SM17-10200H Chloro p h y ll a correcte d μg /L SM17-10200H Chloro p h y ll a / Pheo p i g ment Ratio Total K j eldahl Nitro g en as N m g /L EPA 351.2 Nitrate + Nitrite as N m g /L EPA 353.3 Total Phosphorus as P m g /L EPA 365.1 Dissolved O r tho p hos p hate as P m g /L EPA 365.1 Total Colifor m MPN/100 ml SM 9222B Fecal Coliform MPN/100 ml SM 9222D Biolo g ical Ox yg en Deman d m g /L EPA 405.1 Enterococcus MPN/100 ml SM9230C



## *SM, Standard Methods for the Examinatio n of Water and Wastewater, 1985 Edition.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Methods 

### 15 This report will focus on key parameters selected from the above lists. These include some physical parameters such as pH, dissolved oxygen, and salinity. Additionally, parameters associated with wate r clarity such as turbidity, total suspended solids, chlorophyll a (corrected for turbidity), and colo r will be reported. Turbidity is an expression of the optical prope rty that causes light scatte r and absorption (APHA 1985). It is made up of several components such as total suspended solids (TSS) and amount of chlorophyll a present in the water column. Colo r may consist of naturally occurring metallic ions (iron), humus and peat material, tannins, and/or plankton and other materials and is often found to be higher in fresh water streams and lakes than in estuarine waters. These parameters tend to be higher in the wet season than in the dry season due to increased runoff. Nutrient concentrations such as total nitrogen (in this case total kjeldahl nitrogen and nitrate+nitrite combined) and total phosphorus are important indicators of urbanization as well as agricultural land uses along coastal waters. Increased storm water runoff and discharges of wastewater combin e to elevate both of these parameters. Increases in both of these pa rameters can lead to incr eases in primary productivity leading to increased eutrophicat ion. Eutrophication in most te mperate-zone estuaries and coastal waters is controlled by nitrogen inputs. This is largely because the natural flow of nitrogen into these waters a nd the rate of nitrogen fixati on by planktonic organisms are relatively low while microbes in the sea floor sediments actively release nitrogen back to the atmosphere. The coliform group of bacteria (fecal and to tal coliforms) is th e primary indicator of suitability of water for domestic, dietetic, or other uses. These bacteria are present in the gut and feces of warm-blooded animals and the density of these organisms is used as an indication of degree of pollution and thus, sanitary quality (APHA 1985). The bacterial status of all the NCB wa ter bodies will also be reported.



# Data Analysis Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine temporal differences between seasonal and monthly means for each water body examined (all sites combined), followed by Tukey-Kramer’s tests ( α =0.05) to further examine these differences. Spatial variation between sample sites and water bodi es was also determined using ANOVA and Tukey-Kramer tests. Correlation analysis wa s used to determine relationships between parameters. Trend detection was accomplished by linear regression using the principle of least squares (SAS 1988). While temporal trends with slopes different from zero (p<0.05) were deemed statistic ally significant, if the vari ance around that slope was less than 10 % explained (R 2 

### < 0.10), the trend would likely not be ecologically significant and was therefore not discussed. The standard of comparison of parameters fo r this report will be the Florida state standards wherever possible. However, for some parameters, no actual numbers are available. In this case, state medians a nd percentiles found in a combination of the 305(b) report (FDEP 1996) and Typical Wate r Quality Values for Florida’s Lakes, Streams, and Estuaries (FDER 1989) are used to give an idea of typical values.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Methods 

### 16 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (1996) compared existing information on eutrophication for 21 estuarie s along the Southeast Atlantic coast. Categories for various parameters were established as follows: Chlorophyll a - Low (>0 to 5μg/L), Medium (>5 to 20μg/L), High (>20 to 60μg/L), Hypereutrophic (>60μg/L) Nitrogen – Low (0 to <0.1 mg/L), Medium (0.1 to <1 mg/L), High (1 mg/L) Phosphorus – Low (0 to <0.01 mg/L), Medium (0.01 to <0.1 mg/L), High (0.1 mg/L). 

### This study was also used for comparative purposes. Sampling sites in the various water bodies we re also classified as either estuarine or freshwater on the basis of whether the av erage specific conductivity was greater than or less than 5000 μmhos/cm, respectively (FDEP 1996). Each site was then evaluated as Good, Fair, or Poor using the Trophic State Index (estuarine) or Water Quality Index (freshwater) developed by Florida Depart ment of Environmental Protection (FDEP 1996). The Trophic State Index, developed by FD EP in 1996, was used to classify each of the estuarine sites (speci fic conductivity >5,000μmhos/cm) as Good (0 to <50), Fair (50 to <60) or Poor (60 to 100). This calcu lation uses annual averages of either total nitrogen or phosphorus (depending on which is limiting in the system) or an average of the two in combination with chlorophyll a . The TSI was used in the Tolomato-Matanzas system, Ditch 10 (D10) in Flagler County, and in the Halifax River watershed except at the most upstream sites in Tomoka River (TR03, TR04 and TR05). An example of the calculation can be found in th e FDEP 305(b) report of 1996. The Water Quality Index (WQI) deve loped by Florida Department of Environmental Protection in 1988 (FDEP 2000) for characterization of freshwater streams (specific conductivity <5,000 μmhos/cm) was used to classify the waterways of Pellicer Creek and Flagler County (except D10) as well as the three most upstream sites in Tomoka River (TR03, TR04, TR05) as Good (0 to <45), Fair (45 to <60) or Poor (60 to 100). This calculation assigns the aver age for each category, a number between 0 and 99 based on percentiles found in the 1996 305( b) report (FDEP). Categories include water clarity (turbidity, total suspen ded solids), dissolved oxygen, oxygen demand (BOD), nutrients (total nitrogen and total phosphorus), and bacter ia (fecal and total coliforms). The calculation used in this repo rt did not include any measure of biological diversity. The WQI is an overall aver age of the category average percentiles.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 17 

# RESULTS I. WATER QUALITY STATUS

A. Tolomato - Matanzas Estuary

Water quality monitoring sites in the Tolomato - Matanzas estuary encompass both open water sites and sites located at the mo uths of several tributaries. Three sites, MRT, MAT, and JXTR26 are phys ically located in Flagler County but are part of the Tolomato - Matanzas estuary and will be incl uded as such. The site locations are shown in Figure 3 and site desc riptions are in Table 4.



## Physical Measurements Salinity Salinity in the Tolomato-Matanzas estu ary averaged 30.42 ppt (Table 5). Wet season (May to October) salinities exceeded dry season (November to April) salinities (Appendix A – Figure 1A), probably due to higher evaporation in the hotter months with relatively little precipitation to offset it. Hi ghest average salinity values were observed in April and July (32.83 and 32.27 ppt, respectively) and the lowest average values occurred in October and January (28.60 ppt and 28.57 ppt , respectively)(Appendix A – Figure 6A). Salinity was highly positively correlated w ith pH (p=0.0005), total suspended solids (p=0.02), and total phosphorus (p=0.05) and high ly negatively correlated with color (p<0.0001), total nitrogen (p<0.0001), total coliforms (p<0.0001), a nd fecal coliforms (p=0.0008). The relationship of high color, nitrogen, and coliforms with low salinity indicates that the source of th ese parameters could be freshw ater discharges. Overall, salinity has significan tly increased by 1.8 ppt per y ear in this estuary (p<0.0001, R 2 

### =0.13) since 1997. This increase could have resulted from the drought conditions that the area and the state have been experiencing over the pa st few years. The Matanzas River sites, MR312 and JXTR21 had the highest salinity at 32.77 and 32.49 ppt, respectively (both in close proximity to inlets) and the lowest salinities occurred at JXTR26 and SMITHSCR at 28.80 and 28.617 ppt, respectively which are the farthest from the inlets (Appendix A – Figure 11A). All of the individual site s except MRT and MCICW showed significant increases in average salinity over the period of record ranging from 0.95 ppt per year (MAT) to 3.15 ppt per year (SMITHSCR). pH The average pH was 7.34 S.I. (Table 5), wh ich is well within the state standards (6.00 – 8.50 SI). pH was significantly higher in the dry season (7.56 SI) than in the wet season (7.18 SI) (Appendix A – Figure 1B), w ith the highest monthly average of 7.61 in December and the lowest in September at 6.91 (Appendix A – Figure 6B). Spatially, higher pHs were found in the more open water estuarine sites (MR312 - 7.59) than in the tributaries (CCC - 7.04) (Appe ndix A – Figure 11B) and were highly correlated with higher salinity. All the indi vidual sites south of the St . Augustine Inlet showed aStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 18 Figure 3. Water quality monitoring site locatio ns in the Tolomato and Matanzas Rivers. 

# Tolomato-Matanzas Estuary Sites

SJRWMD Sites Water Land County Boundaries

St. Johns County

Flagler County 

## Matanzas Inlet St. Augustine Inlet St. Johns County Duval County



## St. Augustine

Palm Coast Pellicer Creek Subbasin Tolomato-Matanzas Subbasin 

# Tolomato-Matanzas Estuary Sites

SJRWMD Sites Water Land County Boundaries

St. Johns County

Flagler County 

## Matanzas Inlet St. Augustine Inlet St. Johns County Duval County



## St. Augustine

Palm Coast Pellicer Creek Subbasin Tolomato-Matanzas Subbasin 

# Tolomato-Matanzas Estuary Sites

SJRWMD Sites Water Land County Boundaries

St. Johns County

Flagler County 

## Matanzas Inlet St. Augustine Inlet St. Johns County Duval County



## St. Augustine

Palm Coast Pellicer Creek Subbasin Tolomato-Matanzas Subbasin 

### SMITHSCR

STOKESCR TOL

GAR

SSB CCC

MR312 JXTR17

MCICW

JXTR21

MAT MRT

JXTR26Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 19 Table 4. Tolomato-Matanzas water quality monitoring site descriptions.

Table 5. Summary statistics of selected water quality parameters for the TolomatoMatanzas Estuary from 1997 to 2000.

Water Quality Mean Standard Error Median N Min. Max.

Salinity (ppt) 30.42 0.22 31.9 492 6.70 39.50
pH (S.I.) 7.34 0.03 7.43 500 4.23 8.60
DO (mg/L) 6.13 0.06 6.06 485 3.22 15.10
Turbidity (ntu) 5.77 0.18 4.62 506 0.04 27.60
TSS (mg/L) 30.81 1.05 22.85 506 0.90 206.00

Chl a (μg/L) 4.40 0.25 2.12 506 0.05 56.23
Color (pcu) 74.42 2.74 56.5 500 0.10 511.00
TN (mg/L) 0.58 0.01 0.48 506 0.03 1.90
TP (mg/L) 0.12 0.01 0.08 506 0.01 1.24 COUNTY STATION SAMPLING AGENCY LOCATION

ST. JOHNS 1 SMITHSCR SJCUEL 1 Smith's Creek 2 TOL SJCUEL ICW 3 @ Tolomato River, north of Pine Island 3 STOKESCR SJCUEL Stoke's Creek 4 GAR SJCUEL Guana River, 100 yds. south of the Dam 5 JXTR17 SJCUEL Confluence of Tolomato River and Guana River 6 CCC SJCUEL Casa Cola Creek 7 SSB SJRWMD 2 San Sebastian River @ US 1 8 MR312 SJRWMD Matanzas River @ SR 312 9 MCICW SJRWMD Confluence of Moultrie Creek and ICW 10 JXTR21 SJRWMD Matanzas River north of Crescent Beach 11 MRT SJRWMD Mouth of Pellicer Creek 12 MAT SJRWMD Matanzas River south of Washington Oaks @ CM 4 109 13 JXTR26 SJRWMD ICW @ Fox Cut, discharge from St. Joe Canal

1 St. Johns County Utility and Environmental Laboratory 2 St. Johns River Water Management District 5 Intracoastal Waterway

4 Channel MarkerStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 20 significant increase in pH ranging between 0.12 SI per year at SSB to 0.2 SI per year at JXTR26 since 1997. Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved oxygen (DO) readings have a tendency to fluctuat e throughout the day in response to temperature changes affecting the solubility of oxygen, which decreases as temperature increases. The overall average concentration of DO was 6.13 mg/L (Table 5). Seasonally, higher concentrations of DO were observed in the dry months (7.00 mg/L), as opposed to the wet months ( 5.47 mg/L) (Appendix A – Figure 2A) with the highest concentration occurring in the month of January (7.59 mg/L) and a significantly lower amount in the month of August (4.25 mg/L) (Appendix A – Figure 7A). Spatially, there were no significant differences between DO readings at any of the sites (Appendix A –Figure 12A). All sites in this estuary had average DO values above the Class III marine DO standard of 4.00 mg/L. Water Clarity Turbidity Mean turbidity in th e Tolomato - Matanzas estuary was 5.77 (Table 5), which is slightly higher than the turb idities found in 50% (5.60 ntu) of Florida’s estuaries (FDEP 1997). There was a significantly higher averag e of 7.13 ntu in the wet season than in the dry season at 4.01 ntu (Appendix A - Figure 2B). The highest average monthly turbidity of 8.73 ntu occurred in May and the lowest mo nthly average occurred in February at 3.58 ntu (Appendix A – Figure 7B). Spatially, MR 312 had significantly lower turbidity than all other sites (Appendix A-Figure 12B). Total Suspended Solids As a major component of turbidity, and th erefore often highly correlated with it (p<0.0001), total suspended solids (TSS) follo wed a similar pattern. The average TSS was 30.81 mg/L (Table 5). The average wet s eason TSS was significantly higher at 33.07 mg/L than 27.90 mg/L in the dry season (Appendi x A - Figure 3A). The highest monthly average TSS of 44.79 mg/L occurred in May. The lowest monthly average (21.48 mg/L) occurred in September (Appendix A-Figure 8A). The highest TSS value (40.87 mg/L) occurred in SMITHSCR and the lowest occurred in JXTR26 (24.94 mg/L) but none of the sites were significantly different fr om each other (Appendix A - Figure 13A). Chlorophyll a Often used as an indicator of the tr ophic status of a water body, chlorophyll a is an important water quality parameter. The me dian value for state estuaries is 9 μg/L (FDEP 1996). Waters with hi gh chlorophyll readings (>20 μg /L) are considered to be eutrophic. Mean chlorophyll a concentration in the Tolomato - Matanzas estuary was 4.40 μg/L (Table 5), which o ccurred in the low category ( Low (>0 to 5μg/L)) 

### of the NOAA (1996) study. Higher mean chlorophyll a concentration occurred in the wet season at 5.43 μg/L than in the dry season at 3.06 μg /L (Appendix A – Figure 3B). The highest monthly averages occurred in September (7.56 μg/L) and October (6.73 μg/L) and the lowest monthly average occurred in Marc h at 2.14 μg/L (Appendix A – Figure 8B). GAR and CCC had the highest mean chlorophyll a concentrations (6.29 and 6.27 μg/L, respectively) and MAT showed the lowest av erage concentration (2.86 μg/L) but none ofStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 21 the sites had significantly different average concentrations (Appendi x A – Figure 13B). Correlation analysis sh owed that chlorophyll a was not correlated with total nitrogen but was highly correlated to total phosphorus (p<0.0001).
Color Color is generally found to be higher in the fresh water of creeks than in the brackish or salt water of estuaries because fr esh water consists of surface runoff stained with high concentrations of dissolved organic substances. Color was higher in the wet season than in the dry season probably due to increased runo ff (Appendix A – Figure 4A), ranging from 124 pcu (October) to 48 pcu (April) (Appendix A – Figure 9A) The highest color value occurre d in SMITHSCR-107 pcu and at MCICW-101 pcu and the lowest occurred in the Matanzas River near at MR312- 45 pc u (Appendix A – Figure 14A). Overall average color was 74 pcu in the 95 th 

### percentile of state estuaries (Table 5). 

## Nutrients Total Nitrogen Total nitrogen (TN) is a measure of the organic nitrogen and ammonia content as well as the nitrate + nitrite concentration of the water. The average for the system was 0.58 mg/L, which is less than that found in 30% of the samples taken in Florida’s estuaries (0.6 mg/L) (FDER 1989). Mont hly averages ranged from 0.44 mg/L in February to 0.68 mg/L in June (Appendix A – Figure 9B) with the wet season average significantly higher than the dry season average (Appendix A – Figure 4B). Spatial distribution of TN showed the highes t values observed at GAR-0.66 mg/L and SMITHSCR-0.62 mg/L. The lowest value occurred at JXTR21 (0.47 mg/L) (Appendix A – Figure 14B). There were no significant differences between any of the sites. MR312 showed a significant increase in total nitrog en of 0.08 mg/L per year over the period of record. In the Tolomato-Matanzas estuary, n itrogen concentrations are below the state median for estuaries, however with predicted residential la nd use rising from 8% in 2000 to 25% at maximum build-out in the Toloma to Basin and from 14% in 2000 to 55% at maximum build-out in the Matanzas Basin (Holub and Assoc. 2000), nutrient levels could be on the rise.

Total Phosphorus Total phosphorus (TP) shows a narrow range throughout the area, 0.09 to 0.16 mg/L (Appendix A – Figure 15) with no significa nt differences between the sites. The average concentration of TP was 0.12 mg/L (Tab le 5). This value was high compared to the median value for state estuaries of 0.07 mg/L (FDEP 1996) and was also considered high by the NOAA (1996) study (High (> 0.1 mg/L)). TP concentrations, however, were similar to those found in Mosquito Lagoon (0.1 mg /L) and the southern part of the Indian River Lagoon (0.14 mg/L) below Sebastian In let (Sigua et al. 1999). The highest monthly value for TP occurred in June at 0.40 mg/L, which was significantly different from all other months ranging between 0.07 to 0.12 mg/L (Appendix A – Figure 10) with the wet season average (0.14 mg /L) significantly higher than the dry season average (0.10 mg/L) (Appendix A – Figure 5).Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 22 Trophic Status In the Tolomato-Matanzas estuary system, total nitrogen and total phosphorus are highly correlated (p=0.002). A water body may be considered to be phosphorus limited if the nitrogen-to-phosphorus concen tration ratio is greater than 30, nitrogen limited if the ratio is less than 10, and balanced (dep ending on both nitrogen and phosphorus) if the ratio is between10 and 30 (FDEP 1996). The N:P ratio in the Tolomato-Matanzas system is 4.8, a nitrogen limited system.
The TSI for all sites combined in the To lomato – Matanzas estuary for the period of record (1997 to 2000) was cal culated as 43.02, which is classified as GOOD (0 to <50) (FDEP 1996) and each of the individual sites was also classified as GOOD (Figure 4). Annual TSI values were also calculated for each site to determine trends with linear regression, however, with only four years of data there were no significant trends.

Figure 4. Tolomato – Matanzas trophic state index for individual sites and for all sites combined for data from 1997 to 2000

. Green bars are classified as GOOD. The green line marks the cutoff point between GOOD and FAIR at 50 % and the red line represents the cutoff point between FAIR and POOR at 60 %. 

## Tolomato - Matanzas Trophic State Index

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

S M I T H S C R T O L

S T O K E S C R C C C G A R

J X T R 1 7 S S B

M R 3 1 2

M C I C W

J X T R 2 1 M R T M A T

J X T R 2 6

A l l S i te s



### Sites (North - South)TSI (%) 

# POOR

FAIR



# GOOD Tolomato - Matanzas Trophic State Index

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

S M I T H S C R T O L

S T O K E S C R C C C G A R

J X T R 1 7 S S B

M R 3 1 2

M C I C W

J X T R 2 1 M R T M A T

J X T R 2 6

A l l S i te s



### Sites (North - South)TSI (%) 

# POOR

FAIR



# GOODStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 23 

## B. Flagler County Waterways The waterways in Flagler County consist of Pellicer Creek (PEL) and the storm water/drainage network of the City of Palm Coast. These include several natural streams and creeks (Hulett Branch (HUL), Mulberry Branch (MUL), Hominy Branch (HOM), Black Branch (BBR), Iroquois waterway (IRW)), as well as several man-made drainage canals (Lehigh Canal (LEH), Korona Canal (KOR), Ditch 10 (D10) , and St. Joe Canal (JOE)). Since Pellicer Creek is a major natura l contributor to the Ma tanzas River, it was analyzed separately from the other Flag ler County waterways. Figure 5 shows the location of the Flagler County wa ter quality sites and Table 6 gives the site descriptions. 

## Physical Measurements Salinity Pellicer Creek is tidally influenced but with salinity ranging from 0 to 11.00 ppt with an average of 1.70 ppt (Table 7), and a specific conductivity less than 5000 μmhos/cm at the collection dept h of 0.5 m, it was considered to be fresh water. There was no significant seasonal difference in av erage salinity for Pelli cer Creek (Appendix B – Figure 1A). The highest average salinity va lue in Pellicer Creek was observed in June (4.95 ppt) and the lowest value of 0.03 ppt occurred in September (Appendix B – Figure 6A). Salinity in Pellicer Creek was highly positively correlated with pH (p=0.005) and total coliforms (p=0.007) and highly negativ ely correlated with color (p=0.002), total nitrogen (p=0.02), and DO (p=0.03). This may s uggest Pellicer Creek as a source of total nitrogen to the Matanzas River. Most of the rest of the sites in Flagle r County are also freshwater streams and canals with salinities betw een 0.06 and 0.2 ppt (Appendix B – Figure 15A) with an average of 0.59 ppt (Table 7). D10 is an exception, which, because of its proximity to the Matanzas River and subsequent tidal salt intrusion, had significantly higher average salinity than all other Flagle r County sites (5.34 ppt) (Appe ndix B – Figure 15A). D10 also showed a significant increase in salin ity of 4.35 ppt over the period of record (p=0.0164, R 2 

### =0.19). There was no significant diffe rence between the seasonal salinity averages (Appendix B – Figure 1A), nor be tween the monthly averages, which ranged from 0.07 ppt to 1.52 ppt (Appendix B – Figure 6B). pH The average pH in Pellicer Creek was 6.46 SI (Table 7), which is within the state standards of 6.0 to 8.5 SI. Seasonally, pH wa s not significantly higher in either the wet season or the dry season (Appendix B – Figur e 1B). The highest monthly average in Pellicer was 7.03 in May and the lowest was 6.17 in October (Appendix B – Figure 7A). The average pH in Pellicer Creek showed a significantly increasi ng trend, rising 0.40 SI per year (p<0.0001, R 2 

### =0.40).
For the rest of the sites in Flagler County the average pH was 6.68 SI (Table 7). There was no significant difference between the seasonal averages (Appendix B – Figure 1B). The highest monthly average was 7.29 in June, which was signi ficantly higher than the other monthly averages, and the lowe st was 6.41 in October (Appendix B – Figure 7B). The average pH increased significantl y 0.29 SI per year over the period of recordStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 24 Figure 5. Water quality monitoring site locations in Flagler County. MUL HUL PEL

HOM

JOE

GRA LEH

IRW BBR IRO

KOR MOS D10

Flagler County

Volusia County 

### Halifax River Sub basi n Pellicer Creek Sub basi n

Wate r Lan d Count y Boundaries PCCSC Sites 

# Pellicer Creek and Flagler County SitesStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 25 Table 6. Flagler County water qual ity monitoring site descriptions.

Table 7. Summary statistics of selected water quality parameters for Flagler County for data from 1997 to 2000.

Water Quality Mean Standard Error Median N Min. Max.

P

ellicer Creek Salinity (ppt) 1.70 0.49 0.15 34 0.00 11.00 pH (SI ) 6.46 0.10 6.60 34 5.12 7.24 DO (mg/L) 5.06 0.28 4.70 33 1.72 8.20 Turbidity (ntu) 3.55 0.68 2.31 34 1.25 20.00 TSS (mg/L) 2.48 0.40 1.23 34 0.09 10.50 Chl a (μg/L) 6.27 1.34 2.67 33 0.50 36.70 Color (pcu) 236.00 29.70 170.00 34 55.00 580.0 TN (mg/L) 0.94 0.08 0.80 34 0.36 1.96 TP (mg/L) 0.12 0.03 0.10 34 0.02 1.11 Other Flagler County Sites Salinity (ppt) 0.59 0.17 0.1 343 0.00 32.30 pH (SI ) 6.68 0.03 6.80 345 2.94 7.80 DO (mg/L) 5.44 0.11 5.41 334 0.18 10.62 Turbidity (ntu) 4.68 0.84 1.87 346 0.29 253.00 TSS (mg/L) 6.95 0.81 2.57 346 0.90 125.00 Chl a (μg/L) 13.97 3.09 2.11 341 0.50 613.00 Color (pcu) 177.00 7.81 124.00 346 15.00 916.00 TN (mg/L) 1.33 0.06 1.05 346 0.18 12.62 TP (mg/L) 0.15 0.01 0.08 346 0.01 3.07 COUNTY STATION SAMPLING AGENCY LOCATION

FLAGLER 1 PEL PCCSC 3 Pellicer Ck. @ US 1 2 HUL PCCSC Hulett Br. @ US 1 3 HOM PCCSC Hominy Br. @ Old Kings Rd. 4 MUL PCCSC Mulberry Br. @ Palm Harbor Pkwy 5 JOE PCCSC St. Joe Canal at bike path 6 D10 PCCSC Ditch 10 on east side of Colbert Ln. 7 MOS PCCSC Mosquito Ditch 8 LEH PCCSC Lehigh Canal @ Old Kings Rd. 9 GRA PCCSC Graham Swamp culvert @ State Rd. 100 10 BBR PCCSC Black Branch @ U.S. 1 11 IRW PCCSC Iroquois waterway @ Belle Terre Pkwy 12 IRO PCCSC Confluence of Iroquois and Little Canals 13 KOR PCCSC Korona Canal @ Old Kings Rd. 14 BUL PCCSC Bulow Creek @ Walter Boardman Ln.

1 Palm Coast Community Service CorpStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 26 (p<0.0001, R 2 

### =0.17) and 9 of the 12 sites (HOM, HUL, MUL, JOE, D10, MOS, LEH, IRW, KOR) also showed a significant increas e in pH ranging from 0.17 SI per year to 0.61 SI per year over the period of record. Spatially, KOR (7.05 SI), D10 (7.02 SI), and LEH (6.98 SI) had significantly higher pH than IRO (6.40 SI), BBR (6.10 SI), GRA (6.09 SI), and HOM (5.88 SI) (Appendix B – Figure 15B). Dissolved Oxygen The average concentration of DO was 5.06 mg/L in Pellicer Creek (Table 7). The dry season average (5.92 mg/L) was signifi cantly higher than th e wet season average (4.34 mg/L) (Appendix B – Figure 2A). Mont hly averages ranged from 3.31(August) to 6.56 (November) mg/L but there were no sign ificant differences (Appendix B – Figure 8A). The average concentration of DO in the other Flagler County sites was 5.44 mg/L (Table 7). Seasonally, higher concentrations of dissolved oxygen were observed in the dry months (6.46 mg/L), as opposed to the wet months (4.55 mg/L) (Appendix B – Figure 2A) with the highest concentration o ccurring in the month of January (7.21 mg/L) and a significantly lower amount in the m onth of September (3.60 mg/L) (Appendix B – Figure 8B). Several sites (D10, MOS, and IRO) showed a significant decrease in DO over the period of record whereas KOR showed a significant increa se in DO which may have been coincident with canal improvements. The majority of the sites in Flagler County had average DO readings that were statistically similar ranging from 7.12 to 4.59 mg/L except for GRA, which had the lo west average DO, 2.09 mg/L (Appendix B – Figure 16A), well below the Class III fr eshwater standard of 5 mg/L. 

## Water Clarity Turbidity The average turbidity in Pellicer Creek was 3.55 ntu (Table 7), low compared to the median value of 5.00 ntu found in other Florida streams (FDEP 1996). There was no significant difference between wet (4.16 nt u) and dry season (2.78 ntu) averages (Appendix B – Figure 2B) or between monthly averages, which ranged from 1.36 ntu in June to 8.53 ntu in September (Appendix B – Figure 9A). The average turbidity in the rest of Flagler County was 4.68 ntu (Table 7), less than the median of 5.00 ntu for streams (FDEP 1996). Due to the high amount of variability (coefficient of variability (CV) 334.1 %) in this parameter in Flagler County, there was no significant difference be tween months (ranging from 2.34 to 11.34 ntu)(Appendix B – Figure 9B), between wet and dry seasons (4.76 and 4.59 ntu, respectively)(Appendix B – Figure 2B), or betwee n sites despite a wide range of values. The highest recorded turbidity of 10.82 ntu o ccurred at JOE and the lowest turbidity of 1.42 ntu occurred at MOS (Appendix B – Figure 16B). Total Suspended Solids The average of total suspended solids (TSS) in Pellicer Creek was 2.48 mg/L (Table 7) much lower than the state median of 7.00 mg/L for freshwater streams (FDEP 1996). There was no significant seasonal diffe rence (Appendix B – Figure 3A). MonthlyStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 27 averages ranged from 0.93 mg/L in Decem ber to 7.59 mg/L in June (Appendix B – Figure 10A). TSS content for Flagler County was quite variable (CV 196 %). The mean TSS content was found to be 6.95 mg/L (Table 7), sl ightly less than the state median of 7.00 mg/L (FDEP 1996). There were no significant average seasonal (wet - 7.43 mg/L, dry – 6.36 mg/L) (Appendix B – Figure 3A) or monthl y differences, which ranged from 11.85 mg/L in November to 2.62 mg/L in December (Appendix B – Figure 10B). The highest TSS value (14.21 mg/L) occurred in GRA and the lowest occurred MOS (2.54 mg/L) (Appendix B – Figure 17A). Chlorophyll a The average concentration of chlorophyll a was 6.27 μg/L in Pellicer Creek, which is slightly above the median concentr ation of 6μg/L found in Florida’s freshwater streams (FDEP 1996). There was no signifi cant difference between the wet and dry seasons (Appendix B – Figure 3B) or between monthly averages despite the wide range between 18.13 μg/L in January and 1.18 μg/L in November (Appendix B – Figure 11A). Chlorophyll a was highly correlated with TSS (p=0.0099) but not with any other parameters including nutrients. Mean chlorophyll a concentration in the rest of the Flagler County sites was 13.97 μg/L (Table 7), which is above the st ate median (6 μg/L) (FDEP 1996). Higher chlorophyll occurred in the wet season (20.27 μg/L) than in the dry season (5.95 μg/L)(Appendix B – Figure 3B). The highest monthly averages occurred in June and July (53.92 and 47.52 μg/L, respectively) and the lowest monthly average ranged from 13.79 to 2.27 μg/L for all other months excep t May, which had a concentration of 32.63 μg/L (Appendix B – Figure 11B). BBR had th e highest chlorophyll concentration (50.48 μg/L), followed by HUL (31.21 μg/L). The rest of the sites were sta tistically similar to each other, ranging from 17.68 μg/L in JOE, which also showed a significant increase over the period of record of 15.28 μg/L/year, to 2.01μg/L at GRA (Appendix B – Figure 17B). Chlorophyll a was highly correlated with tota l nitrogen (p<0.0001) and total phosphorus (p=0.0001) as well as total susp ended solids (p=0.0005) and pH (p=0.04).
Color The average color in Pellicer Creek wa s quite high at 236.00 pcu (Table 7), well above the state median for color in fresh water streams of 71 pcu (FDEP 1996). There was no significant difference between average dry season color (248.00 pcu) and average wet season color (227.00 pcu) and although the monthly averages ranged from 420.00 (October) to 72.00 (June) there were no signi ficant differences (Appendix B – Figure 12A). There was a significant de crease in average color (p=0.0028, R 2 

### =0.26,) of 93.00 pcu per year since 1997. The waters of the other sites in Flagle r County were also highly colored. The mean value for Flagler County sites was 177.00 pc u (Table 7) also well above the state median (FDEP 1996). There was no signifi cant difference between the wet season average (179.00 pcu) and the dry season av erage (174.00 pcu)(Appendi x B - Figure 4A). The highest color occurred in October (238.00 pcu) and the lowest occurred in June (98.00 pcu) (Appendix B - Figur e 12B). GRA (485.00 pcu) had the most highly coloredStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 28 water, followed by BBR (423.74 pcu) and HOM ( 344.18 pcu). The rest of the sites were statistically similar rang ing from 151.75 pcu at KOR to 97.82 at JOE (Appendix B – Figure 18A). Six of the 12 sites (HOM, HUL , D10, LEH, IRO, and IRW) also showed a significant decrease in color over the pe riod of record ranging from 31.09 to 49.71 pcu/year over the period of record. Dr ought conditions that lessened runoff of highly colored, acidic tannins may be responsible for this decrease in colo r and general increase in pH. 

## Nutrients Total Nitrogen The average of total nitrogen in Pellicer Creek was 0.94 mg/L (Table 7), not as high as found in the other Flagler County water bodies. This concentr ation is higher than that found in the Tolomato- Ma tanzas estuary and as such Pellicer Creek is likely a significant source of the total nitrogen loading to the Mata nzas River. There was no significant seasonal difference (Appendix B – Figure 4B). Monthly averages, which were not significantly different, ranged fr om 0.40 mg/L in May to 1.52 mg/L in August (Appendix B – Figure 13A). There was a si gnificant decrease in total nitrogen of 0.21 mg/L per year since 1997 (p=0.0115, R 2 

### =0.1947). The average of total nitrogen in the rest of the Flagler County sites was 1.33 mg/L (Table 7), equivalent to the 56.5 th 

### percentile for freshwater streams (FDEP 1996). There was no significant difference between the we t (1.43 mg/L) and dry (1.22 mg/L) season averages (Appendix B – Figure 4B). Monthl y averages ranged from 0.99 mg/L in April to 2.12 mg/L in August (Appendix B – Figure 13B). BBR (2.71 mg/L) had a significantly higher concentrati on of TN than all other site s (which ranged from 1.37 to 0.92 mg/L) (Appendix B – Figure 18B) except GRA (2.06 mg/L) and HOM (1.85 mg/L).

Total Phosphorus The average total phosphorus in Pellicer Creek was 0.12 mg/L (Table 7), lower than the average of the rest of the Flagle r County sites but the same as the TolomatoMatanzas system. This TP concentration wa s also similar to t hose found in Mosquito Lagoon (0.1 mg/L) and the southern part of the Indian River Lagoon (0.14 mg/L) below Sebastian Inlet (Sigua et al . 1999). There was no significan t difference between wet and dry season averages (Appendix B – Figure 5). There was no significant difference between monthly averages, which ranged from a low 0.07 mg/L in January to a high of 0.57 mg/L in June (Appendix B – Figure 14A). Total phosphorus in Pellicer was highly correlated with TSS (p=0.0009). The average of TP in the rest of Flagle r County was 0.15 mg/L (Table 7), which is high compared to the state median of fres hwater streams of 0.09 mg/L. There was no significant seasonal difference (Appendix B – Figure 5). Monthly average TP was highest in June at 0.75 mg/L and lowest in January at 0.07 mg/L (Appendix B – Figure 14B). There were no significant difference s in TP between the sites, which ranged between 0.22 mg/L (D10) and 0.07 mg/L (HOM)(Appendix B – Figure 19).Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 29 Trophic Status The WQI for Pellicer was calculated as 50.5 and categorized as FAIR (45 to <60) (FDEP 1996) (Figure 6). The average Water Quality Index (WQI), in the Flagler County waterways for the period of record (1997 to 2000), of 51.42 classifi ed these combined water bodies as FAIR (45 to <60) with 7 sites ( HOM, HUL, JOE, IRO, IRW, and KOR) classed as FAIR and 3 sites (MUL, MOS, and LEH) classed as GOOD and 2 sites (GRA and BBR) classed as POOR (Figure 6). Annual WQI values were also calculated for each site to determine trends with linear regression, however, with only four years of data there were no significant trends. The only saline site (D 10), evaluated with th e Trophic State Index (TSI), was classed as FAIR ( 50 to <60) with a value of 51.34.

Figure 6. Flagler County Water Quality Inde x (WQI) for individual freshwater sites and all sites combined. Yellow bars are sites with FAIR water quality. The green bar is GOOD water quality. The red bars are sites wi th POOR water qualit y. The green line is the cutoff point between FAIR and GOOD at 45 %. The red line is the cutoff point between Fair and POOR at 60 %. 

## Flagler County Water Quality Index

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

PEL H OM HUL MUL J OE M OS GRA LE H BB R I RO IRW KOR

A

LL SITES



### Sites (North - South)WQI (%) 

# POOR

FAIR

GOOD Flagler County Water Quality Index

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

PEL H OM HUL MUL J OE M OS GRA LE H BB R I RO IRW KOR

A

LL SITES



### Sites (North - South)WQI (%) 

# POOR

FAIR

GOODStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 30 

## C. Halifax River Watershed
Several water bodies were monitored in Volusia County including the Halifax River and its tributaries, Bu low Creek, Tomoka River, and Spruce Creek as well as Rose Bay, which is a large embayment partially isol ated from the main part of the Halifax River by an abandoned causeway and the present U.S. 1 causeway. Figure 7 shows the location of the water quality monitoring sites and Table 8 gives site descriptions for the entire Halifax River watershed. 

## Physical Measurements Salinity The average salinity in the Halifax River was 23.46 ppt (Table 9). The wet season salinity of 23.90 ppt was higher than the dry season average of 22.83 (Appendix C – Figure 1A) with June show ing the greatest monthly aver age salinity of 28.28 ppt and October and November showing the lowest average of 19.97 and 19.88 ppt, respectively (Appendix C – Figure 6A). Spatially, the highest salinity occurred at the sites closest to Ponce Inlet, HL18, HL19, and HL20 w ith 30.15, 30.50, and 30.71 ppt, respectively. HL03 had the lowest salinity of 18.14 ppt (Appendix C – Figure 15A). HL20 showed a significant increase in salinity of 0.96 ppt per year over the period of record (1991-1999) (p=0.0023, R 2 

### =0.1094). Salinity in the Halifax Rive r was highly correlated with pH (p<0.0001) and TSS (p=0.0016) and highly ne gatively correlated with DO (p=0.0052), turbidity (p<0.0001), color (p<0.0001), to tal nitrogen (p<0.0 001), enterococcus (p=0.0166), fecal (p<0.0001) and total coliform s (p<0.0001) indicating that the source of these parameters is most lik ely freshwater discharges. The average salinity in Bulow Creek was 11.23 ppt (Table 9). Seasonally, the wet months (14.41 ppt) had higher salinity th an the dry months (7.21 ppt) (Appendix C – Figure 1A) with the most saline water observed in June at 30.15 ppt, which was significantly higher than all other months (A ppendix C – Figure 6B). The least saline water was observed in October (6.8 ppt) a nd November (4.00 ppt). Salinity in Bulow Creek was highly correlated with pH (p<0.0001), turbidity (p=0.0002), and TSS (p=0.0006) and highly negatively co rrelated with color (p=0.0044). The average salinity in Tomoka River was 5.17 ppt (Table 9). Seasonally, the wet months (5.95 ppt) had higher salinity th an the dry months (4.16 ppt) (Appendix C – Figure 1A) with the most saline water observed in June at 10.99 ppt, which was significantly higher than all other months (A ppendix C – Figure 6C). The least saline water was observed in October (2.79 ppt) and November (2.77 ppt). Salinity was highest at TR01 (13.07 ppt), and dropped significantl y moving further from the estuary – TR02 (6.25 ppt), TR03 (2.34 ppt). TR04 (0.11 ppt) and TR05 (0.10 ppt) were statistically similar to each other and had the lowest salinity (Appendix C – Figure 15A). Salinity was highly correlated with pH (p=0.0004), turbidity (p=0.0007), TSS (p<0.0001), and chlorophyll a (p=0.0340) and highly negatively co rrelated with color (p<0.0001), total nitrogen (p<0.0001), enterococcus (p=0.0003), fecal (p<0.0001) and total coliforms (p<0.0001) indicating that source of these parameters is most likely freshwater discharges.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 31 Figure 7. Water quality monitoring site locations in Volusia County. Volusia County T

o m o k

a R i v e r 

### HL02

HL03

HL05 TR01

HL10 HL11

HL12 TR02

TR03

TR05 HL13

HL14 HL06

HL07

HL08

HL09

HL18

HL19 HL20 HL15

SC01 RB01 HL01

HL04

HL16

HL17 BUL

TR04

RB02

SC04

SC05
Spruce Creek Rose Bay T o m o k a R i v e r H a l i f a x R i v e r B u l o w

C r e e k



# Daytona Beach

Volusia County RB03 

# Halifax River Watershed Sites

SC02 

### Ponce de Leon Inlet VCEMD Sites
Water Land County Boundaries Halifax River Sub basin



### Volusia County T

o m o k

a R i v e r 

### HL02

HL03

HL05 TR01

HL10 HL11

HL12 TR02

TR03

TR05 HL13

HL14 HL06

HL07

HL08

HL09

HL18

HL19 HL20 HL15

SC01 RB01 HL01

HL04

HL16

HL17 BUL

TR04

RB02

SC04

SC05
Spruce Creek Rose Bay T o m o k a R i v e r H a l i f a x R i v e r B u l o w

C r e e k



# Daytona Beach

Volusia County RB03 

# Halifax River Watershed Sites

SC02 

### Ponce de Leon Inlet Volusia County T

o m o k

a R i v e r 

### HL02

HL03

HL05 TR01

HL10 HL11

HL12 TR02

TR03

TR05 HL13

HL14 HL06

HL07

HL08

HL09

HL18

HL19 HL20 HL15

SC01 RB01 HL01

HL04

HL16

HL17 BUL

TR04

RB02

SC04

SC05
Spruce Creek Rose Bay T o m o k a R i v e r H a l i f a x R i v e r B u l o w

C r e e k



# Daytona Beach

Volusia County RB03 

# Halifax River Watershed Sites

SC02 

### Ponce de Leon Inlet Volusia County T

o m o k

a R i v e r 

### HL02

HL03

HL05 TR01

HL10 HL11

HL12 TR02

TR03

TR05 HL13

HL14 HL06

HL07

HL08

HL09

HL18

HL19 HL20 HL15

SC01 RB01 HL01

HL04

HL16

HL17 BUL

TR04

RB02

SC04

SC05
Spruce Creek Rose Bay T o m o k a R i v e r H a l i f a x R i v e r B u l o w

C r e e k



# Daytona Beach

Volusia County RB03 

# Halifax River Watershed Sites

SC02 

### Ponce de Leon Inlet VCEMD Sites
Water Land County Boundaries Halifax River Sub basin

Water Land County Boundaries Halifax River Sub basinStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 32 Table 8. Volusia County water quality monitoring site descriptions.

Table 9. Summary statistics of selected water quality parameters for Volusia County waterways for data from 1991 to 1999. COUNTY STATION SAMPLING AGENCY LOCATION

VOLUSIA 1 HL01 VCEMD 1 Halifax River near Hi g hbrid g e Rd. 2 HL02 VCEMD Halifax River at ICW CM 29 3 HL03 VCEMD Halifax River center of Tomoka Basin 4 HL04 VCEMD Halifax River At ICW CM 6 5 HL05 VCEMD Halifax River At ICW CM 11 6 HL06 VCEMD Halifax River At ICW CM 16 7 HL07 VCEMD Halifax River At ICW CM 21 8 HL08 VCEMD Halifax River At ICW CM 25 9 HL09 VCEMD Halifax River At ICW CM 30 10 HL10 VCEMD Halifax River At ICW CM 33 11 HL11 VCEMD Halifax River 100 Yds N. of Orange Ave. Bridge 12 HL12 VCEMD Halifax River At Entrance To Halifax Harbor 13 HL13 VCEMD Halifax River At ICW CM 44 14 HL14 VCEMD Halifax River At ICW CM 47 15 HL15 VCEMD Halifax River At ICW CM 56 16 HL16 VCEMD Halifax River At ICW CM 57 17 HL17 VCEMD Halifax River At ICW CM 63 18 HL18 VCEMD Halifax River At ICW CM 1 19 HL19 VCEMD Halifax River At ICW CM 7 20 HL20 VCEMD Ponce Inlet - Center Channel 21 TR01 VCEMD Tomoka River at Old Dixie Highway 22 TR02 VCEMD Tomoka River downstream of U.S. 1 Bridge 23 TR03 VCEMD Tomoka River upstream of S.R. 40 Bridge 24 TR04 VCEMD Tomoka River upstream of 11 th St. Bridge 25 TR05 VCEMD Tomoka River upstream of U.S. 92 Bridge 26 SC01 VCEMD Spruce Creek - center U.S. 1 Bridge 27 SC02 VCEMD Spruce Creek - west of SSC Railroad 28 SC04 VCEMD Spruce Creek - west of Airport Rd. 29 SC05 VCEMD Spruce Creek - dock at Gamble Place 30 RB01 VCEMD Rose Bay - west of U.S. 1 Bridge 31 RB02 VCEMD Rose Bay - south of Nova Rd. Bridge 32 RB03 VCEMD Rose Bay - canal at Main St. Bridge

1 Volusia County Environmental Management DivisionStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 33 Table 9. Summary statistics of selected wa ter quality parameters for Volusia County waterways for data from 1991 to 1999.

Water Quality Mean Standard Error Median N Min. Max.

Halifax River Salinity (ppt) 23.46 0.19 24.95 1802 0.80 38.70 p H ( SI ) 7.68 0.01 7.70 1803 6.35 8.45 DO ( m g /L ) 6.59 0.03 6.52 1813 1.00 13.80 Turbidit y ( ntu ) 9.50 0.14 8.20 1882 0.49 50.00 TSS ( m g /L ) 25.41 0.39 21.00 1881 1.00 244.00 Chl a (μg /L ) 7.50 0.15 6.00 1842 0.00 131.00 Color (p cu ) 60.25 1.59 35.00 1864 0.00 550.00 TN ( m g /L ) 1.06 0.02 0.87 1869 0.03 6.54 TP ( m g /L ) 0.17 0.01 0.14 1882 0.01 10.64 

### Bulow Cree k Salinity (ppt) 11.23 1.72 10.30 34 0.20 35.50 p H ( SI ) 7.31 0.09 7.38 34 5.81 8.02 DO (m g /L ) 5.99 0.32 6.48 33 2.13 9.69 Turbidit y ( ntu ) 6.04 0.54 5.78 34 1.43 16.00 TSS ( m g /L ) 15.56 1.69 13.65 34 3.00 41.40 Chl a (μg /L ) 12.11 2.02 5.74 34 0.50 41.50 Color (p cu ) 160.85 12.81 140.00 34 15.00 343.00 TN ( m g /L ) 1.22 0.16 1.02 34 0.21 5.69 TP ( m g /L ) 0.22 0.09 0.08 34 0.03 2.99 

### Tomoka River Salinity (ppt) 5.17 0.37 0.30 394 0.00 27.90 p H (SI) 7.05 0.02 7.07 390 3.65 7.99 DO (mg/L) 4.60 0.10 4.60 390 0.11 9.70 Turbidity (ntu) 5.13 0.29 3.40 392 0.20 66.00 TSS (mg/L) 7.89 0.65 4.00 387 0.20 180.00 Chl a (μg/L) 6.74 0.91 2.05 384 0.00 200.60 Color (pcu) 233.80 9.09 170.00 385 33.00 800.00 TN (mg/L) 1.22 0.04 1.12 387 0.15 11.68 TP (mg/L) 0.22 0.07 0.07 387 0.01 24.00 

### S p ruce Cree k Salinity (ppt) 11.99 0.60 9.70 342 0.00 34.50 p H ( SI ) 7.21 0.03 7.21 350 4.00 8.47 DO ( m g /L ) 4.68 0.11 4.90 355 0.07 10.00 Turbidit y ( ntu ) 6.68 0.22 5.80 384 0.50 56.00 TSS ( m g /L ) 12.59 0.97 10.00 383 0.00 340.00 Chl a (μg /L ) 6.96 0.94 3.20 374 0.00 263.10 Color (p cu ) 186.73 9.42 95.50 384 0.50 1040.00 TN ( m g /L ) 1.12 0.06 1.01 380 0.07 8.41 TP ( m g /L ) 0.28 0.05 0.15 382 0.01 14.50 

### Rose Ba y Salinity (ppt) 19.40 0.68 21.20 199 0.00 35.10 p H ( SI ) 7.52 0.02 7.55 199 6.70 8.05 DO ( m g /L ) 5.77 0.10 5.60 203 0.76 10.30 Turbidit y ( ntu ) 8.26 0.29 7.45 222 1.80 24.00 TSS ( m g /L ) 19.39 0.87 16.00 223 2.00 76.00 Chl a (μg /L ) 10.79 1.00 6.80 217 0.20 152.10 Color (p cu ) 50.26 2.66 39.00 223 12.00 370.00 TN ( m g /L ) 1.00 0.03 0.89 223 0.29 3.49 TP ( m g /L ) 0.27 0.07 0.16 223 0.02 12.80Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 34 The overall average salinity in Spruce Creek was 11.99 ppt (Table 9). Wet season average salinity (12.84) was not signi ficantly higher than dry season salinity (10.89 ppt) (Appendix C – Figure 1A) with the most saline water occurring in June (16.79 ppt) and the least saline water occurr ing in October (8.18 ppt) (Appendix C – Figure 6D). SC01 had the highest salin ity of 23.30 ppt, followed by SC02 with 14.90 ppt. SC04 and SC05 were statistically similar with 4.33 and 4.92, respectively (Appendix C – Figure 15A). Salinity in the Spruce Creek was highly correlated with pH (p<0.0001), DO (p<0.0001), and TSS (p<0.0001) a nd highly negatively correlated with color (p<0.0001), total nitrogen (p<0.0001), enterococcus (p<0.0001), fecal (p<0.0001), and total coliforms (p<0.0001). The average salinity in Rose Bay was 19.40 ppt (Table 9). The wet season average (21.30 ppt) was higher than the dr y season average (17.02 ppt) (Appendix C – Figure 1A) with the highest salinity occurring in June (25.44 ppt) and the lowest occurring in October (14.81 ppt) (Appendi x C – Figure 6E). RB03 and RB01 had the highest salinities of 23.76 and 21.92 ppt and were significantly different from RB01, which had a salinity of 15.22 ppt (Appendix C – Figure 15A). Rose Bay salinity was highly correlated with pH (p<0.0001), tu rbidity (p<0.0001), and TSS (p<0.0001) and highly negatively correlate d with color (p<0.0001), and enterococcus (p<0.0001). pH The average pH in the Halifax Rive r was 7.68 SI (Table 9). The dry season average (7.72 SI) was higher than the wet s eason average (7.66 S I) (Appendix C – Figure 1B) with the highest pHs occurring in Janua ry (7.79 SI), February (7.78 SI) and March (7.77 SI), significantly higher than the rest of the months, and the lowest occurring in November (7.60) (Appendix C – Figure 7A). Sp atially, there is a ge neral north to south gradient of pH from low (7.37 at HL01) to high (7.86 at HL18, 7.85 at HL17, and 7.84 at HL19) (Appendix C – Figure 15B). The average pH in Bulow Creek was 7.31 SI (Table 9). There was no significant difference between the wet season average pH (7.31 SI) and the dry season average pH (7.32 ppt) (Appendix C – Figure 1B). There was no significant di fference between the monthly averages, which ranged from 7.79 SI obs erved in June to 7.02 SI in September at (Appendix C – Figure 7B). Bulow Creek showed a significant increas e in pH of 0.26 SI per year (p=0.0061, R 2 

### =0.2182) over the period of record. The average pH in the Tomoka River was 7.05 SI (Table 9). The wet season average (7.10) was higher than the dry season (7.01) (Appe ndix C – Figure 1B). The highest pH was recorded in May (7.26) a nd the lowest in Oct ober (6.84) (Appendix C – Figure 7C). Spatially, pH ranged from 7.19 SI at TR01 to 6.93 SI at TR05, generally decreasing with increasing dist ance from the Halifax River (Appendix C – Figure 5B). The average pH in the Spruce Creek was 7.21 SI (Table 9). There was no significant difference between the wet seas on average pH (7.22) and the dry season average (7.19) (Appendix C – Figure 1B). Monthly pH values ranged from 7.39 SI for the month of May to 6.92 SI in October (Appendix C – Figure 7D). Each site had a significantly different pH except SC02 and SC05 ranging from SC01 (7.54 SI), through SC02 (7.27 SI), SC05 (7.11 SI), and SC04 (6.93 SI) (Appendix C – Figure 15B).Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 35 The overall average pH in Rose Bay was 7.52 SI (Table 9). The wet season average pH (7.56) was signifi cantly higher than the dry season average pH (7.48) (Appendix C – Figure 21B). The highest pH reading occurred in August (7.64 SI) and was significantly different from the lowest pH, which occurred in November (7.35 SI) (Appendix C – Figure 7E). RB03 and RB01 were statistically similar with pHs of 7.60 SI and 7.58 SI, respectively. RB02 had signifi cantly lower pH of 7.45 SI (Appendix C – Figure 15B). Dissolved Oxygen The average dissolved oxygen in Halifax River was 6.59 mg/L (Table 9). The dry season average (7.52 mg/L) was significantly higher than the wet season (5.91 mg/L) (Appendix C – Figure 2A) with February s howing the highest DO value (8.22 mg/L) and September the lowest (5.28 mg/L) (Appendix C – Figure 8A). DO was highest at HL09 and HL08 with 7.28 and 7.22 mg/L, respectivel y and lowest at HL01 with 5.65 mg/L (Appendix C – Figure 16A). All DO values in the river were well above the Class III marine DO standard of 4 mg/L. The average dissolved oxygen in Bulow Creek was 5.99 mg/L (Table 9). January’s DO was the highest with 7.18 mg/L and the September DO was the lowest at 3.37 mg/L (Appendix C – Figure 8B) reflecti ng the seasonal differences, dry season average (7.09 mg/L) higher than wet (5.07 mg/L) (Appendix C – Figure 2A). The average dissolved oxygen in Tomoka River was 4.60 mg/L (Table 9). The dry season average (5.37 mg/L) was higher than the wet (3.98 mg/L) (Appendix C – Figure 2A). February’s DO was the greates t with 6.56 mg/L and the September DO was the least at 2.92 mg/L (Appendix C – Figur e 8C). TR01 had the most DO with 5.33 mg/L and TR05 had the least with 2.31 mg/L (Appendix C – Figure 16A), which is below the state standard of 5 mg/L for Class III freshwater streams. The average dissolved oxygen in Spruce Creek was 4.68 mg/L (Table 9). The dry season average was greater than the wet season average at 5.52 and 3.99 mg/L, respectively (Appendix C – Figure 2A). Febr uary showed the highest DO of 6.00 and the month of September had the lowest DO, 3.47mg/L (Appendix C – Figure 8D). DO at each of the sites was significantly different from high to low: SC01 – 6.23, SC02 – 5.13, SC05 – 4.12, and SC04 – 3.21(Appendix C – Figure 16A). The average dissolved oxygen in Rose Bay was 5.77 mg/L (Table 9). The dry season average (6.58 mg/L) was significantly hi gher than the wet season average (5.13 mg/L) (Appendix C – Figure 22A) with the highe st DO in February (7.53) and lowest in September (4.37) (Appendix C – Figure 8E). RB01 had the highest DO (6.03 mg/L) and RB02 had the lowest (5.43mg/L) (Appendi x C – Figure 16A). DO significantly decreased by 0.25 mg/L/year over the period of record at RB03 (p=0.008, R 2 

### =0.2358). 

## Water Clarity Turbidity The average turbidity in Halifax River was 9.50 ntu (Table 9). The wet season turbidity (11.23 ntu) was considerably highe r than the dry season turbidity (7.10 ntu) (Appendix C – Figure 2B), with July having the highest monthly average (13.15 ntu) andStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 36 December, January, February, and March the lowest values ranging from 5.85 to 6.87 ntu (Appendix C – Figure 9A). HL04 was the most turbid site (13.08 ntu) and in general the lowest turbidities were coincident with sites in the southern end of the system near the inlet. Sites HL12 through HL 20 had turbidities ranging from 9.4 to 5.9 ntu (Appendix C – Figure 16B). The average turbidity in the Bulow Creek was 6.04 ntu (Table 9). There were no significant seasonal differences (4.96 ntu in the dry season and 6.89 ntu in the wet season) (Appendix C – Figure 2B) or monthly differences (range – 3.89 ntu (January) to 8.28 ntu (April)) (Appendix C – Figure 9B). Bulow Creek showed a significant increase in turbidity from 1997 to 2000 by 1.92 ntu/year (p=0.0006, R 2 

### =0.32) The average turbidity in the Tomoka River was 5.13 ntu (Table 9). There were no significant seasonal differences (5.06 ntu in the dry season and 5.17 ntu in the wet season) (Appendix C – Figure 2B) or monthly differences (range – 4.56 ntu (July) to 6.12 ntu (September)) (Appendix C – Figure 9C). Si te TR01 was the most turbid site at 7.56 ntu and it was significantly higher than the re st of the sites, which ranged 3.71 to 5.68 ntu (Appendix C – Figure 16B). Spruce Creek had an overall average turbidity of 6.68 ntu (Table 9). Wet season average turbidity of 7.13 ntu was significantly higher than the dry season average of 6.07 ntu (Appendix C – Figure 17A). August was the most turbid month at 8.28 ntu and March was the least turbid with 5.33 ntu (Appendix C – Fi gure 9D). There were no significant differences between the sites, which ranged from 6.01 to 7.08 ntu (Appendix C – Figure 16B). Rose Bay’s average turbidity was 8.26 ntu (Tab le 9). Wet season turbidity (9.43 ntu) was higher than dry season turbidity (6.64 ntu) (Appendix C – Figure 2B) with monthly averages ranging from a high of 11.05 ntu in August to a low of 4.89 ntu in February (Appendix C – Figure 9E). RB01 was the most turbid site (9.35 ntu) and RB02 was the least turbid (7.14 ntu) (Appendix C – Figure 16B). RB03 showed a significant increase in turbidity of 0.51 ntu/year (p=0.0193, R 2 

### =0.19). Total Suspended Solids
Halifax River had an average TSS of 25.41 mg/L (Table 9). The wet season had significantly more suspe nded solids than the dry season (29.14 and 20.20 mg/L, respectively) (Appendix C – Figure 3A). TSS was highest in June (34.39 mg/L) and lowest in January (16.88 mg/L) (Appendix C – Figure 10A). HL08, HL04 and HL09 had the highest concentrations of suspended solids, ranging from 31.6 to 31.4 mg/L and HL12 had the lowest concentration at 18.5 mg/L (Appendix C – Figure 17A), although there was quite a bit of st atistical overlap among the stations. Both HL19, and HL20 showed significant decreases in TSS over the pe riod of record by 1.72 and 3.72 mg/L/year respectively. The average TSS in Bulow Creek was 15.56 mg/L. The wet season had significantly more suspe nded solids than the dry season (20.19 and 9.70 mg/L, respectively) (Appendix C – Figure 3A). TSS in May was significantly higher than all other months (38.20 mg/L) with the lowest concentration in February (8.94 mg/L) (Appendix C – Figure 10B).Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 37 TSS was quite variable (CV 163 %) in Tomoka River . The overall average TSS was 7.89 mg/L (Table 9). There was a signifi cant seasonal difference (wet season – 9.05 mg/L and dry season – 6.33 mg/L) (Appendix C – Figure 3A), which was reflected in the monthly averages. TSS was highest in Augus t (13.84 mg/L) and lowest in January with 5.08 mg/L (Appendix C – Figure 10C). Spatiall y, TR01 had the highest concentration of TSS (15.95 mg/L), followed by TR05 with 10.19 mg/L and the other sites, which were not significantly different from each othe r, ranged from 5.78 to 3.51 mg/L (Appendix C – Figure 17A). TSS at TR02 decreased 0.91 mg/L/year from 1991 to 1999. Spruce Creek TSS was also considerably vari able (CV 150 %) with an average of 12.59 mg/L (Table 9). Seasonally, higher TSS occurred in the wet months (14.61 mg/L) than in the dry months (9.80 mg/L) (A ppendix C – Figure 3A) with April having the highest TSS (21.04 mg/L) and March and N ovember with the lowest TSS (9.13 and 8.83 mg/L) (Appendix C – Figure 10D). SC 01 had the highest TSS at 21.78 mg/L, followed by SC02 at 14.15 mg/L. SC04 and SC05 were statistically similar with 6.12 and 8.21, respectively (Appendix C – Figure 17A). TSS at SC05 decreased significantly by 1.75 mg/L/year. The average TSS concentration in Rose Bay was 19.39 mg/L (Table 9). The wet season average TSS (22.70 mg/L) was significan tly higher than th e dry season average (14.76 mg/L) (Appendix C – Figure 3A). TSS was highest in August at 30.74 mg/L and lowest in March at 11.50 mg/L (Appendix C – Figure 10E). Spatially, TSS was highest at RB01 (23.83 mg/L) and lowest at RB 02 (14.92 mg/L) (Appendix C – Figure 17A). Chlorophyll a The average concentration of chlorophyll a in Halifax River was 7.50 μ g/L (Table 9). The state median for estuaries is 9 μg/L (FDEP 1996). Seasonally, higher runoff of nutrients in the wet months gave rise to greater average concentrations of chlorophyll a in the wet season (9.16 μ g/L) than in the dry season (5.22 μ g/L) (Appendix C – Figure 3B). August ha d the highest chlorophyll a concentration of 13.24 μ g/L and January had the lowest at 4.03 μ g/L (Appendix C – Figure 11A). HL09 and HL08 had the highest chlorophyll concentration at 9.64 and 9.62 μ g/L, respectively and the lowest concentration occurred at HL01 and HL19 at 4.91 μ g/L and 4.68 μ g/L, respectively (Appendix C – Figure 17B). The average chlorophyll a concentration in Bulow Creek was 12.11 μ g/L (Table 9), the highest of the water bodies examined in Volusia County. The wet season had a significantly higher average chlorophyll a than the dry season (12.69 and 11.38 μ g/L, respectively) (Appendix C – Figure 3B) w ith the highest monthly average of 29.32 μ g/L in June and lowest in September (4.80 μ g/L) (Appendix C – Figure 11B).
In Tomoka River , the average chlorophyll a concentration was 6.74 μ g/L (Table 9). Wet season average concentr ation was significantly higher (9.14 μ g/L) than the dry season average (3.70 μ g/L) (Appendix C – Figure 3B). The highest monthly average occurred in May (14.53 μ g/L) and January, February, March, and November had the smallest concentrations (range - 3.69 to 2.22 μ g/L) (Appendix C – Figure 11C). TR05 had significantly higher chlorophyll (13.8 μ g/L) than the other si tes, which ranged from 7.2 to 4.4 μ g/L (Appendix C – Figure 17B), however the chlorophyll concentrations wereStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 38 highly variable (CV 264 %). Chlorophyll a decreased significantly, 2.74 μg/l/year at TR04 (p=0.0055, R 2 

### =0.11). The average Spruce Creek chlorophyll a concentration was 6.96 μ g/L (Table 9). This parameter was highly variable (CV 261 %) which negated significant differences in the overall seasonal averages (wet-8.54 μ g/L, dry-4.87 μ g/L)(Appendix C – Figure 3B) and monthly averages, which ranged from 13.26 μ g/L in August to 2.58 μ g/L in March (Appendix C – Figure 11D). There were also no significant differences between the sites, which ranged from 10.42 μ g/L to 3.93 μ g/L (Appendix C – Figure 17B). Rose Bay’s average chlorophyll a concentration was 10.79 μ g/L (Table 9), the second highest of the water bodies examined in Volusia County. The highest monthly average occurred in May at 17.71 μ g/L and the lowest occurred in March at 2.74 μ g/L (Appendix C – Figure 11E) with a signifi cantly higher wet season average (13.29 μ g/L) than dry season average (7.40 μ g/L) (Appendix C – Figure 3B ). RB02 had significantly higher chlorophyll a at 15.01 μ g/L than both RB01 and RB03, which were statistically similar to each other with concentrations of 8.33 and 5.39 μ g/L, respectively (Appendix C – Figure 17B). RB03 showed a significant chlorophyll a increase of 0.46 μg/L/year.
Color The average color in the Halifax River was 60.00 pcu (Table 9). The dry season average (69.00 pcu) was si gnificantly higher than wet season average (54.00 pcu) (Appendix C – Figure 4A) with the most co lor occurring in October and November (107.00 pcu) (Appendix C – Figure 12A). HL 03 was the most highly colored site (115.00 pcu, coincident with its proximity to the mouth of the Tomoka River. Sites HL18, HL19, and HL20 had the least color ranging from 29.00 to 24.00 pcu (Appendix C – Figure 18A). In general, color decreases fr om north to south in the Halifax River with the highly colored water from the Tomoka River entering in the north and the flushing/diluting influence of Ponce Inlet in the south. The average color in Bulow Creek was 161.00 pcu (Table 9). There was no significant seasonal difference (wet-173.00 pcu, dry-145.00 pcu) (Appendix C – Figure 4A). The monthly averages ranged fr om 259.00 pcu in October to 60.00 in June (Appendix C – Figure 12B) but there were no significant differences.
The Tomoka River had an average color concen tration of 234.00 pcu (Table 9), the most highly colored water in the Volusi a County water bodies examined. There was no significant seasonal difference (dry -252.00 pcu, wet-220.00 pcu) (Appendix C – Figure 4A). The most colored water occurred in October at 390.00 pcu and June showed the least color at 84.00 pcu (Appendix C – Fi gure 12C). TR03, TR04, and TR05 had the most highly colored water ranging fro m 287.00 to 246.00 pcu. TR01 had the least colored water at 172.00 pcu (Appendix C – Fi gure 18A) where mixing with the Halifax River is likely a factor. A significant increase of 48.00 pcu/y ear in color occurred at TR04. Spruce Creek’s overall average color was 187.00 pcu (Table 9). Similar to the Tomoka River, there was no si gnificant difference in the se asonal averages (dry-194.00 pcu, wet-181.00 pcu)(Appendix C – Figure 3A). October had the most highly coloredStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 39 water (347.00 pcu) and June showed the lo west (48.00 pcu) (Appendix C – Figure 12D). Spatially, SC04 and SC05 had the most co lor at 248.00 and 267.00 pcu respectively. SC02 was significantly less colored at 153.00 pcu and SC01 was the least colored at 82.00 pcu (Appendix C – Figure 18A). The average color in Rose Bay was 50.00 pcu (Table 9). The dry season average of 59.00 pcu was higher than the wet seas on average of 44.00 pcu (Appendix C – Figure 4A) and average color was highest in Nove mber (83.00 pcu) and lowest ranged from 46.00 to 29.00 pcu in March through June (Appendix C – Figure 12E). RB03 had the most colored water (68.00 pcu) follow ed by RB02 and RB01 ranging at 49.00 to 46.00 pcu, respectively (Appendix C – Figure 18A). 

## Nutrients Total Nitrogen The average total nitrogen concentration in the Halifax River was 1.06 mg/L (Table 9), which is higher than the medi an TN concentration of 0.8 mg/L found in Florida’s estuaries (FDEP 1996). There was a significant overall redu ction of nitrogen by 0.19 mg/L per year from 1991 to 1999 (p<0.0001, R 2 

### = 0.38). This trend, reflected at all individual sites, could be due in part to in creased reuse by wastewater treatment plants. Wet season average concentration of 1.12 mg/L was higher than the dry season average of 0.97 mg/L (Appendix C – Figure 4B), owing to increased runoff, with the highest monthly average concentration of 1.37 mg/L occurring in September and the lowest concentration of 0.79 mg/L occurring in Ja nuary (Appendix C – Figure 13A). Spatially, there were no significant diffe rences between the sites, wh ich ranged from 1.20 mg/L at HL10 to a range of between 0.96 mg/L to 0.86 mg/L at HL16 through HL20 near Ponce inlet (Appendix C – Figure 18B). The average TN in Bulow Creek was 1.22 mg/L, the highest found in the tributaries. There was no significant aver age seasonal difference (dry-1.30 mg/L, wet1.16 mg/L) (Appendix C – Figure 4B) nor was there a significant difference in the monthly averages ranging from 2.69 mg/L in November to 0.75 in April (Appendix C – Figure 13B).
The Tomoka River average TN concentration was 1.22 mg/L (Table 9) the same as in Bulow Creek. There was no significan t difference between the wet (1.28 mg/L) and dry (1.14 mg/L) season averages (Appendix C – Figure 4B). August had the greatest concentration of TN at 1.60 mg/L and June had the lowest at 0.98 mg/L (Appendix C – Figure 13C). TR05 had significantly higher TN (1.89 mg/L) than the other sites, which ranged from1.09 to 1.23 mg/L (Appendix C – Figure 18B). TR01, TR02 and TR05 showed significant decreases in TN of 0.08, 0.05, and 0.16 mg/L/year. The average total nitrogen in Spruce Creek was 1.12 mg/L (Table 9). No significant differences were apparent be tween wet (1.10 mg/L) and dry (1.00 mg/L) season averages (Appendix C – Figure 4B). There were no significant differences in monthly averages, which ranged from 1.35 in October to 0.87 mg/L in May (Appendix C – Figure 13D). SC04 (1.21 mg/L) and SC05 ( 1.17 mg/L) had greater concentrations of TN than SC02 (0.97 mg/L) and SC01 (0.87 mg/L) (Appendix C – Figure 18B). SC01 and SC02 showed a significant decrea se in TN of 0.15 and 0.11 mg/L/yearStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 40 Rose Bay’s average total nitrogen concentra tion was 1.00 mg/L (Table 9). There was a significant decrease in Rose Bay nitr ogen of 0.13 mg/L per year from 1991 to 1999 (p<0.0001, R 2 

### = 0.36), which was reflected at all th ree sites. Wet se ason and dry season averages were not significantly different at 1.04 and 0.96 mg/L, re spectively (Appendix C – Figure 4B). The highest monthly aver age concentration of TN was observed in October (1.21 mg/L) and the lowest concen tration was observed in January (0.80 mg/L) (Appendix C – Figure 13E) but there were no significant differences between them. RB03 had a significantly highe r concentration (1.21 mg/L ) than RB01 and RB02, which were 0.98 and 0.97 mg/L, respectively (Appendix C – Figure 18B). Total Phosphorus The average of total phosphorus in the Halifax River was 0.17 mg/L (Table 9), which is close to the 90 th 

### percentile of 0.20 mg/L concen tration found in the state’s estuaries (FDEP 1996). Seasonally, wet m onths had higher average total phosphorus (0.19 mg/L) than the dry months (0.13 mg/L) (Appendix C – Figure 5) with the highest monthly average observed in June (0.29 mg /L) and the lowest concentrations ranging from 0.12 to 0.17 mg/L in January through May and September through December (Appendix C – Figure 14A). HL10 (0.33 mg/L) wa s significantly higher than every other Halifax River site, which ranged from 0.21 to 0.13 mg/L (Appendix C – Figure 19). HL18 showed a significant increase in TP of 0.02 mg/L/year (p=0.0021, R 2 

### =0.11) over the period of record (1991-1999). The average TP in Bulow Creek was 0.22 mg/L (Table 9). There was no significant average seasonal difference (dry-0.28 mg/L, wet-0.17 mg/L) (Appendix C – Figure 5) nor was there a significant differe nce in the monthly averages ranging from 1.06 mg/L in November to 0.04 in May (Appendix C – Figure 14B).
The Tomoka River average total phosphorus concentration was 0.22 mg/L (Table 9). This parameter was highly vari able (CV 626 %), thus the wet season average (0.33 mg/L) and the dry season average (0.08 mg/L) were not significantly different (Appendix C – Figure 5). The highest monthl y concentration of 1.53 mg/L occurred in the average total phosphorus concentration in Spruce Creek was 0.28 mg/L (Table 9). Seasonally, wet months had higher average total phosphorus (0.38 mg/L) than the dry months (0.14 mg/L) (Appendix C – Figure 5) , although this phosphorus data was also highly variable (CV 341 %). September show ed a significantly higher concentration (1.12 mg/L) than all other months, which ranged from 0.44 to 0.12 mg/L (Appendix C – Figure 14D). There were no differences be tween the sites, wh ich ranged from 0.23 (SC01) to 0.38 (SC05) mg/L (Appendix C – Figure 19).
Rose Bay’s average total phosphorus concentration was 0.27 mg/L (Table 9). This data was highly variable (CV 361 %) whic h negated significant seasonal differences (wet-0.36, dry-0.15 mg/L, respectively) (Append ix C – Figure 5). September had the highest phosphorus (1.24 mg/L) and February the lowest (1.12 mg/L) (Appendix C – Figure 14E). There were no significant differe nces between the sites, which ranged from 0.16 mg/L (RB03) to 0.31 mg/L (RB01)(Appendix C – Figure 19). September and the rest of the months were statistically simila r to each other with values ranging from 0.19 to 0.06 mg/L (Appendix C – Figure 14C). There were noStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 41 significant differences between the sites in the river, which ranged from 0.36 to 0.13 mg/L (Appendix C – Figure 19). Trophic Status The Trophic State Index (TSI) for the Halifax River estuary was 53.12, classified as FAIR. Individual sites were all classified as FA IR except sites HL18, HL19, and HL20, which were GOOD, likely the result of th eir proximity to the flushing influence of Ponce Inlet (Figure 8).
The TSI for Bulow Creek was 56.70, which is classified as FAIR (Figure 8).
The TSI for the estuarine Tomoka River sites combined was 52.11, classified as FAIR, and both TR01 and TR02 sites were also FAIR (Figure 8). The three upstream sites in Tomoka River had specific conductiv ities less than 5,000 μmhos/cm so the WQI was used. Together these sites had an average WQI of 55.96, FAIR, with TR03 and TR04 both classified as Fair and TR05 was POOR (Figure 9).
. The TSI for Spruce Creek is 52.92, which is classed as FAIR. All individual sites were classed as FAIR except SC01, which was classed as GOOD (Figure 8).
The TSI for Rose Bay was 54.33, which is classed as FAIR (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Halifax River Wate rshed Trophic State Index (TSI ) for individual estuarine sites from 1991 to 1999. Yellow bars represent sites with FAIR water quality and green bars represent sites with GOOD water quality. The green line is the cutoff between GOOD and FAIR at 50 % a nd the red line is the cutoff point between FAIR and POOR at 60 %. 

## Halifax River Watershed Trophic State Index

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

H L 0 1 H L 0 2 H L 0 3
H L 0 4
H L 0 5
H L 0 6
H L 0 7 H L 0 8
H L 0 9
H L 1 0 H L 1 1 H L 1 2 H L 1 3
H L 1 4
H L 1 5
H L 1 6
H L 1 7 H L 1 8
H L 1 9
H L 2 0 B U L R B 0 1 R B 0 2 R B 0 3
S C 0 1 S C 0 2 S C 0 4
S C 0 5 T R 0 1 T R 0 2



### Sites (North - South)TSI (%) 

# POOR

FAIR



# GOOD Halifax River Watershed Trophic State Index

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

H L 0 1 H L 0 2 H L 0 3
H L 0 4
H L 0 5
H L 0 6
H L 0 7 H L 0 8
H L 0 9
H L 1 0 H L 1 1 H L 1 2 H L 1 3
H L 1 4
H L 1 5
H L 1 6
H L 1 7 H L 1 8
H L 1 9
H L 2 0 B U L R B 0 1 R B 0 2 R B 0 3
S C 0 1 S C 0 2 S C 0 4
S C 0 5 T R 0 1 T R 0 2



### Sites (North - South)TSI (%) 

# POOR

FAIR



# GOODStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 42 Figure 9. Tomoka River Water Quality I ndex for freshwater sites from 1991 to 1999. Yellow bars represent sites with FAIR (45 to <60) water quality (TR03 and TR04). The red bar indicates POOR (60 to 100) water quality (TR05). 

# Tomoka River Water Quality Index

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

TR03 TR04 TR05 

### Sites (North - South)WQI (%)



## Good Fair PoorStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 43 

## D. Comparison of Water Bodies Physical Measurements Salinity Salinity has significantly increased by 1.7 ppt per year in the Tolomato – Matanzas system (R 2 =0.12). This could have resulted from the drought conditions that the area and the state have been experiencing ov er the past few years. This system had the highest average salinity (30.42 ppt) in the NCB project area. Each of the other water body groups were significantly less saline; Ha lifax (23.46 ppt), Rose Bay (19.40 ppt), and Spruce Creek (12.0 ppt) and Bulow Creek (11.2 3 ppt) grouped together, Tomoka River (5.2 ppt), and Pellicer Creek ( 1.70 ppt) and the predominantly freshwater sites of Flagler County (0.59 ppt) also grouped (Appendix D - Figure1A). pH Each of the water bodies ha s a significantly different pH value except TolomatoMatanzas, Bulow Creek, and Spruce Creek we re grouped in the middle of the range (Appendix D - Figure1B). Halifax River ha d the highest pH (7.68), followed by Rose Bay (7.52), Tolomato-Matanzas (7.34), Bulo w Creek (7.31), and Spruce Creek (7.21), and Tomoka River (7.05). Flagler County site s had the second lowest pH at 6.68 SI and pH has increased there by 0.26 SI per year since 1997 (R 2 

### = 0.14). Pellicer Creek had the lowest pH at 6.46 SI. Dissolved Oxygen The main stems of the estuaries generall y had higher DO than did the tributaries and the freshwater sites in Flagler County. Pr oximity to the main st em generally insured higher DO than those sites which were more remote. Halifax River had significantly higher DO than all other water bodies (6.6 mg/L ) (Appendix D - Figure 2A). The rest of the DO concentrations ranged from 6.13 mg/L in the Tolomato – Matanzas to 4.60 mg/L in Tomoka River (slightly below the Class III freshwater standard of 5.0 mg/L). Water Clarity Turbidity Turbidity and TSS generally followed the sa me pattern with the highest of both in the more saline waters and the least of both in the fr esher waters although more pronounced for TSS. Average turbidity was hi ghest in Halifax River (9.50 ntu), followed by Rose Bay (8.26 ntu) and Spruce Creek (6.68 ntu). Bulow Creek (6.04 ntu), Tolomato – Matanzas (5.77 ntu), and Tom oka River (5.13 ntu) were similar to each other while the Flagler sites (4.7 ntu) and Pe llicer Creek (3.55 ntu) were th e least turbid (Appendix D - Figure 2B). Total Suspended Solids TSS values for Tolomato-Matanzas ( 30.8 mg/L) and Halifax River (25.4 mg/L) were significantly different from each othe r and from the rest of the Water bodies (Appendix D - Figure 3A). The rest of the c oncentrations ranged from 19.4 mg/L in Rose Bay to 6.95 mg/L in the Flagler County sites and 2.48 mg/L in Pellicer Creek.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 44 Maintenance dredging of the ICW may be pa rtially responsible for resuspension of sediments and nutrients in the Halifax River and Tolomato-Matanzas system. Chlorophyll a Flagler County sites, Bulow Creek, and Rose Bay had the highest chlorophyll a concentrations (13.97, 12.11 and 10.79μg/L, re spectively) (Appendix D - Figure 3B). Halifax River, Spruce Creek, Tomoka River, and Pellicer Creek had similar mid-range concentrations ranging from 7.50 to 6.27 μg/L. The least chlorophyll a occurred in the Tolomato – Matanzas River system (4.40 μg/L), well below the state median for estuaries of 9μg/L (FDEP 1996).
Color
Pellicer Creek and Tomoka River had the most highly colored water in the project area at 236.15 and 233.80 pcu, followed by Spru ce Creek, the Flagler County sites and Bulow Creek (186.73, 176.74, and 160.85 pcu). Tolo mato-Matanzas, Halifax River, and Rose Bay ranged from 74.4, through 60.25, to 50.3 pcu (Appendix D - Figure 4A). 

## Nutrients Total Nitrogen Concentrations of TN were highest in the Flagler County sites (1.33 mg/L), Bulow Creek (1.22 mg/L), and Tomoka River (1.22 mg/L), followed by Halifax River, Spruce Creek, Rose Bay and Pellicer Creek (ranging from 1.06 to 0.94). The lowest concentrations occurred in the Tolomato – Matanzas system (0.58 mg/L)(Appendix D - Figure 4B). The low concentrations in the Tolomato – Matanzas system are likely the result of the comparative lack of urban deve lopment in the watershed and tidal flushing. Total nitrogen has been declining in th e Halifax River by 0.19 mg/L per year (R 2 =0.38) and in Rose Bay by 0.13 mg/L per year (R 2 =0.36) since 1991. Total Phosphorus There were no significant di fferences in average TP c oncentration but in general Spruce Creek, Rose Bay, Tomoka River, and Bu low Creek had the highest concentrations of TP ranging from 0.28 to 0.22 mg/L (Appendi x D -Figure 5). Halifax River and the Flagler County sites ranged from 0.17 to 0.15 mg/L and Pellicer Creek and the Tolomato – Matanzas River system both averaged 0.12 mg/L. The state median for phosphorus in freshwater streams is 0.09 mg/L and fo r estuaries is 0.07 mg/L (FDEP 1996). Trophic Status Using the Trophic State Index for estuarine waters to compare the water bodies of the Northern Coastal Basin, the Tolomato-Mat anzas estuary shows the best water quality with an average TSI of 41.68 (GOOD). The rest of the estuarine water bodies follow in descending order of water quality: Ditch 10 in Flagler County, 51.34 (FAIR), Tomoka River (sites TR01 and TR02), 52.11 (FAIR), Sp ruce Creek, 52.92 (FAIR), Halifax River, 53.12 (FAIR), Rose Bay, 54.33 (FAIR), and Bu low Creek, 56.70 (FAIR) (Figure 10). Using the Water Quality Index for freshwater water bodies, Pellicer Creek had the best water quality at 53.18 (FAIR) followed closely by all other Flagler County water waysStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 45 combined which averaged 53.90 (FAIR), and the combined freshwater sites in Tomoka River, which averaged 55.96 FAIR) (Figure11).

Figure 10. Trophic State Index of the estuar ine water bodies in the Northern Coastal Basin. The green bar represents site s with GOOD water quality. Yellow bars represent sites with FAIR water qualit y. The green line is the cutoff between GOOD and FAIR at 50 % and the red lin e is the cutoff between FAIR and POOR at 60 %. 

## Trophic State Index

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

TolomatoMatanzas

Estuary Ditch 10 Tomoka River Spruce Creek Halifax River Rose Bay Bulow Creek



### NCB Estuarine Water BodiesTSI (%) 

# POOR

FAIR

GOOD Trophic State Index

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

TolomatoMatanzas

Estuary Ditch 10 Tomoka River Spruce Creek Halifax River Rose Bay Bulow Creek



### NCB Estuarine Water BodiesTSI (%) 

# POOR

FAIR

GOODStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 46 Figure 11. Water Quality Index of the freshwater water bodie s in the Northern Coastal Basin. Yellow bars represent sites with FAIR water quality. The green line is the cutoff between GOOD and FAIR at 45 % and the red line is the cutoff between FAIR and POOR at 60 %. 

# Water Quality Index

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pellicer Creek Flagler Co. Water Bodies Tomoka River 

## NCB Freshwater Water BodiesWQI (%) 

# POOR

FAIR

GOOD Water Quality Index

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pellicer Creek Flagler Co. Water Bodies Tomoka River 

## NCB Freshwater Water BodiesWQI (%) 

# POOR

FAIR

GOODStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 47 

# II. Bacterial Status

The St. Johns River Water Management Di strict became involved in the Northern Coastal Basin area largely as a result of the reclassification of she llfish harvesting areas in the Tolomato – Matanzas estuary from Conditionally Approved to Conditionally Restricted due to bacterial concentrations. The waterways of the NCB have two classifications under the Clean Water Act, Class II - Shellfish Propagati on and Harvesting and Class II I - Recreation, Propagation, and Maintenance of a Healthy, Well-balan ced Population of Fish and Wildlife. These areas in each county have been designated as Class II waters:
St. Johns County : Guana River and Tributaries - From Guana Lake Dam south to Tolomato River. Tolomato River (North River) and Tribut aries - From a line connecting Spanish Landing to Booth Landing, south to an east-west line through Intracoastal Waterway Marker number 55 (south of Robinson Creek).
Salt Run - Waters south of an east-we st line connecting Lighthouse Park boat ramp with Conch Island. Matanzas River, Intracoastal Waterway and Tributaries, excluding Treasure Beach Canal System - From Intracoastal Waterway Marker number 29 (slightly south of Moultrie Creek), south to Flagler County Line.
Pellicer Creek. Flagler County : Matanzas River (Intracoasta l Waterway) - N. Flagler County Line south to an east-west line through Fl. Marker 109 (at Washington Oaks State Park).
Pellicer Creek.
Volusia County : Class II waters are south of th e area included in this report. (F.A.C. 62-302.400) Sites included in this report that are within Class II designated areas are TOL, STOKESCR, GAR, JXTR17, CCC, MRT, and P EL. The rest of the sites are in designated Class III waters.
State bacterial standards for Class II wate rs are as follows: the geometric mean (geomean) Most Probable Number (MPN) of fecal coliforms will not exceed 14/100 ml with not more than 10% of samples exceeding 43/100 ml. The geomean for total coliforms shall not exceed 70/100 ml nor ex ceed 230/100 ml in more than 10 % of samples (F.A.C. 62-302.530).
State bacterial standards for Class III waters are as follows: fecal coliform bacteria counts shall not exceed a monthl y average of 200 MPN per 100 ml, nor exceed 400 MPN per100 ml in more than 10% of the samples, nor exceed 800 MPN per100 ml on any one day. Total coliform bacteria count s shall not exceed 1000 MPN per100 ml as a monthly average, nor exceed 1000 MPN per100 ml in more than 20% of the samples,Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 48 nor exceed 2400 MPN per100 ml at any time. Monthly averages shall be expressed as geometric means based on minimum of 10 sa mples taken over a 30-day period (F.A.C. 62-302.530). Because sampling in the NCB occurre d monthly, not several times within a 30-day period, percent exceedance of the one-day limits for sites within the Class III designation was calculated for each of the sites. Waters under the Class II designation are further classified as Approved, Conditionally Approved, Restricted, Cond itionally Restricted, Prohibited, and Unclassified (= Unapproved) for the harvest of shellfish by the Sh ellfish Environmental Assessment Section (SEAS) in the Bureau of Aquaculture Environmen tal Services of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Cons umer Services, using the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) standards. For areas to be classified Approved or Conditionally Approved, the level of fecal co liform in sub-surface water samples must meet the NSSP 14/43 standard, where the fecal coliform median or geometric mean must not exceed 14 MPN/100 ml, and not more than 10 percent may exceed 43 MPN/100 ml. For areas to be classified Restricted or Conditionally Restricted, the level of fecal coliform in sub-surface water samples must meet the NSSP 88/260 standard where the fecal coliform median or geometric mean must not exceed 88 MPN/100 ml, and not more than 10 percent may exceed 260 MPN/100 ml . Since TOL, STOKESCR, GAR, JXTR17, and CCC meet the NSSP 88/260 but do not meet the 14/43 standard (F igure 12), the area is Conditionally Restricted.
Fecal coliform levels in the Tolomato-M atanzas estuary are mostly within the Class III standards for coliform bacteria, howev er, there are several violations of Class II standards for both fecal and total coliforms (Figure 12). In 1997, the Guana, Tolomato, Matanzas Shellfish and Water Quality Taskforce produced a progress report detai ling fecal coliform levels in the northern part of St. Johns County in response to the reclassification of the harvesting area from Conditionally Approved to Conditiona lly Restricted.
Some of the stations that were examined in that report are coincident with a few sites included in this report. For exampl e, Station #621 in the GTM report showed a geomean of approximately 12 MPN/100 ml fo r 1990 to1995. This site is similar in location to TOL. The geomean for 1997 to 2000 at TOL is 11.6 MPN/ 100 ml, which is within the Class II standard and shows that this site has been unchanged in its fecal coliform content, however 11.0 % of the samples at TOL exceeded the 43 MPN/100 ml standard. The area encompassing this site re mains classified as Conditionally Restricted meeting the NSSP 88/260 standard. Station #619 in the GTM report has a geomean of approximately 19 MPN/100 ml. This site is similar to STOKESCR, which had a geomean of 16.5 MPN/100 ml. Both of these geomeans violate the standard for Cla ss II waters even though there seems to be a slight improvement but STOKESCR meets the NSSP 88/260 standard by having only 5.2 % of the samples exceed the 260 MPN/100 ml standard.
The results of most concern were those for Pellicer Creek, an area perceived as pristine for the most part. Even though Pe llicer Creek is a Class II water body, it is an unclassified area for shellfish harvesting under the SEAS cla ssification scheme. Overall geomeans for 1997 to 2000 were 481.1 MPN/100 ml for fecal coliforms and 1468.7Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 49 Figure 12. Fecal coliform geomeans for sites in Tolomato-Matanzas Estuary from 1997 to 2000 and a comparison with both the NSSP 14/43 and NSSP 88/260 standards for shellfish harvesting in Cl ass II waters. Sites within Class II waters are TOL, STOKESCR, CCC, GAR, JXTR17, and MRT.

MPN/100 ml for total coliforms, which are above the Class II st andard. Both of the Class II standards (14MPN/100ml and 43MPN/100ml) were exceeded 97% of the time over the period of record. Monthly concentrations ex ceeded the Class III one day standard (800 MPN/100 ml) for fecal coliforms 35% of th e time during the period of record (1997 – 2000) and for total coliforms 15 % of the time (Figure 13). It is not readily apparent where this contamination is coming from. Prel iminary investigations have been made to determine the source of this contamination a nd to determine whether the source is human or not. Site MRT, in the Matanzas River at the mouth of Pellicer Creek, had a geomean for fecal coliforms of 10.72 MPN/100 ml, whic h is below the Class II standard however, MRT exceeded the Class II standard of 14 MPN/100 ml 54% of the time and the 43 MPN/100 ml standard 10% of the time indicatin g that tidal flushing plays some role in removing the contamination. More intense m onitoring (more stations between these two sites) should be considered to furthe r describe the dynamics of this area. Three sites in the rest of Flagler Count y also had high coliform geomeans. JOE had a fecal coliform geomean of 657.02 MPN/ 100 ml and exceeded the one-day limit of 800 MPN/100 ml 43% of the time. MUL ha d a fecal coliform geomean of 325.13 MPN/100 ml with a one-day limit exceedance rate of 23 % and D10 had a fecal coliform geomean of 259.63 MPN/100 ml with a one-day limit exceedance ra te of 18%. The total 

## Fecal Coliforms in theTolomato-Matanzas Estuary

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

S M I T H S C R T O L

S T O K E S C R C C C G A R

J X T R 1 7 S S B

M R 3 1 2

M C I C W

J X T R 2 1 M R T M A T

J X T R 2 6



### Sites (North - South)Fecal Coliform Geomeans(MPN/100 ml) 

### NSSP 88/260 Standard

NSSP 14/43 Standard



## Fecal Coliforms in theTolomato-Matanzas Estuary

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

S M I T H S C R T O L

S T O K E S C R C C C G A R

J X T R 1 7 S S B

M R 3 1 2

M C I C W

J X T R 2 1 M R T M A T

J X T R 2 6



### Sites (North - South)Fecal Coliform Geomeans(MPN/100 ml) 

### NSSP 88/260 Standard

NSSP 14/43 StandardStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 50 Figure 13. Comparison of fecal and total co liforms at Pellicer Creek from 1997 to 2000 with both the one-time fecal (800 MP N/100 ml) and total (2400 MPN/100 ml) coliform standards for Class III waters.

coliform geomeans at all thes e sites were also very hi gh, ranging from 2898.98 MPN/100 ml (JOE) to 1037.78 MPN/100 ml (D10) with one-d ay exceedance rates of 40% to 14%. Volusia County sites had varying degrees of coliform concentration (Figure 14). Halifax River sites are generally well below the Class III standard s for both fecal and total coliforms whereas sites within the tributaries occasionally (<10 % exceedance) violated the Class III standards for fecal coliforms and generally followed the same pattern, increasing concentrati on as distance from the mouth of the tributary increased. The Florida Stream Water Quality Index criter ia show that 70% of the samples taken in 

## Coliforms at Pellicer Creek

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

1 9 9 7 0 7

1 9 9 7 0 8

1 9 9 7 0 9

1 9 9 7 1 0

1 9 9 7 1 1

1 9 9 7 1 2

1

9 9 8 0 1

1 9 9 8 0 2

1 9 9 8 0 3

1 9 9 8 0 4

1 9 9 8 0 5

1 9 9 8 0 6

1 9 9 8 0 7

1 9 9 8 0 8

1 9 9 8 0 9

1 9 9 8 1 0

1 9 9 8 1 1

1

9 9 8 1 2

1 9 9 9 0 1

1 9 9 9 0 2

1 9 9 9 0 3

1 9 9 9 0 4

1 9 9 9 0 5

1 9 9 9 0 6

1 9 9 9 0 7

1 9 9 9 0 8

1 9 9 9 0 9

1 9 9 9 1 0

1

9 9 9 1 1

1 9 9 9 1 2

2 0 0 0 0 1

2 0 0 0 0 2

2 0 0 0 0 3

2 0 0 0 0 4



### Sampling Date (year/month)Coliforms (MPN/100ml) 

### Fecal Coliforms Total Coliforms

16,000 16,000 16,000Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Results 

### 51 Florida streams have fecal coliform con centrations below 190 MPN/100 ml and 80% of the samples taken in Florida streams have fecal coliforms under 470 MPN/100 ml so the tributary sites fall between these two percentiles for fecal coliforms (FDEP 1996).

Figure 14. Fecal (FC) and total coliform (T C) geomeans for Volusia County sites from 1991 to 1999. Sites beginning with HL ar e estuarine sites. Sites beginning with RB, SC, or TR are tributary sites. 

# Coliforms in Volusia County

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

HL

0

1 HL

0 2 HL

0 3 HL

0 4 HL

0

5 HL

0 6 HL

0

7 HL

0 8 HL

0 9 HL

1 0 HL

1 1 HL

1 2 HL

1 3 HL

1 4 HL

1 5 HL

1 6 HL

1 7 HL

1 8 HL

1 9 HL

2

0 RB01 RB02 RB03 SC0 1 SC0 2 SC0 4 SC0 5 TR

0

1 TR

0 2 TR

0 3 TR

0 4 TR

0

5



### StationColiforms (MPN/100ml) FC Geomean TC GeomeanStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District References 

### 52Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District References 

### 53 

# REFERENCES

American Public Health Association, 1985. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. Wa shington, D.C. 1268 pp. Bonnie Holub and Associates, 1998. Northern Coastal Basin Reconnaissance Report. St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, FL. 220 pp. Florida Department of Environmental Prot ection. 1996. Water Quality Assessment for the State of Florida: 305(b) Re port. FDEP, Tallahassee, FL. Florida Department of Environmental Pr otection. 1996. Chapter 62-302 Surface Water Quality Standards. FDEP, Tallahassee, FL. Florida Department of Environmental Prot ection. 1997. Biological Assessment of the Halifax River, including the Ormond B each, Holly Hill, and the Daytona Beach Wastewater Treatment Facilities Florida Department of Environmental Regul ation. 1989. Typical Water Quality Values for Florida’s Lakes, Streams, and Estuaries. FDER, Tallahassee, FL. Guana, Tolomato, Matanzas Shellfish and Water Quality Taskforce, 1997. Guana, Tolomato, Matanzas Shellfish and Water Quality Taskforce Progress Report. St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, FL. 57 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admi nistration (NOAA), 1996. NOAA’s Estuarine Eutrophication Survey. Volume 1:South Atlantic Region. Silver Spring, Md. Office of Ocean Resources C onservation Assessment. 50 pp. Sigua, G.C. and J.S. Steward, 1997. Northern Coastal Basin-Water Quality Programs. SJRWMD Program Planning Document. 6 pp. Sigua, G.C., J.S. Steward, and W.A.Tweedale. 1999. Status of Water Quality in the Indian River Lagoon System: Spatial and Temporal Trends. Technical Memorandum #33. St. Johns River Water Ma nagement District, Palatka, FL 89 pp. Statistical Analysis Systems, 1988. SAS/STAT User’s Guide. SAS Institute, Cary, NC. 1028 pp.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District References 

### 54Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix A: Tolomato-Matanzas Estuary 

### 55 

# APPENDIX A 

# WATER QUALITY: SEASONAL, MONTHLY,

AND SPATIAL STATUS
Tolomato-Matanzas Estuary St. Johns CountyStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix A: Tolomato-Matanzas Estuary 

### 56 Salinity

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

S M I T H S C R T O L

S T O K E S C R C C C G A R

J X T R 1 7 S S B

M R 3 1 2

M C I C W

J X T R 2 1 M R T M A T

J X T R 2 6



### Stations (North - South)Salinity (ppt) Dry Season Wet Season



### pH

6.4 6.6 6.8

7 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8

8

S M I T H S C R T O L

S T O K E S C R C C C G A R

J X T R 1 7 S S B

M R 3 1 2

M C I C W

J X T R 2 1 M R T M A T

J X T R 2 6



### Stations (North - South)pH (SI) Dry Season Wet Season 

### A

B

Figure 1. Seasonal distribution of mean (+ SE) salinity (A) and mean (+ SE) pH (B) in the Tolomato - Matanzas River system from 1997 to 2000.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix A: Tolomato-Matanzas Estuary 

### 57 Figure 2. Seasonal distribution of mean (+ SE) dissolved oxygen (A) and mean (+ SE) turbidity (B) in the Tolomato - Ma tanzas River system from 1997 to 2000. Dissolved Oxygen

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

S M I T H S C R T O L

S T O K E S C R C C C G A R

J X T R 1 7 S S B

M R 3 1 2

M C I C W

J X T R 2 1 M R T M A T

J X T R 2 6



### Stations (North - South)DO (mg/l) Dry Season Wet Season



### Turbidity

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

S M I T H S C R T O L

S T O K E S C R C C C G A R

J X T R 1 7 S S B

M R 3 1 2

M C I C W

J X T R 2 1 M R T M A T

J X T R 2 6



### Stations (North - South)Turbidity (ntu) Dry Season Wet Season 

## A

BStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix A: Tolomato-Matanzas Estuary 

### 58 Figure 3. Seasonal distribution of mean (+ SE) total suspended solids (A) and mean (+ SE) chlorophyll a corrected (B) in the Tolomato - Matanzas River system from 1997 to 2000. Total Suspended Solids

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

S M I T H S C R T O L

S T O K E S C R C C C G A R

J X T R 1 7 S S B

M R 3 1 2

M C I C W

J X T R 2 1 M R T M A T

J X T R 2 6



### Stations (North - South)TSS (mg/l) Dry Season Wet Season



### Chlorophyll a Corrected

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

S M I T H S C R T O L

S T O K E S C R C C C G A R

J X T R 1 7 S S B

M R 3 1 2

M C I C W

J X T R 2 1 M R T M A T

J X T R 2 6



### Stations (North - South)Chlacorr (μg/l) Dry Season Wet Season 

## A

BStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix A: Tolomato-Matanzas Estuary 

### 59 Figure 4. Seasonal distribution of mean (+ SE) color (A) and mean (+ SE) total nitrogen (B) in the Tolomato - Ma tanzas River system from 1997 to 2000. Color

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

S M I T H S C R T O L

S T O K E S C R C C C G A R

J X T R 1 7 S S B

M R 3 1 2

M C I C W

J X T R 2 1 M R T M A T

J X T R 2 6



### Stations (North - South)Color (pcu) Dry Season Wet Season



### Total Nitrogen

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

S M I T H S C R T O L

S T O K E S C R C C C G A R

J X T R 1 7 S S B

M R 3 1 2

M C I C W

J X T R 2 1 M R T M A T

J X T R 2 6



### Stations (North - South)TN (mg/l) Dry Season Wet Season 

### A

BStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix A: Tolomato-Matanzas Estuary 

### 60 Figure 5. Seasonal distribution of mean (+ SE) total phosphorus in the Tolomato - Matanzas River system from 1997 to 2000. 

### Total Phosphorus

0 0.05

0.1 0.15

0.2 0.25

S M I T H S C R T O L

S T O K E S C R C C C G A R

J X T R 1 7 S S B
M R 3 1 2

M C I C W

J X T R 2 1 M R T M A T

J X T R 2 6



### Stations (North - South)TP (mg/l) Dry Season Wet SeasonStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix A: Tolomato-Matanzas Estuary 

### 61 

## Salinity

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

### MonthSalinity (ppt)



# pH

6.4 6.6 6.8

7 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

## MonthpH (SI) 

### A

B

Figure 6. Monthly distribution of mean (+ SE) salinity (A) and mean (+ SE) pH in the Tolomato – Matanzas Ri ver system from 1997 to 2000.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix A: Tolomato-Matanzas Estuary 

### 62 

## Dissolved Oxygen

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

### MonthDO (mg/l)



### Turbidity

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

### MonthTurbidity (ntu) 

### A

B

Figure 7. Monthly distribution of mean (+ SE) dissolved oxygen (A) and mean (+ SE) turbidity in the Tolomato – Matanz as River system from 1997 to 2000.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix A: Tolomato-Matanzas Estuary 

### 63 Total Suspended Solids

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

### MonthTSS (mg/l)



### Chlorophyll a Corrected

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

### MonthChlacorr (μg/l) 

### A

B



### Figure 8. Monthly distribution of mean (+ SE) total suspended solids (A) and mean (+ SE) chlorophyll a corrected in the Tolomato – Matanzas River system from 1997 to 2000.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix A: Tolomato-Matanzas Estuary 

### 64 

## Color

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

## MonthColor (pcu)



## Total Nitrogen

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

## MonthTN (mg/l) 

### A

B

Figure 9. Monthly distribution of mean (+ SE) color (A) and mean (+ SE) total nitrogen in the Tolomato – Matanz as River system from 1997 to 2000.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix A: Tolomato-Matanzas Estuary 

### 65 

## Total Phosphorus

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

### MonthTP (mg/l)



### Figure 10. Monthly dist ribution of mean (+ SE) total phosphorus in the Tolomato – Matanzas River system from 1997 to 2000.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix A: Tolomato-Matanzas Estuary 

### 66 Figure 11. Spatial distribution (North – Sout h) of mean (+SE) salinity (A) and mean (+SE) pH (B) in the Tolomato – Matanzas River system from 1997 to 2000. 

## Salinity

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

S

M

I T HSC R T OL

S

T

O

K

ESC R C CC GAR JXTR17 SSB MR31 2

MCICW
J X

TR2 1 MRT MAT
J X

TR26



### Station (North-South)Salinity (ppt)



## pH

6.7 6.8 6.9

7 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7

SMITHSCR TOL STOKES C

R CCC GAR
J XT

R17 SSB M R3

1 2

MCI CW
J XTR21 MRT MAT JXTR26



### Station (North-South)pH (SI) 

### A

BStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix A: Tolomato-Matanzas Estuary 

### 67 Figure 12. Spatial distribution (North – S outh) of mean (+SE) dissolved oxygen (A) and mean (+SE) turbidity (B) in the Tolomato – Matanzas River system from 1997 to 2000. 

### Dissolved Oxygen

5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8

6 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8

7

S

M

IT

H

S

CR T OL

S

T

OKESCR CCC GAR JXTR17 S S

B

M

R

31

2 MCICW JXTR21 MRT M A

T

JXTR26



### Station (North-South)DO (mg/l)



### Turbidity

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

SMIT H

SCR T OL ST

OK E

SC R C C

C GAR JX

T

R

1

7 SSB M R

31

2

M

C

IC

W

JX

T

R

2

1 MRT M A

T

JXTR 2

6



### Station (North-South)Turbidity (ntu) 

### A

BStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix A: Tolomato-Matanzas Estuary 

### 68 

### Total Suspended Solids

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

SMITH S

CR TOL

S

TO KES C

R CCC GA R

JX

T

R17 SS B

MR312 MCICW JXT R

21 M R

T MAT JXTR26



### Station (North-South)TSS (mg/l)



### Chlorophyll a Corrected

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

SMITHSCR TOL STOKESCR C C

C GAR
J X

TR

1

7 S S

B

MR 312 MCICW
J X

T

R2

1 MRT MA T

J X

TR

2

6



### Station (North-South)ChlaCorr (μg/l) 

### A

B

Figure 13. Spatial distribution (North – Sout h) of mean (+SE) total suspended solids (A) and mean (+SE) chlorophyll a corrected (B) in the Tolomato – Matanzas River system from 1997 to 2000.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix A: Tolomato-Matanzas Estuary 

### 69 

### Color

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

SMITHSCR T OL ST

OK ESC R CCC GAR JXTR1 7 SS B

M

R312 MCICW JXTR21 M R

T M AT JXTR2 6



### Station (North-South)Color (pcu)



### Total Nitrogen

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

SMITHSCR TOL STOK ES

C

R CCC GAR JX

T

R

1

7 S S

B MR312 M

C

ICW JXTR21 M R

T MAT JX

T

R

2

6



### Station (North-South)TN (mg/l) 

### A

B

Figure 14. Spatial distribution (North – S outh) of mean (+SE) color (A) and mean (+SE) total nitrogen (B) in the Tolomato – Matanzas River system from 1997 to 2000.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix B: Flagler Co. Waterways 

### 70 

## Total Phosphorus

0 0.05

0.1 0.15

0.2 0.25

SMITHSCR T O

L

S

T

O

K

ESCR CCC G A

R

JX

T

R

17 S S

B

MR 3

12 MCICW
J X

TR21 MR T MA T

JXTR26



### Station (North-South)TP (mg/l)



### Figure 15. Spatial distribution (North – South) of mean (+SE) tota l phosphorus in the Tolomato – Matanzas Ri ver system from 1997 to 2000.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix B: Flagler Co. Waterways 

### 71 

# APPENDIX B 

# WATER QUALITY: SEASONAL, MONTHLY,

AND SPATIAL STATUS
Pellicer Creek and Flagler County Waterways FLAGLER COUNTYStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix B: Flagler Co. Waterways 

### 72 

### Salinity

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

PEL HOM HUL MUL JOE D10 MOS GRA LEH IRO IRW BBR KOR 

### Stations (North - South)Salinity (ppt) Dry Season Wet Season



### pH

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

PEL HOM HUL MUL JOE D10 MOS GRA LEH IRO IRW BBR KOR 

### Stations (North - South)pH (SI) Dry Season Wet Season 

### A

B



### Figure 1. Seasonal distribution of mean (+ SE) salinity (A) and mean (+ SE) pH (B) at the Flagler County sites from 1997 to 2000.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix B: Flagler Co. Waterways 

### 73 

### Dissolved Oxygen

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

PEL HOM HUL MUL JOE D10 MOS GRA LEH IRO IRW BBR KOR 

### Stations (North - South)DO (mg/l) Dry Season Wet Season



### Turbidity

0 10 20 30 40

PEL HOM HUL MUL JOE D10 MOS GRA LEH IRO IRW BBR KOR 

### Stations (North - South)Turbidity (ntu) Dry Season Wet Season 

### A

B



### Figure 2. Seasonal distribution of mean (+ SE) dissolved oxygen (A) and mean (+ SE) turbidity (B) at the Flagler County sites from 1997 to 2000.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix B: Flagler Co. Waterways 

### 74 

### Total Suspended Solids

0 10 20 30 40

PEL HOM HUL MUL JOE D10 MOS GRA LEH IRO IRW BBR KOR 

### Stations (North - South)TSS (mg/l) Dry Season Wet Season



### Chlorophyll a Corrected

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

PEL HOM HUL MUL JOE D10 MOS GRA LEH IRO IRW BBR KOR 

### Stations (North - South)Chlacorr (μg/l) Dry Season Wet Season 

### A

B



### Figure 3. Seasonal distribution of mean (+ SE) total suspended solids (A) and mean (+ SE) chlorophyll a corrected (B) at the Flag ler County sites from 1997 to 2000.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix B: Flagler Co. Waterways 

### 75 Color

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750

PEL HOM HUL MUL JOE D10 MOS GRA LEH IRO IRW BBR KOR 

### Stations (North - South)Color (pcu) Dry Season Wet Season



### Total Nitrogen

0 1 2 3 4

PEL HOM HUL MUL JOE D10 MOS GRA LEH IRO IRW BBR KOR 

### Stations (North - South)TN (mg/l) Dry Season Wet Season 

### A

B



### Figure 4. Seasonal distribution of mean (+ SE) color (A) and mean (+ SE) total nitrogen (B) at the Flagler County sites from 1997 to 2000.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix B: Flagler Co. Waterways 

### 76 

### Total Phosphorus

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

PEL HOM HUL MUL JOE D10 MOS GRA LEH IRO IRW BBR KOR 

### Stations (North - South)TP (mg/l) Dry Season Wet Season



### Figure 5. Seasonal distribution of mean (+ SE) total phosphorus at the Flagler County sites from 1997 to 2000.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix B: Flagler Co. Waterways 

### 77 Figure 6. Monthly distribution of mean (+ SE) salinity in (A) Pellicer Creek and (B) the other Flagler County sites from 1997 to 2000. 

# Flagler County

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

## MonthSalinity (ppt) 

# Pellicer Creek

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC


### MonthSalinity (ppt) 

## A

BStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix B: Flagler Co. Waterways 

### 78 

# Flagler County

5.8

6 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8

7 7.2 7.4 7.6

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

## MonthpH (SI) 

# Pellicer Creek

5.6 5.8

6 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8

7 7.2 7.4

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC


### MonthpH (SI) 

### A

B

Figure 7. Monthly distribution of mean (+ SE) pH in (A) Pellicer Creek and (B) the other Flagler County sites from 1997 to 2000.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix B: Flagler Co. Waterways 

### 79 

# Flagler County

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

## MonthDO (mg/l) 

# Pellicer Creek

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC


### MonthDO (mg/l) 

### A

B

Figure 8. Monthly distribution of mean (+ SE) dissolved oxygen in (A) Pellicer Creek and (B) the other Flagler County sites from 1997 to 2000.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix B: Flagler Co. Waterways 

### 80 

## Pellicer Creek

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

## MonthTurbidity (ntu)



## Flagler County

0 5 10 15 20 25

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

## MonthTurbidity (ntu) 

### A

B

Figure 9. Monthly distribution of mean (+ SE) turbidity in (A) Pellicer Creek and (B) the other Flagler County sites from 1997 to 2000.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix B: Flagler Co. Waterways 

### 81 

## Flagler County

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

## MonthTSS (mg/l) 

## Pellicer Creek

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC


### MonthTSS (mg/l) 

## A

B

Figure 10. Monthly dist ribution of mean (+ SE) total suspended solids in (A) Pellicer Creek and (B) the other Flagle r County sites from 1997 to 2000.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix B: Flagler Co. Waterways 

### 82 

## Pellicer Creek

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC


### MonthChlaCorr (μg/l)



## Flagler County

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

## MonthChlacorr (μg/l) 

### A

B

Figure 11. Monthly dist ribution of mean (+ SE) chlorophyll a corrected in (A) Pellicer Creek and (B) the other Flagle r County sites from 1997 to 2000.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix B: Flagler Co. Waterways 

### 83 

## Flagler County

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

## MonthColor (pcu) 

## Pellicer Creek

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

## MonthColor (pcu) 

### A

B

Figure 12. Monthly dist ribution of mean (+ SE) color in (A) Pellicer Creek and (B) the other Flagler County sites from 1997 to 2000.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix B: Flagler Co. Waterways 

### 84 

# Pellicer Creek

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

2

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC


### MonthTN (mg/l)



# Flagler County

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

## MonthTN (mg/l) 

## A

B

Figure 13. Monthly dist ribution of mean (+ SE) total nitrogen in (A) Pellicer Creek and (B) the other Flagler County sites from 1997 to 2000.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix B: Flagler Co. Waterways 

### 85 

# Flagler County

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

1

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

## MonthTP (mg/l) 

# Pellicer Creek

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

## MonthTP (mg/l) 

## A

B

Figure 14. Monthly dist ribution of mean (+ SE) total phosphorus in (A) Pellicer Creek and (B) the other Flagler County sites from 1997 to 2000.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix B: Flagler Co. Waterways 

### 86 

## Salinity

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

PEL HOM HUL MUL JOE D10 MOS GRA LEH BBR IRO IRW KOR 

## Stations (North-South)Salinity (ppt)



## pH

5 5.5

6 6.5

7 7.5

PEL HOM HUL MUL JOE D10 MOS GRA LEH BBR IRO IRW KOR 

## Stations (North - South)pH (S.I.) 

### A

B



### Figure 15. Spatial distribution of mean (+ SE) salinity (A) and mean (+ SE) pH (B) at the Flagler County sites from 1997 to 2000.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix B: Flagler Co. Waterways 

### 87 

### Dissolved Oxygen

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

PEL HOM HUL MUL JOE D10 MOS GRA LEH BBR IRO IRW KOR 

### Stations (North-South)DO (mg/ml)



## Turbidity

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

PEL HOM HUL MUL JOE D10 MOS GRA LEH BBR IRO IRW KOR 

## Stations (North-South)Turbidity (ntu) 

### A

B



### Figure 16. Spatial distribution of mean (+ SE) dissolved oxygen (A) and mean (+ SE) turbidity (B) at the Flagler County sites from 1997 to 2000.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix B: Flagler Co. Waterways 

### 88 

## Total Suspended Solids

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

PEL HOM HUL MUL JOE D10 MOS GRA LEH BBR IRO IRW KOR 

## Stations (North-South)TSS (mg/l)



### Chlorophyll a Corrected

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PEL HOM HUL MUL JOE D10 MOS GRA LEH BBR IRO IRW KOR 

### Stations (North-South)Chlacorrected (μg/l) 

### A

B



### Figure 17. Spatial distribution of mean (+ SE) total suspended solids (A) and mean (+ SE) chlorophyll a corrected (B) at the Flag ler County sites from 1997 to 2000.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix B: Flagler Co. Waterways 

### 89



## Color

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

PEL HOM HUL MUL JOE D10 MOS GRA LEH BBR IRO IRW KOR 

## Stations (North-South)Color (pcu)



## Total Nitrogen

0 0.5 1 1.5

2 2.5 3 3.5

PEL HOM HUL MUL JOE D10 MOS GRA LEH BBR IRO IRW KOR 

## Stations (North-South)TN (mg/l) 

### A

B



### Figure 18. Spatial distribution of mean (+ SE) color (A) and mean (+ SE) total nitrogen (B) at the Flagler County sites from 1997 to 2000.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix B: Flagler Co. Waterways 

### 90 

### Total Phosphorus

0 0.05

0.1 0.15

0.2 0.25

0.3

PEL HOM HUL MUL JOE D10 MOS GRA LEH BBR IRO IRW KOR 

### Stations (North-South)TP (mg/l)



### Figure 19. Spatial distribution of mean (+ SE) total phosphorus (A) at the Flagler County sites from 1997 to 2000.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix C: Halifax River Watershed 

### 91 

# APPENDIX C 

# WATER QUALITY: SEASONAL, MONTHLY,

AND SPATIAL STATUS

Halifax River Watershed VOLUSIA COUNTYStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix C: Halifax River Watershed 

### 92 Salinity

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

HL 0 1 H

L 0 2 H

L 0 3 HL 0 4 HL 0 5 HL 0 6 HL 0 7 HL 0 8 HL 0 9 HL 1 0 HL 1 1 HL 1 2 HL 1 3 HL 1 4 HL 1 5 HL 1 6 HL 1 7 HL 1 8 HL 1 9 H

L 2 0 B

UL RB 0 1 RB 0 2 RB 0 3
S

C0 1 S

C0 2 S

C0 4 S

C0 5 T

R 0 1 T

R 0 2
T

R 0 3
T

R 0 4
T

R 0 5

Stations (North - South)Salinity (ppt) Dry Season Wet Season

Estuarine Sites Tributary Sites



### pH

6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8

7 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8

8

HL

0 1 HL 0 2 HL 0 3 HL 0 4 HL 0 5 HL 0 6 HL 0 7 H

L 0 8 HL 0 9 HL 1 0 HL 1 1 H

L 1 2 HL 1 3 HL 1 4 HL 1 5 HL 1 6 HL 1 7 HL 1 8 HL 1 9 HL 2 0 B

UL RB 0 1 RB 0 2 RB 0 3
S

C0 1 S

C0 2 S

C0 4 S

C0 5 T

R0 1 T

R0 2
T

R0 3
T

R0 4
T

R0 5

Stations (North - South)pH (SI) Dry Season Wet Season

Estuarine Sites Tributary Sites 

### A

B



### Figure 1. Seasonal distribution of mean (+ SE) salinity (A) and mean (+ SE) pH (B) in the Halifax River watershed from 1991 to 1999.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix C: Halifax River Watershed 

### 93 Dissolved Oxygen

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

H

L 0 1 H

L 0 2 H L 0 3 H

L 0 4 H L 0 5 H L 0 6 H

L 0 7 H L 0 8 H

L 0 9 H L 1 0 H L 1 1 H

L 1 2 H L 1 3 H L 1 4 H

L 1 5 H

L 1 6 H L 1 7 H

L 1 8 H L 1 9 H

L 2 0 B U L R B 0 1 R

B 0 2 R

B 0 3 S

C 0 1 S

C 0 2 S

C 0 4 S

C 0 5 T

R 0 1 T

R 0 2
T

R 0 3
T

R 0 4
T

R 0 5

Stations (North - South)DO (mg/l) Dry Season Wet Season

Estuarine Sites Tributary Sites



### Turbidity

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

H L 0 1 H

L 0 2 H

L 0 3 H

L 0 4 H L 0 5 H

L 0 6 H L 0 7 H

L 0 8 H

L 0 9 H L 1 0 H

L 1 1 H

L 1 2 H

L 1 3 H

L 1 4 H L 1 5 H

L 1 6 H L 1 7 H

L 1 8 H

L 1 9 H L 2 0 B

U L R

B 0 1 R

B 0 2 R

B 0 3 S

C 0 1 S

C 0 2 S

C 0 4 S

C 0 5 T

R 0 1 T

R 0 2
T

R 0 3
T

R 0 4
T

R 0 5

Stations (North -South)Turbidity (ntu) Dry Season Wet Season

Estuarine Sites Tributary Sites 

### A

B



### Figure 2. Seasonal distribution of mean (+ SE) dissolved oxygen (A) and mean (+ SE) turbidity (B) in the Halifax River watershed from 1991 to 1999.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix C: Halifax River Watershed 

### 94 Total Suspended Solids

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

H L 0 1 H

L 0 2 H

L 0 3 H

L 0 4 H L 0 5 H

L 0 6 H L 0 7 H

L 0 8 H

L 0 9 H

L 1 0 H

L 1 1 H

L 1 2 H

L 1 3 H

L 1 4 H L 1 5 H

L 1 6 H L 1 7 H

L 1 8 H

L 1 9 H

L 2 0 B

UL RB 0 1 RB 0 2 RB 0 3 S

C0 1 S

C0 2 S

C0 4 S

C0 5 T

R 0 1 T

R 0 2
T

R 0 3
T

R 0 4
T

R 0 5

Stations (North -South)TSS (mg/l) Dry Season Wet Season

Estuarine Sites Tributary Sites



### Chlorophyll a Corrected

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

HL 0 1 HL 0 2 HL 0 3 HL 0 4 HL 0 5 HL 0 6 HL 0 7 HL 0 8 HL 0 9 HL 1 0 HL 1 1 HL 1 2 HL 1 3 HL 1 4 HL 1 5 HL 1 6 HL 1 7 HL 1 8 HL 1 9 HL 2 0 B

UL RB 0 1 RB 0 2 RB 0 3 S

C0 1 S

C0 2 S

C0 4 S

C0 5 T

R0 1 T

R0 2
T

R0 3
T

R0 4
T

R0 5

Stations (North - South)Chla(μg/l) Dry Season Wet Season

Estuarine Sites Tributary Sites 

### A

B



### Figure 3. Seasonal distribution of mean (+ SE) total suspended solids (A) and mean (+ SE) Chlorophyll a Corrected (B) in the Halif ax River watershed from 1991 to 1999.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix C: Halifax River Watershed 

### 95 Color

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

H L 0 1 H

L 0 2 H L 0 3 H

L 0 4 H

L 0 5 H

L 0 6 H

L 0 7 H L 0 8 H

L 0 9 H

L 1 0 H

L 1 1 H

L 1 2 H L 1 3 H

L 1 4 H

L 1 5 H

L 1 6 H L 1 7 H

L 1 8 H

L 1 9 H

L 2 0 B U L RB 0 1 RB 0 2 RB 0 3 S

C0 1 S

C0 2 S

C0 4 S

C0 5 T

R0 1 T

R 0 2
T

R0 3
T

R0 4
T

R0 5

Stations (North - South)Color (pcu) Dry Season Wet Season

Estuarine Sites Tributary Sites



### Total Nitrogen

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3

HL

0 1 HL 0 2 HL 0 3 HL 0 4 HL 0 5 HL 0 6 HL 0 7 HL 0 8 HL 0 9 HL 1 0 HL 1 1 HL 1 2 HL 1 3 HL 1 4 HL 1 5 HL 1 6 HL 1 7 HL 1 8 HL 1 9 HL 2 0 B UL RB 0 1 RB 0 2 RB 0 3
S

C0 1 S

C0 2 S

C0 4 S

C0 5 T

R0 1 T

R0 2
T

R0 3
T

R0 4
T R 0 5

Stations (North - South)TN (mg/l) Dry Season Wet Season

Estuarine Sites Tributary Sites 

### A

B



### Figure 4. Seasonal distribution of mean (+ SE) color (A) and mean (+ SE) total nitrogen (B) in the Halifax River watershed from 1991 to 1999.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix C: Halifax River Watershed 

### 96 Total Phosphorus

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2

H L 0 1 H L 0 2 H L 0 3 H L 0 4
H L 0 5 H L 0 6 H L 0 7 H L 0 8 H L 0 9 H L 1 0 H L 1 1 H L 1 2 H L 1 3 H L 1 4
H L 1 5 H L 1 6 H L 1 7 H L 1 8 H L 1 9 H L 2 0 B U L R B 0 1 R B 0 2 R B 0 3
S

C 0 1 S C 0 2
S

C 0 4
S C 0 5
T R 0 1 T R 0 2
T R 0 3
T R 0 4
T R 0 5

Stations (North - South)TP (mg/l) Dry Season Wet Season

Estuarine Sites Tributary Sites



### Figure 5. Seasonal distribution of mean (+ SE) total phosphorus in the Halifax River watershed from 1991 to 1999.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix C: Halifax River Watershed 

### 97 Figure 6. Monthly distribution of mean (+ SE) salinity in the Halifax River (A), Bulow Creek (B), Tomoka River (C), Spruce Creek (D), and Rose Bay (E) from 1991 to 1999. 

## Halifax River

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

### MonthSalinity (ppt)

Bulow Creek

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthSalinity (ppt) Tomoka River

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthSalinity (ppt)

Spruce Creek

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthSalinity (ppt) Rose Bay

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthSalinity (ppt) D E B C A 

## Halifax River

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

### MonthSalinity (ppt)

Bulow Creek

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthSalinity (ppt) Tomoka River

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthSalinity (ppt)

Spruce Creek

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthSalinity (ppt) Rose Bay

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthSalinity (ppt) D E B C AStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix C: Halifax River Watershed 

### 98 

## Halifax River

7.45

7.5 7.55

7.6 7.65

7.7 7.75

7.8 7.85

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

### MonthpH (SI)

Bulow Creek

6.4 6.6 6.8

7 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8

8 8.2

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthpH (SI) Tomoka River

6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9

7 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthpH (SI)

Spruce Creek

6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9

7 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthpH (SI) Rose Bay

7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthpH (SI) D E B C A



### Figure 7. Monthly distribution of mean (+ SE) pH in the Halifax River (A), Bulow Creek (B), Tomoka River (C), Spruce Creek (D), and Rose Bay (E) from 1991 to 1999.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix C: Halifax River Watershed 

### 99 

## Halifax River

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

### MonthDO (mg/l)

Bulow Creek

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthDO (mg/l) Tomoka River

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthDO (mg/l)

Spruce Creek

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthDO (mg/l) Rose Bay

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthDO (mg/l) D E B C A



### Figure 8. Monthly distribution of mean (+ SE) dissolved oxygen in the Halifax River (A), Bulow Creek (B), Tomoka River (C), Spruce Creek (D), and Rose Bay (E) from 1991 to 1999.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix C: Halifax River Watershed 

### 100 Figure 9. Monthly distribution of mean (+ SE) turbidity in the Halifax River (A), Bulow Creek (B), Tomoka River (C), Spruce Creek (D), and Rose Bay (E) from 1991 to 1999. Halifax River

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

### MonthTurbidity (ntu)

Bulow Creek

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MonthTurbidity (ntu) Tomoka River

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MonthTurbidity (ntu)

Spruce Creek

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MonthTurbidity (ntu) Rose Bay

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MonthTurbidity (ntu) D E B C A 

### Halifax River

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

### MonthTurbidity (ntu)

Bulow Creek

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MonthTurbidity (ntu) Tomoka River

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MonthTurbidity (ntu)

Spruce Creek

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MonthTurbidity (ntu) Rose Bay

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MonthTurbidity (ntu) D E B C AStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix C: Halifax River Watershed 

### 101 Figure 10. Monthly dist ribution of mean (+ SE) total suspended solids in the Halifax River (A), Bulow Creek (B), Tomoka River (C), Spruce Creek (D), and Rose Ba y ( E ) from 1991 to 1999. 

### Halifax River

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

### MonthTSS (mg/l)

Bulow Creek

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthTSS (mg/l) Tomoka River

0 5 10 15 20 25

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthTSS (mg/l)

Spruce Creek

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthTSS (mg/l) Rose Bay

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthTSS (mg/l) D E B C A 

### Halifax River

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

### MonthTSS (mg/l)

Bulow Creek

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthTSS (mg/l) Tomoka River

0 5 10 15 20 25

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthTSS (mg/l)

Spruce Creek

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthTSS (mg/l) Rose Bay

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthTSS (mg/l) D E B C AStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix C: Halifax River Watershed 

### 102 Figure 11. Monthly dist ribution of mean (+ SE) chlorophyll a corrected in the Halifax River (A), Bulow Creek (B), Tomoka River (C), Spruce Creek (D), and Rose Bay (E) from 1991 to 1999. Halifax River

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

### MonthChlaCorr (μg/l)

Bulow Creek

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthChlaCorr (μg/l) Tomoka River

0 5 10 15 20 25

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthChlaCorr (μg/l)

Spruce Creek

0 5 10 15 20 25

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthChlaCorr (μg/l) Rose Bay

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthChlaCorr (μg/l) D E B C A 

### Halifax River

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

### MonthChlaCorr (μg/l)

Bulow Creek

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthChlaCorr (μg/l) Tomoka River

0 5 10 15 20 25

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthChlaCorr (μg/l)

Spruce Creek

0 5 10 15 20 25

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthChlaCorr (μg/l) Rose Bay

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthChlaCorr (μg/l) D E B C AStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix C: Halifax River Watershed 

### 103 Figure 12. Monthly dist ribution of mean (+ SE) color in the Halifax River (A), Bulow Creek (B), Tomoka River (C), Spruce Creek (D), and Rose Bay (E) from 1991 to 1999. Halifax River

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

### MonthColor (pcu)

Bulow Creek

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MonthColor (pcu) Tomoka River

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MonthColor (pcu)

Spruce Creek

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MonthColor (pcu) Rose Bay

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MonthColor (pcu) D E B C A 

### Halifax River

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

### MonthColor (pcu)

Bulow Creek

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MonthColor (pcu) Tomoka River

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MonthColor (pcu)

Spruce Creek

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MonthColor (pcu) Rose Bay

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MonthColor (pcu) D E B C AStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix C: Halifax River Watershed 

### 104 

## Halifax River

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4 1.6

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

### MonthTN (mg/l)

Bulow Creek

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3 3.5

4 4.5

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthTN (mg/l) Tomoka River

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

2

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthTN (mg/l)

Spruce Creek

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthTN (mg/l) Rose Bay

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4 1.6

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MonthTN (mg/l) 

### D E B C A



### Figure 13. Monthly dist ribution of mean (+ SE) total nitrogen in the Halifax River (A), Bulow Creek (B), Tomoka River (C), Spruce Creek (D), and Rose Bay (E) from 1991 to 1999.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix C: Halifax River Watershed 

### 105 

## Halifax River

0 0.05

0.1 0.15

0.2 0.25

0.3 0.35

0.4

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

### MonthTP (mg/l)

Bulow Creek

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MonthTP (mg/l) Tomoka River

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MonthTP (mg/l)

Spruce Creek

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MonthTP (mg/l) Rose Bay

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MonthTP (mg/l) D E B C A



### Figure 14. Monthly dist ribution of mean (+ SE) total phosphorus in the Halifax River (A), Bulow Creek (B), Tomoka River (C), Spruce Creek (D), and Rose Bay (E) from 1991 to 1999.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix C: Halifax River Watershed 

### 106 Salinity

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

H L 0 1 H

L 0 2 H

L 0 3 H

L 0 4
H

L 0 5 H

L 0 6 H

L 0 7 H

L 0 8 H

L 0 9 H

L 1 0 H

L 1 1 H

L 1 2 H

L 1 3 H

L 1 4
H

L 1 5 H

L 1 6 H

L 1 7 H

L 1 8 H

L 1 9 H

L 2 0 B U L R

B 0 1 R

B 0 2 R

B 0 3
S

C 0 1 S

C 0 2 S

C 0 4 S

C 0 5 T

R 0 1 T

R 0 2
T

R 0 3
T

R 0 4
T

R 0 5

Station (North - South)Salinity (ppt)

Estuarine Sites Tributary Sites

pH

6.4 6.6 6.8

7 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8

8

H L 0 1 H

L 0 2 H

L 0 3 H

L 0 4
H

L 0 5 H

L 0 6 H

L 0 7 H

L 0 8 H

L 0 9 H

L 1 0 H

L 1 1 H

L 1 2 H

L 1 3 H

L 1 4
H

L 1 5 H

L 1 6 H

L 1 7 H

L 1 8 H

L 1 9 H

L 2 0 B

U L R

B 0 1 R

B 0 2 R

B 0 3
S

C 0 1 S

C 0 2 S

C 0 4 S

C 0 5 T

R 0 1 T

R 0 2
T

R 0 3
T

R 0 4
T

R 0 5

Station (North - South)pH (SI)

Estuarine Sites Tributary Sites 

## A

B

Figure 15. Spatial distribution (north – south) of mean (+ SE) salinity (A) and mean (+ SE) pH (B) in the Halifax River watershed from 1991 to 1999.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix C: Halifax River Watershed 

### 107 Dissolved Oxygen

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

H L 0 1 H L 0 2 H L 0 3 H L 0 4
H L 0 5
H L 0 6 H L 0 7 H L 0 8 H L 0 9 H L 1 0 H L 1 1 H L 1 2 H L 1 3 H L 1 4
H L 1 5
H L 1 6 H L 1 7 H L 1 8 H L 1 9 H L 2 0 B U L R B 0 1 R B 0 2 R B 0 3
S

C 0 1 S C 0 2 S

C 0 4
S C 0 5 T R 0 1 T R 0 2
T R 0 3
T R 0 4
T R 0 5

Station (North - South)DO (mg/l)

Estuarine Sites Tributary Sites



### Turbidity

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

H L 0 1 H L 0 2 H L 0 3 H L 0 4
H L 0 5
H L 0 6
H L 0 7 H L 0 8 H L 0 9 H L 1 0 H L 1 1 H L 1 2 H L 1 3 H L 1 4
H L 1 5
H L 1 6
H L 1 7 H L 1 8 H L 1 9 H L 2 0 B U L R B 0 1 R B 0 2 R B 0 3
S

C 0 1 S

C 0 2 S C 0 4
S C 0 5 T

R 0 1 T R 0 2
T R 0 3
T R 0 4
T R 0 5

Station (North - South)Turbidity (ntu)

Estuarine Sites Tributary Sites 

## A

B

Figure 16. Spatial distribution of mean (+ SE) dissolved oxygen (A) and mean (+ SE) turbidity (B) in the Halifax River watershed from 1991 to 1999.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix C: Halifax River Watershed 

### 108 Total Suspended Solids

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

H L 0 1 H

L 0 2 H

L 0 3 H L 0 4
H

L 0 5
H

L 0 6
H

L 0 7 H L 0 8 H

L 0 9 H

L 1 0 H L 1 1 H

L 1 2 H

L 1 3 H L 1 4
H

L 1 5
H

L 1 6
H L 1 7 H

L 1 8 H

L 1 9 H

L 2 0 B U L R

B 0 1 R

B 0 2 R B 0 3
S

C 0 1 S

C 0 2 S C 0 4
S

C 0 5 T

R 0 1 T

R 0 2
T R 0 3
T

R 0 4
T

R 0 5

Station (North - South)TSS (mg/l)

Estuarine Sites Tributary Sites



### Chlorophyll a Corrected

0 5 10 15 20 25

H L 0 1 H

L 0 2 H

L 0 3 H L 0 4
H

L 0 5 H

L 0 6 H

L 0 7 H L 0 8 H

L 0 9 H

L 1 0 H L 1 1 H

L 1 2 H

L 1 3 H L 1 4
H

L 1 5 H

L 1 6 H L 1 7 H

L 1 8 H

L 1 9 H

L 2 0 B U L R

B 0 1 R

B 0 2 R B 0 3
S

C 0 1 S

C 0 2 S C 0 4 S

C 0 5 T

R 0 1 T

R 0 2
T R 0 3
T

R 0 4
T

R 0 5

Station (North - South)ChlaCorrected (μg/l)

Estuarine Sites Tributary Sites 

## A

B

Figure 17. Spatial distribution of mean (+ SE) total suspended solids (A) and mean (+ SE) chlorophyll a corrected (B) in the Halif ax River watershed from 1991 to 1999.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix C: Halifax River Watershed 

### 109 Total Nitrogen

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

H L 0 1 H

L 0 2 H L 0 3 H L 0 4
H L 0 5 H

L 0 6 H L 0 7 H L 0 8 H L 0 9 H L 1 0 H L 1 1 H

L 1 2 H L 1 3 H L 1 4
H L 1 5 H

L 1 6 H L 1 7 H L 1 8 H L 1 9 H L 2 0 B U L R B 0 1 R

B 0 2 R

B 0 3
S

C 0 1 S

C 0 2 S

C 0 4 S

C 0 5 T

R 0 1 T

R 0 2
T

R 0 3
T

R 0 4
T

R 0 5

Station (North - South)TN (mg/l)

Estuarine Sites Tributary Sites Color

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

H L 0 1 H L 0 2 H L 0 3 H L 0 4
H L 0 5
H L 0 6
H L 0 7 H L 0 8 H L 0 9 H L 1 0 H L 1 1 H L 1 2 H L 1 3 H L 1 4
H L 1 5
H L 1 6
H L 1 7 H L 1 8 H L 1 9 H L 2 0 B U L R B 0 1 R B 0 2 R

B 0 3
S

C 0 1 S

C 0 2 S

C 0 4
S

C 0 5 T

R 0 1 T

R 0 2
T

R 0 3
T

R 0 4
T

R 0 5

Station (North - South)Color (pcu)

Estuarine Sites Tributary Sites 

## A

B

Figure 18. Spatial distribution of mean (+ SE) color (A) and mean (+ SE) total nitrogen (B) in the Halifax River watershed from 1991 to 1999.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management District Appendix C: Halifax River Watershed 

### 110 Total Phosphorus

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

H L 0 1 H L 0 2 H L 0 3 H L 0 4
H L 0 5 H L 0 6 H L 0 7 H L 0 8 H L 0 9 H L 1 0 H L 1 1 H L 1 2 H L 1 3 H L 1 4
H L 1 5 H L 1 6 H L 1 7 H L 1 8 H L 1 9 H L 2 0 B U L R B 0 1 R B 0 2 R B 0 3
S C 0 1 S C 0 2
S C 0 4
S C 0 5
T R 0 1 T R 0 2
T R 0 3
T R 0 4
T R 0 5

Station (North - South)TP (mg/l)

Estuarine Sites Tributary Sites



### Figure 19. Spatial distribution of mean (+ SE) total phosphorus in the Halifax River watershed from 1991 to 1999.Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management Distri ct Appendix D: All NCB Waterways 

### 111 

# APPENDIX D 

# WATER QUALITY:
Comparison of the Water Bodies in the Northern Coastal BasinStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management Distri ct Appendix D: All NCB Waterways 

### 112 Figure 1. Comparison of mean (+ SE) salinity (A) and mean (+ SE) pH (B) in the Northern Coastal Basin project area. Data collected between 1991 and 2000. 

## pH

5.8

6 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8

7 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8

T o l o m a t o - M a t a n z a s

P e l l i c e r Cr

e e k

F l a g l e r C o

. S i t e s

Ha l i f a x R i v e r

Bu l o w C r e e k

T o m o k a R i v e r

Sp r u c e Cr

e e k Ro s e B a y

WaterbodiespH (SI) 

## Salinity

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

T o l o m a t o - M a t a n z a s

P e l l i c e r C r e e k

F l a g l e r C o

. S i t e s

H a l i f a x R i v e r

B u l o w C r e e k

T o m o k a R i v e r

S p r u c e C r e e k

R o s e B a y

WaterbodiesSalinity (ppt) 

### A

B 

## pH

5.8

6 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8

7 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8

T o l o m a t o - M a t a n z a s

P e l l i c e r Cr

e e k

F l a g l e r C o

. S i t e s

Ha l i f a x R i v e r

Bu l o w C r e e k

T o m o k a R i v e r

Sp r u c e Cr

e e k Ro s e B a y

WaterbodiespH (SI) 

## Salinity

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

T o l o m a t o - M a t a n z a s

P e l l i c e r C r e e k

F l a g l e r C o

. S i t e s

H a l i f a x R i v e r

B u l o w C r e e k

T o m o k a R i v e r

S p r u c e C r e e k

R o s e B a y

WaterbodiesSalinity (ppt) 

### A

BStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management Distri ct Appendix D: All NCB Waterways 

### 113 Figure 2. Comparison of mean (+ SE) dissolved oxyge n (A) and mean (+ SE) turbidity (B) in the Northern Coastal Basin pr oject area. Data collected between 1991 and 2000. 

## Dissolv ed Oxygen

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

T o l o m a t o - M a t a n z a s

P e l l i c e r C r e e k

F l a g l e r C o

. S i t e s

H a l i f a x R i v e r

B u l o w C r e e k

T o m o k a R i v e r

S p r u c e C r e e k

R o s e B a y

WaterbodiesDO (mg/L)



## Turbidity

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

T o l o m a t o - M a t a n z a s

Pe l l i c e r Cr

e e k

F l a g l e r C o

. Si t e s

Ha l i f a x R i v e r

Bu l o w C r e e k

T o m o k a Ri v e r

Sp r u c e Cr

e e k

R o s e B a y

WaterbodiesTurbidity (ntu) 

### A

B 

## Dissolv ed Oxygen

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

T o l o m a t o - M a t a n z a s

P e l l i c e r C r e e k

F l a g l e r C o

. S i t e s

H a l i f a x R i v e r

B u l o w C r e e k

T o m o k a R i v e r

S p r u c e C r e e k

R o s e B a y

WaterbodiesDO (mg/L)



## Turbidity

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

T o l o m a t o - M a t a n z a s

Pe l l i c e r Cr

e e k

F l a g l e r C o

. Si t e s

Ha l i f a x R i v e r

Bu l o w C r e e k

T o m o k a Ri v e r

Sp r u c e Cr

e e k

R o s e B a y

WaterbodiesTurbidity (ntu) 

### A

BStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management Distri ct Appendix D: All NCB Waterways 

### 114 Figure 3. Comparison of mean (+ SE) total suspended solids (A) and mean (+ SE) chlorophyll a corrected (B) in the Northern Coastal Basin project area. Data collected between 1991 and 2000. 

## Total Suspended Solids

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

T o l o m a t o - M a t a n z a s

P e l l i c e r C r e e k

F l a g l e r C o

. S i t e s

H a l i f a x R i v e r

B u l o w C r e e k

T o m o k a R i v e r

S p r u c e C r e e k

R o s e B a y

WaterbodiesTSS (mg/L)



## Chlorophyll a Corrected

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

T o l o m a t o - M a t a n z a s

Pe l l i c e r C r e e k

F l a g l e r C o

. Si t e s

H a l i f a x R i v e r

B u l o w C r e e k

T o m o k a R i v e r

S p r u c e Cr

e e k Ro s e B a y

WaterbodiesChlaCorr (μg/L) 

### A

B 

## Total Suspended Solids

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

T o l o m a t o - M a t a n z a s

P e l l i c e r C r e e k

F l a g l e r C o

. S i t e s

H a l i f a x R i v e r

B u l o w C r e e k

T o m o k a R i v e r

S p r u c e C r e e k

R o s e B a y

WaterbodiesTSS (mg/L)



## Chlorophyll a Corrected

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

T o l o m a t o - M a t a n z a s

Pe l l i c e r C r e e k

F l a g l e r C o

. Si t e s

H a l i f a x R i v e r

B u l o w C r e e k

T o m o k a R i v e r

S p r u c e Cr

e e k Ro s e B a y

WaterbodiesChlaCorr (μg/L) 

### A

BStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management Distri ct Appendix D: All NCB Waterways 

### 115 Figure 4. Comparison of mean (+ SE) color (A) and mean (+ SE) total nitrogen (B) in the Northern Coastal Basin project ar ea. Data collected between 1991 and 2000. 

## Total Nitrogen

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4 1.6

T o l o m a t o - M a t a n z a s

P e l l i c e r C r e e k

F l a g l e r C o

. S i t e s

H a l i f a x R i v e r

B u l o w C r e e k

T o m o k a R i v e r

S p r u c e C r e e k

R o s e B a y

WaterbodiesTN (mg/L) 

## Color

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

T o l o m a t o -M a t a n z a s

P e ll i c e r C r e e k

F la g l e r C o

. S i t e s

H a l if a x R i v e r

B u l o w C r e e k

T o m o k a R i v e r

S p r u c e C r e e k

R o s e B a y

WaterbodiesColor (pcu) 

### A

B 

## Total Nitrogen

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4 1.6

T o l o m a t o - M a t a n z a s

P e l l i c e r C r e e k

F l a g l e r C o

. S i t e s

H a l i f a x R i v e r

B u l o w C r e e k

T o m o k a R i v e r

S p r u c e C r e e k

R o s e B a y

WaterbodiesTN (mg/L) 

## Color

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

T o l o m a t o -M a t a n z a s

P e ll i c e r C r e e k

F la g l e r C o

. S i t e s

H a l if a x R i v e r

B u l o w C r e e k

T o m o k a R i v e r

S p r u c e C r e e k

R o s e B a y

WaterbodiesColor (pcu) 

### A

BStatus and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern Coastal Basin

St. Johns River Water Management Distri ct Appendix D: All NCB Waterways 

### 116 Figure 5. Comparison of mean (+ SE) total phosphorus in th e Northern Coastal Basin project area. Data co llected between 1991 and 2000. 

## Total Phosphorus

0 0.05

0.1 0.15

0.2 0.25

0.3 0.35

0.4

T o l o m a t o - M a t a n z a s

P e l l i c e r C r e e k

F l a g l e r C o

. S i t e s

H a l i f a x R i v e r

B u l o w C r e e k

T o m o k a R i v e r

S p r u c e C r e e k

R o s e B a y



### WaterbodiesTP (mg/L)