2006 South Florida Environmental Report Appendix 12-4



# Appendix 12-4: Evaluation of Naples Bay Water Quality and Hydrologic Data

Taylor Engineering, Inc., June 2005

App. 12-4-1Evaluation o f Naples Bay Water Quality and Hydrologic Data

Final Report

June 2005Evaluation o f Naples Bay Water Quality and Hydrologic Data

Prepared for :

South Florida Water Management District

b y :

Taylor Engineering, Inc. 9 000 Cypress Green Drive Jacksonville, FL 33256 (904)731

- 7040

C2004

- 075 June 2005i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Taylor Engineering applied the Southwest Florida Feasibility Study ACCESS database framework to compile water quality data for Naples Bay and adja cent tributary sampling stations and prepare a water quality database. Upon completion of the database, Taylor Engineering evaluated the data for their usefulness in assessing current conditions, trends, and water quality model setup and calibration. Taylo r Engineering also reviewed hydraulic and meteorological data for the project area to determine data availability for setup and calibration of a hydrodynamic model of Naples Bay.

Water quality samples from 19 57 to 2003 came from 1 5 5 stations throughout the bay and tributaries. Data that summarized water quality conditions in the bay area came from 15 0 of the 1 5 5 stations representing several general locations. Lower Naples Bay included all stations south of the US 41 bridge of the bay excluding tributaries. Upper Naples Bay included all stations above that point excluding tributaries. Tributary locations included (from south to north) Lely Canal, Haldeman Creek, Rock Creek, Gordon River, and Golden Gate Canal. The database also contains a set of stations in the Gulf of Mexico.

The data revealed that sampling programs intermittent in period, location, and parameters sampled. Most of the samples date d later than 1985, but the data record became more consistent in space
and time with the advent of current ongoi ng sampling programs. Those efforts, started in 1999 and 2000, provide the most comprehensive and consistent data within the overall period of record.

Water quality data from 53 stations sampled between 1999 and 2003 provided the basis for an
assessment of

current conditions. Water quality conditions of concern in the four areas included both chemical and biological parameters. Dissolved oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, copper, iron, lead, and zinc often exceeded state water quality standards in more than 10% of the sample sets developed from the data for all samples in a location. Nutrient parameters also frequently exceeded nutrient criteria defined for Charlotte Harbor to the north and Indian River Lagoon to the east. Chlorophyll a concentrations and fecal

c oliform counts were often elevated relative to the state or regional estuary criteria.

Examination of the entire record for water quality parameters from lower Naples Bay revealed that the lower bay may episodically ( as recorded in the early 1990s and aga in in 200 1) become much less saline than normal. The most apparent pattern in the data is a decrease in nitrogen since 1990. The data seem to indicate that dissolved oxygen concentrations have decreased slightly given the number ofii

exceedance s measured rec ently. However, this decrease may reflect the greatly increased sampling effort
since 1999.

Upper Naples Bay did not exhibit the same change in nitrogen concentrations as seen in the lower bay. Total phosphorus has decreased since 1990. As in the lower ba y samples, exceedance of dissolved oxygen standards commonly occurred throughout the record.

The less frequently sampled tributaries provide less data for examination. Annual median nitrogen values for Golden Gate Canal, developed from available TN and TKN data, showed a decline in
the 1990s

. T hat decline continued through the rest of the data record. The other tributaries did not show that change and generally exhibited a history of water quality problems.

Available hydraulic data provide sufficient inform ation to develop boundary conditions for a hydrodynamic model. Existing hydraulic information and published tide charts would allow limited model calibration. An intensive calibration effort would require collection of tidal information at a set of
measuri ng stations that would collect both hydraulic and water quality data for 48

- hour periods in wet and dry seasons

. These data collection effort s at key points within the bay would provide the necessary information for intensive model calibration for hydrauli c and water quality parameters. These efforts would target

—on a schedule from every hour to every six hours

—s tage, velocity, and water quality measurements (temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen
, turbidity, nitrogen species [TKN and nitrite+nitrate], total phosphorus and dissolved orthophosphorus, and chlorophyll a

.

The current monthly water quality sampling program conducted in most areas of the bay could provide most of the data necessary to verify water quality simulations. Five additional sampling sites would ensure complete coverage of water quality conditions and dynamics in Naples Bay south to the
confluence of the IWW and Henderson Creek.iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 1
2.0 DATA ORGANIZATION A ND REVIEW

................................ ................................ .............. 2
2.1 Data Sources

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 2
2.2 Database Characteristics

................................ ................................ .............................. 3
2.3 Sample Stations

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 4
2.4 Data Quality

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 5
3.0 CURRENT WATER QUALIT Y CONDITIONS

................................ ................................ ..... 9
3.1 Lower Naples Bay Current Conditions

................................ ................................ ...... 10
3.2 Upper Naples Bay Curren t Water Quality Conditions

................................ ............. 12
3.3 Haldeman Creek Current Water Quality Conditions

................................ ............... 13
3.4 Gordon River Tributaries Current Water Quality Conditions

................................ . 14
3.5 Golden Gate Canal Current Water Quality Conditions

................................ ............ 15
3.6 Lely Canal Current Water Quality Conditions

................................ ......................... 16
3.7 Gulf of Mexico Current Water Quality Conditions

................................ ................... 17
3.8 Summary of Chemical Contaminant Data

................................ ................................ . 18
3.9 Summary of Current Water Quality Conditions in Naples Bay

............................... 19
4.0 WATER QUALITY CONDIT IONS OVER TIME

................................ ............................... 20
4.1 Lower Naples Bay

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 20
4.2 Upper Bay Trend Evaluation

................................ ................................ ..................... 24
4.3 Haldeman Creek

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 27
4.4 Rock Creek

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 29
4.5 Golden Gate Canal

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 30
4.6 Gordon River Tributaries

................................ ................................ .......................... 33
4.7 Lely Canal

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 33
5.0 HYDRAULIC

– WATER QUALITY MODEL ING DATA GAP EVALUAT ION

.............. 36
5.1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 36
5.2 Data Trends and Water Quality Conditions Gap Analysis

................................ ....... 36 5.2.1 Sampling Stations Location and Periods

................................ .............................. 36
5.3 Water Circulation and Water Quality Modeling

................................ ....................... 38
5.3.1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 38 5.3.2 Data for Physical Forcing in the Model

................................ ............................... 38
5.3.3 Model Domain

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 39iv 5.3.4 Model Elevation Data

................................ ................................ ......................... 39 5.3.5 Model Input Data

................................ ................................ ................................ . 40
5.3.6 Available Hydraulic Data

................................ ................................ .................... 41
5.3.7 Recommended Water Quality Data Collection

................................ ..................... 42
5.4 Summary of Recommendations

................................ ................................ ................. 44
REFERENCES
A PPENDIX A Station Names, Locations, and Periods of Record

APPENDIX B Box and Whisker P lots of Individual Station Data Used to Evaluate Current Water

Quality Conditions in Lower Naples Bay

APPENDIX C Box and Whisker Plots of Individual Station Data Used in to Evaluate Current Water

Quality Conditions in Upper Naples Bayv LIST OF FIGURES

Fi gure 2 .1 All Stations in the Naples Bay Database

................................ ................................ ............. 6
Figure 2 .2 Stations Analyzed f or Water Conditions and Trends

................................ ........................... 7
Figure 2 .3 Stations with Unresolved Location (Latitude

– Longitude) Data

................................ ......... 8
Figure 3. 1 Recent (1999

– 2002) Salinity Data, Lower Naples Bay

................................ ................... 11
Figure 4.1 Salinit y Data for the Lower Bay

................................ ................................ ....................... 21
Figure 4.2 All Dissolved Oxygen Values and Daily Average Values for Lower Bay Samples

........... 22
Figure 4.3 Total Nitrogen and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Concentrations, Lower Naples Bay

............... 22
Figure 4.4 Orthophosphate Conce ntrations with Time, Lower Naples Bay

................................ ........ 2 3
Figure 4.5 Chlorophyll a Concentrations and Annual Median Values. Lower Naples Bay

................. 2 3
Figure 4.6 Average Monthly Chlorophyll a Concentration Before and After January 1, 2000, Lower Naples Bay

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 2 4
Figure 4.7 Dissolved Oxygen Concentration Data for Upper Naples Bay

................................ .......... 2 5
Figure 4.8 TN and TKN Data for Upper Naples Bay

................................ ................................ ......... 2 5
Figure 4.9 Total Phosphorus Concentrations and Daily Median TP Values, Upper Naples Bay

......... 26
Figure 4.10 Chlorophyll a Data for Upper Naples Bay Stations

................................ ........................... 2 6
Figure 4.11 Dissolved Oxygen Data for Haldeman Creek

................................ ................................ ... 2 7
Figure 4.12 Dissolved Oxygen with Depth Recent Samples from Haldeman Creek

............................. 2 8
Figure 4.13 Total Phosphorus Data from Haldeman Creek, 1990

- 2002

................................ ............. 2 8
Figure 4.14 Fecal and Total Coliform Counts from Ha ldeman Creek

................................ .................. 2 9
Figure 4.15 Total Nitrogen and TKN Values and Annual Median Values for Golden Gate Canal

........ 31
Figure 4.16 All TP Values and Annual Median TP Values for Golden Gate Canal Stations

................. 31
Figure 4.17 Chlorophyll a Values for Golden Gate Canal Stati ons

................................ ...................... 3 2
Figure 4.18 Dissolved Oxygen Values and Annual Median for Golden Gate Canal Stations

................ 3 2vi

Figure 4.19 Fecal Coliform Counts, Golden Gate Canal Stations

................................ ........................ 3 3
Figure 4.20 Dissolved Oxygen from Lely Canal Stations

................................ ................................ .... 34
Figure 4.21 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen from Lely Canal Stations

................................ ............................ 3 4
Figure 4.22 Total Phosphorus from Lely Canal Stations

................................ ................................ ...... 35
Figure 5.1 Current Sampling Stations and Recommended Station Additions

................................ ..... 37
Figure 5.2 Locations for Water Circulation and Water Qua lity Modeling Data Collection

................. 43

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Categories of Water Quality Parameters Found in the Naples Bay W ater Q uality D atabase

... 4

Table 3.1 Numeric Water Quality Criteria, Class III Mari ne Waters (62

- 302.530 F.A.C.)

..................... 9

Table 3.2 Nutrient Criteria from Janicki (2003) Applicable to Naples Bay

................................ .......... 10

Table 3.3 Summary of Current Water Quality Parameters in Lower Naples Bay

................................ . 11

Table 3.4 Summary of Current Water Quality Parameters in Upper Naples Bay

................................ .. 12

Table 3.5 Summary of Current Water Quality Parameters in Haldeman Creek

................................ .... 13

Table 3.6 A Summary of Current Water Quality Parameters in Gordon River

................................ ........ 14

Table 3.6B Summary of Current Water Quality Parameters at Gordon River Downstream of Weir 951

.. 15

Table 3.7 Summary of Current Water Quality Parameters in Golden Canal

................................ ......... 16

Table 3.8 Summary of

Current Water Quality Parameters in Lely Canal

................................ ............. 17

Table 3. 9 Summary of Current Water Quality Parameters in the Gulf of Mexico

................................ 18

Table 4.1 Summary of Selected Water Quality Data for Rock Creek

................................ ................... 2 9

Table 5.1 Collier County Rainfall Data

................................ ................................ ............................... 41

Table 5.2 Collier County Stage Data. Currently Active Stations are in Bold Type

............................... 42

Table 5.3 Collier County Flow Data

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 431

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) contracted Taylor Engineering to compile a database of long

- term water quality data for Naples Bay. Taylor E ngineering received
instructions to “review the database for its quality, content and applicability and assess its adequacy for hydrodynamic and water quality model calibration and verification” (Scope of Work No. C15989

- WO05

- 05, P rofessional Science and Engineering Services). Further, “if the database is deemed inadequate for development of a comprehensive set of hydrodynamic and water quality models
, an auxiliary data collection program will be recommended .”

This report provides t

his review and recommendations for additional efforts. The report presents the requested analyses in the following order:

• Data organization and review

o A description of the data sources

o A summary of the database information, including sampling site locatio ns, plotted in GIS, with a discussion of data location, range, and quality.

o Database s tatistics

• Condition / Trend Analysis

o Evaluation of the general water quality conditions in Naples B ay in space and time.

• Data Gap Evaluation

o An evaluation of the gaps i n the hydrodynamic and water quality dataset with particular focus on the use of these data in the calibration and verification of a preliminary hydrodynamic and water quality model of the bay.

o Recommendations for data collection efforts sufficient to com plete a dataset useful for calibration and validation of Naples Bay hydrodynamics and water quality models

.2

2.0 DATA ORGANIZATION A ND REVIEW

This section provides a general description of the existing water quality data for the Naples Bay
surface water s ystem including data sources investigated and general descriptions of the database.

2.1 Data Sources

Taylor Engineering contact ed the following organizations identified in the Scope of Services for available hydrodynamic and water quality data associated with Naples Bay:

• Florida Department of Environmental Protection at the Rookery Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve

• City of Naples

• Collier County

• Conservancy of Southwest Florida

• South Florida Water Management District In addition to these sources, Tay lor Engineering downloaded all EPA STORET data for Collier County for January 1 1995 to the present ; downloaded data from the FIU Southeastern Environmental Research Center, (SERC

- FIU) ; and reviewed USGS and NOAA online database s. SFWMD/SERC
C ooperative A g reements #C

- 10244 and #C

- 13178 as well as EPA Agreement #X994621

- 94

- 0 support ed data provided by the FIU Water Quality Monitoring Network

.

Taylor Engineering compared the sample set collected from these sources with a database recently compiled as part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE ) Southwest Florida Feasibility Study (SWFFS). Reduction of the full SWFSS dataset to those data within the project watershed provided a basis for comparing the compiled data and the SWFFS database information. C ompa rison of the two
data sets found that the SWFFS dataset contained the same water quality data Taylor Engineering collected and provided additional metadata not readily available to Taylor Engineering

. Taylor Engineering added data concerning sample locatio n within the Naples Bay watershed and reviewed the resulting database for quality and consistency.3

The dataset provided a row for each parameter value for each station sampled for every sampling
date. Each row included a ll associated details for the param eter. The project database product included the

m etadata for the SWFFS database, provided in separate tables.

The Taylor Engineering data analyst identified a variety of database errors and took several
actions :

• Eliminated from the database sediment data i ncorrectly identified as surface water data

• Eliminated u nflagged, duplicate parameter data from the database when found. (Note: Additional like samples may remain in the database .)

• Removed s tations and parameter rows without data

• Corrected e rrors in latit ude and or longitude data describing station locations

. Note: Plotting all unique latitude longitude pairs revealed multiple locations with the same station code. Comparison of other data associated with the geographic location data ruled out mislabeling

t he station code. The GIS analyst revised the incorrect data to reflect the correct location. Typically, either latitude or longitude was incorrect in the third or fourth decimal place. Some station locations remained questionable due to insufficient inform ation or lack of a parallel station in the likely appropriate location.

2.2 Database Characteristics

The compiled database contains data from 15 5 s tations sampled from 1957 to 2003. Various analysis in the report used data from 150 of the sampling stations (A ppendix A). Data collected in 2003 and 2004 were generally in agency review and un available at the time Taylor Engineering gathered the
data.

The 15 5 stations provided a pproximately 57,000 data from 679 separate parameters (different parameter names)
, whi ch reduced to 185 master parameters based on identified or assigned analy tic method. These 185 master parameters fit into several categories (Table 2. 1). The number of master parameters does not indicate the amount of data associated with a category.4

Ta ble 2.1 Categories of W ater Q uality P arameters F ound in the Naples Bay W ater Q uality D atabase

Parameter Type Description Master Parameters Biological Bacterial counts, chlorophyll data, biochemical

oxygen demand (BOD) 10

Metals 24 metals in one or more forms with concentration

criteria for Florida surface water quality. 34

Mineral Forms of calcium, carbonate, carbon dioxide,

chlorides, magnesium, potassium, manganese, total dissolved solids, salinity, sulfates 28

Nutrient Forms of nitrogen, phosphoru s, and oxygen 21
Physical Turbidity, light, conductivity, acidity, alkalinity,

temperature 10

Radiation Alpha particle measurements (very few samples) 2

Herbicides, Pesticides, Toxic Chemicals A wide variety of pollutants with and without

concentrati on criteria in Florida surface water quality Class III standards 76

Total 181

2.3 Sample Stations

Most of the sampling o f the 155 stations in the database occurred in the last quarter century. The
database includes 26 stations sampled between 195 7 (one station in that decade) and 1990 and 6 stations sampled only in the 1980s
, but these 32 stations provided a minor portion of the total parameter values in
the database. (Appendix A: Station names, periods of record, and location category). Current w ater quality evaluations used data from 53 of the 150 stations. The rest of the stations included those within
the area of interest and without current data . Some of these samples contained data for only a single parameter (such as S treptococcus counts or enterobacteria l counts)
, included only one or two sample dates, or only a few samples providing data only on chemical contaminants. Station period data in Appendix A may mislead the reader , as a station with a one

- year period of record could have been

samp led only once or twice during that time. The remaining stations were mainly in the Gordon Canal system and north of the bay in the extension of the Gordon River.5

The stations (Figure 2.1) sorted into the following location s (different zones within the pro ject area) :

• Lower Naples Bay (Figure 2. 2: The broader bay south of the US 41 bridge crossing)
, 49

stations

• Upper Naples Bay (Figure 2 .2 North of the US 41 bridge to Golden Gate Canal )
, 12
stations

• The tributaries (Figure 2.2 from north to south) Gordon Riv er Extension
, 6 stations adjacent to the weir plus 21 more in the watershed ; Golden Gate Canal
, 7 adjacent to the weir and 41 in the watershed; Rock Creek
, 4 stations; Haldeman Creek
, 7 stations; and Lely Canal
, 4 stations.

• Gulf of Mexico (Figure 2.2 ) 5 s tations.

2.4 Data Quality

The data range widely in quality. More than half the parameter values have no STORET code or Standard Method number. Approximately half the data have no depth information. Thus, most analyses required some assumptions about the data. In the absence of depth information, Taylor Engineering assumed a surface sample. A fraction of the data includes flags for a variety of reasons, most notably unverifiable data, and unknown duplicate status of data. Station latitude and longitude da ta do not always correspond to the station name and description
, problem s corrected when a clear reason (identical station description for a different station name or station identification code) existed . However, stations with questionable location inform ation remain in the database when resolving the issue became impossible (Figure 2.3)

. Database user s should review station locations and descriptions before they access the data.! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !
! !

! ! ! !

!

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

!

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

!

! !

!

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! !

! ! !

! !

!

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!

!

! ! ! !

M I L L E R C A N A L

T A M

I A M

I C A N A L I

- 7 5 C A N A L G O L D E N G A T E M A I N C A N A L C O C O H A T C H E E C A N A L

C R - 9 5 1 C A N A L

C Y P R E S S C A N A L A

I R P O R T R O A D C A N A L

H E N D E R S O N C R E E K C A N A L

L E L Y C A N A L G R E E N C A N A L C O R K S C R E W C A N A L

G O L D E N G A T E C A N A L

C U R R Y C A N A L O R A N G E T R E E C A N A L

H A

L D E M A

N C R E E K C

- 1 C O N N E C T O R C A N A L

G O R D O N R I V E R I - 7 5 C A N A L C O

C O

H A T C

H E E R

I V E R N O R T H N A P L E D R A

I N A G E C A N A

F i g u r e 2

. 1 A l l S t a t i o n s i n t h e N a p l e s B a y D a t a b a s e 

### L E G E N D

R i v e r C r e e k
P r i m a r y C a n a l
T

e r t i a r y C a n a l
L O C A T I O N
! G o r d o n R i v e r
! G o l d e n G a t e C a n a l
! H a l d e m a n C r e e k
! R o c k C r e e k
! L e l y C a n a l
! U p p e r B a y ! L o w e r B a y
! U p p e r T r i b u t a r y
! G u l f
! T r i b u t a r i e s 0 1 2 M i l e s 

# ·

6

## ^

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

^ ^ ^

^

^

^ ^

^

^

^ ^

^ ^ ^

^

^

^ ^ ^

^

^ ^ ^

^

^

^ ^

^ ^ ^

^ ^ ^

^ ^

^

^

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

^ ^ ^

^ ^ ^

^ ^ ^ ^

^ ^

^

^ ^ ^

^ ^

^

^ ^

^

L E L Y

C A N A L G O L D E N G A T E M A I N C A N A L

H A

L D E M A N C R E E K G O R D O N R I V E R

A I R P O R T R O A D C A N A L

F i g u r e 2

. 2 S t a t i o n s A n a l y z e d f o r W a t e r C o n d i t i o n s a n d T r e n d s 

### L E G E N D
C a n a l s
R i v e r C r e e k
P r i m a r y C a n a l
T

e r t i a r y C a n a l



## ^ S t a t i o n s
- T a y l o r A n a l y s i s
0 0

. 5 1 M i l e s 

# ·

7

### D

D D

D D

D

D D

D

D L E L Y

C A N A L H A

L D E M A N C R E E K G O R D O

N

R I V E R

G O L D E N G A T E M A I N C A N A L

F i g u r e 2

. 3 S t a t i o n s w i t h U n r e s o l v e d L o c a t i o n ( L a t i t u d e

- L o n g i t u d e ) D a t a 

### L E G E N D
C a n a l s
R i v e r C r e e k
P r i m a r y C a n a l
T

e r t i a r y C a n a l 

### D S t a t i o n s
- L a t / L o n g E r r o r



### 0 1 2 M i l e s 

# ·

( X ) N u m b e r o f S t a t i o n s a t L o c a t i o n

8 

### ( 3 )

( 3 ) ( 3 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 )9

3.0 CURRENT WATER QUALIT Y CONDITIONS

The summaries of current water quality conditions in Naples Bay for the Lower Bay, Upper Bay, Golden Gate Canal, Haldeman Creek , and Lely Canal considered the available data from 1999

– 2003. Lely Creek sample s from a single station provided the current data for that tributary

. Resumed only recently, s ampling at Rock Creek produced insufficient data to construct a meaningful summary.

Florida numeric water q uality standards (Table 3.1 ) provided the primary means of assessing water quality. Nutrient criteria identified in Janicki (2003) from the Charlotte Harbor Estuary Program (CHNEP) and the Indian River Lagoon SWIM Restoration Program (Table 3.2 ) provided i nsight into
current conditions. Percent exceedance s of numeric criteria provided a measure of impaired water status for the four areas. For fecal coliform counts, the value of 400 counts/100 ml provided the monthly
exceedance measure. I nsufficient numbers of multiple samples within a month at any station precluded an
evaluation of

monthly averages over the period of evaluation

.

Table 3.1 Numeric Water Quality Criteria, Class III Marine Waters (62

- 302.530 F.A.C.)

Parameter Class III Predominantly Marine Wat ers Aluminum (mg/L) = 1.5 Arsenic ( μ g/L) = 50 Fecal Coliforms (#/100 ml) = 400 monthly, 800 maximum Total Coliforms (#/100 ml) = 1000 monthly, 2400 maximum Cadmium ( μ g/L) = 9.3 Chromium (hexavalent) = 50 Copper ( μ g/L) = 50 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) = 4 .0 (marine waters) = 5.0 (freshwater) Iron (mg/L) = 0.3 Lead ( μ g/L) = 8.5 Phosphorus (mg/L) = 0.1 Turbidity (NTU) =29 above natural background Zinc ( μ g/L) = 86

Freshwater dissolved oxygen criterion (D.O. = 5.0 mg/L) applied to tributary samplin g station
data upstream of weirs.10 Table 3.2 Nutrient

Criteria from Janicki (2003) applicable to Naples Bay

CRITERIA Source TP

(mg/L) TN

(mg/L) Chlor a (ug/L) Secchi Disk depth (m) Turbidity

(NTU) CHNEP* 0.01 0.40 2.1 0.70 2.2 IRL** 0.053 0.692 3.1 1. 44 2.84

*Data for 25 th

percentile of the data for a parameter **Not

- to

- exceed value

Appendix B provides box and whisker plots of key water quality variables from individual lower bay stations for the current conditions period (1999

– 2002).

3.1 Lower Naple s Bay Current Conditions

The southern, wider portion of Naples Bay show e d elevated levels of many parameters and
exceedance s of water quality standards for several metals and fecal coliform maximum value s . While typically near marine salinity conditions, the bay may experience very low salinity conditions during the summer rainy season. (Table 3.3 : Salinity minimum value) The most recent low salinity event recorded in the database occurred in summer 2001 (Figure 3. 1 ). Turbidity was typically low, and media n secchi disk depth was 1.2 m. The lower bay data exceeded acceptable CHNEP water quality parameters for TP, chlorophyll a, and turbidity. A large fraction or a majority of the copper, iron, lead, and zinc samples exceeded water quality standards (Table 3. 3 ). Lower Bay sample nutrient values at the 75 th percentile and
above exceeded all IRL nutrient criteria.11 Table 3.3 Summary of Current Water Quality Parameters in Lower Naples Bay
Lower Naples Bay Parameter N Min 25th % Mean Median 75th % Max % Exc Salinity (% o ) 277 0.48 30.20 31.34 34.10 35.60 41.50 N/A Temperature ( o C) 267 5.30 22.30 25.45 26.20 29.30 32.40 N/A Turbidity (NTU) 166 0.30 2.30 4.60 3.20 5.00 30.40 N/A Secchi (m) 108 0.40 0.90 1.92 1.20 2.54 8.86 N/A DO (mg/l) 267 1.50 4.50 5.75 5.60 6.70 19.40 16.1 TP (mg/l) 151 0.0018 0.0313 0.0445 0.0389 0.0525 0.1100 2.0 SRP (mg/l) 124 0.0003 0.0031 0.0088 0.0061 0.0111 0.0530 N/A TN (mg/l) 124 0.022 0.190 0.339 0.295 0.415 1.550 N/A NH4 (mg/l) 120 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.03 5.01 N/A Chlor A (mg/l) 201 0.15 2.70 6.34 4.80 8.00 87.00 N/A Fecal (CFU/100 ml) 103 1 3 147 27 130 3200 3.9 TSS (mg/l) 39 1.00 6.00 15.72 8.40 18.20 76.00 N/A Arsenic (μg/l) 40 0.50 4.30 4.05 5.00 5.00 5.00 0 Cadmium (μg/l) 42 0.05 0.33 2.73 2.50 2. 50 12.00 4.8 Chromium (μg/l) 42 1.0 1.0 4.4 2.5 6.0 22.0 0 Copper (μg/l) 42 0.5 2.2 5.9 5.0 5.0 47.0 66.7 Iron (mg/l) 10 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.5 2.5 90.0 Lead (μg/l) 42 0.5 1.4 6.9 2.5 13.0 26.0 35.7 Zinc (μg/l) 42 5.0 5.0 15.5 5.0 10.0 60.0 28.6

Current Salinity Record Lower Naples Bay

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Jul-98 Feb-99 Aug-99 Mar-00 Oct-00 Apr-01 Nov-01 May-02 Dec-02 Jun-03 DateSalinity (ppt)

Figure 3.1 Recent (1999

– 2002) Salinity Data, Lower Naples Bay12

3.2 Upper Naples Bay Current Water Quality Conditions

Fewer data for current conditions in upper Naples Bay (Table 3.4 ) reflected sampling of fewer stations over the period and shorter periods of record at individual stations. Relative to the lower bay , t he

u pper bay is less saline, and has slightly lower water clarity (as indicated by secchi disk depth). H owever, the upper b ay also showed slightly lower average turbidity. TP and chlorophyll a levels are higher and 18% of TP samples exceeded 0.1 mg/L. Fecal co liform counts also exceeded standards more frequently in the upper bay. Dissolved oxygen exceedance s were infrequent, but present. Metal concentrations and
exceedance s in the upper b ay were similar in frequency to those in the lower bay. Again, water quali ty conditions exceed CHNEP and IRL standards, and metal exceedance s suggest that a bay area impaired with respect to copper, iron, and lead

.

Table 3. 4 Summary of Current Water Quality Parameters in Upper Naples Bay

Upper Naples bay Parameter N Mi n 25th % Mean Median 75th % Max % Exc Salinity (% o ) 27 0.48 10.54 21.51 27.59 30.65 34.85 N/A Temperature ( o C) 27 19.80 24.60 26.58 26.80 29.00 32.30 N/A Turbidity (NTU) 39 1.60 2.20 3.20 2.67 3.37 9.80 N/A Secchi (m) 27 0.45 0.85 0.99 1.00 1.10 1.50 N /A DO (mg/l) 27 3.04 4.26 5.50 5.64 6.22 8.55 11.1 TP (mg/l) 22 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.09 0.20 18.2 SRP (mg/l) 27 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.04 0.17 0.22 N/A TN (mg/l) 26 0.14 0.49 0.68 0.63 0.87 1.52 N/A NH4 (mg/l) 15 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.20 N/A Chlor A (mg/l) 39 1.50 3.20 8.20 5.30 11.70 25.10 N/A Fecal (CFU/100 ml) 39 3 60 269 142 220 3200 7.7 TSS (mg/l) 23 0.80 1.60 6.49 4.00 12.20 16.20 N/A Arsenic (μg/l) 23 0.50 5.00 4.17 5.00 5.00 5.00 0 Cadmium (μg/l) 24 0.05 1.50 2.84 2.50 2.50 14.00 8.3 Chro mium (μg/l) 24 1.00 1.75 4.04 2.50 3.75 13.00 0 Copper (μg/l) 24 0.50 2.55 4.03 5.00 5.00 8.00 62.5 Iron (mg/l) 5 0.29 0.32 0.83 0.46 0.53 2.53 80.0 Lead (μg/l) 24 0.50 1.75 4.98 2.50 6.00 24.00 16.7 Zinc (μg/l) 24 5 5 16 5 15 60 0.0

Appendix C provi des box and whisker plots for salinity, turbidity, nutrients, and fecal coliform
data from upper Naples Bay stations

.13

3.3 Haldeman Creek Current Water Quality Conditions

Haldeman Creek is tidal in the reaches sampled. S alinit y levels during winter period s approached
marine conditions . The water contain ed relatively low nutrient (TP, TN, NH4) concentrations, but also
showed dissolved oxygen exceedance s sufficient to suggest impairment for this parameter. Chlorophyll a
statistics were similar to those in u p per Naples Bay and were higher than in lower Naples Bay
, the receiving waters of Haldeman Creek. Maximum fecal coliform counts exceed ed state standards. Copper and iron concentrations most often exceeded water quality standards suggesting impairment of Hal deman Creek with respect to those two parameters.

Table 3. 5 Summary of Current Water Quality Parameters in Haldeman Creek

Haldeman Creek Parameter N Min 25th % Mean Median 75th % Max % Exc Salinity (% o ) 40 0.27 20.30 24.41 30.03 32.59 36.40 N/A Temperature ( o C) 40 18.80 24.45 26.23 27.00 29.10 32.30 N/A Turbidity (NTU) 34 0.90 1.60 2.73 2.41 3.55 5.99 N/A Secchi (m) 40 0.60 0.95 1.09 1.18 1.20 1.40 N/A DO (mg/l) 40 2.45 3.67 4.41 4.21 5.18 7.84 45 TP (mg/l) 16 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.07 0 SRP (mg/l) 24 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.10 N/A TN (mg/l) 20 0.14 0.31 0.59 0.71 0.81 1.05 N/A NH4 (mg/l) 10 0.02 0.02 0.09 0.08 0.16 0.19 N/A Chlor A (mg/l) 34 1.50 4.80 8.21 7.89 11.00 21.90 N/A Fecal (CFU/100 ml) 34 2 50 330 330 420 1540 5.9 TSS (mg/l) 12 1.80 4.60 8.80 8.10 13.15 17.80 N/A Arsenic (μg/l) 18 0.5 3.4 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 0 Cadmium (μg/l) 19 0.1 0.1 1.9 2.5 2.5 6.0 0 Chromium (μg/l) 19 1.0 1.0 3.4 2.5 2.5 10.0 0 Copper (μg/l) 19 0.5 5.0 13.6 5.0 8.4 150.0 78.9 Iron (mg/l) 6 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.7 83.3 Lead (μg/l) N/A Zinc (μg/l) 19 5.00 5.00 17.37 5.00 30.00 60.00 014

3.4 Gordon River Tributaries Current Water Quality Conditions

Water quality in the Gordon River above the weir showed low concentrations of dissolved

oxy gen

. All of the samples exceeded ( were lower than) the 5 mg D.O. /L state fresh wate r quality standard (Table 3.6

A )

. Secchi disk depth ranged from 0.5 m to 1.5 m, averaging about 1.1 meter

. All other parameters remained within the state water quality stand ards.

Table 3. 6 A Summary of Current Water Quality Parameters Gordon River above Weir 951

Gordon River Above Weir 951
Parameter N Min 25th % Mean Median 75th % Max % Exc Salinity (% o ) Temperature ( o C) 6 26.27 27.18 27.50 27.35 27.99 28. 85 N/A Turbidity (NTU) Secchi (m) 5 0.50 1.10 1.16 1.30 1.40 1.50 N/A DO (mg/l) 6 1.35 2.66 3.04 2.92 3.46 4.95 100 TP (mg/l) 7 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.08 0 SRP (mg/l) 6 0.03 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.15 N/A TN (mg/l) 7 0.96 1.12 1.47 1.26 1.4 7 2.88 N/A NH4 (mg/l) 6 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.12 N/A Chlor A (mg/l) 4 0.85 0.85 14.43 13.43 28.00 30.00 N/A Fecal (CFU/100 ml) TSS (mg/l) Arsenic (μg/l) 4 7.00 7.00 8.45 7.40 9.90 12.00 0 Cadmium (μg/l) Chromium (μg/l) 12 1.00 1.00 3.30 2.00 6.40 7.40 N/D* Copper (μg/l) 6 2.80 5.90 8.78 7.50 13.00 16 N/D* Iron (mg/l) Lead (μg/l) 6 0.25 5.00 7.04 7.50 10.00 12.00 N/D* Zi nc (μg/l) 6 1.00 1.00 5.58 4.65 6.80 15.40 N/D* * N/D No Alkalinity Data Available to Calculate Exceedance s

Water quality in the Gordon River location downstream of the weir (Table 3.6 B ) was similar in several respects to the upper bay quality. The salinity ranged from less than 1 to 36 ppt. Turbidity was typically low, with a maximum of 6 NTU. Secchi disk depth ranged from 0.55 m to 1.6 m, averaging
about 1.1 meter. Almost 89% of the dissolved oxygen data exceeded (lower than) the 4 mg D.O. /L Class
III marine water standard. Total phosphorus exceeded 0.1 mg/L in half the samples. As at other locations15

in Naples Bay, copper and iron concentrations exceeded standards sufficiently to consider the area under impaired waters criteria.

Table 3.6 B Summar y of Current Water Quality Parameters at Gordon River Downstream of Weir 951

Gordon River Downstream Weir 951
Parameter N Min 25th % Mean Median 75th % Max % Exc Salinity (% o ) 35 0.42 1.45 13.40 15.11 22.91 30.60 N/A Temperature ( o C) 35 19.70 23.6 0 25.85 26.40 27.90 31.70 N/A Turbidity (NTU) 21 0.80 1.20 1.74 1.50 1.90 4.50 N/A Secchi (m) 35 0.55 1.00 1.12 1.10 1.25 1.60 N/A DO (mg/l) 35 0.92 1.72 3.13 2.41 3.26 16.10 88.6 TP (mg/l) 4 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.14 50.0 SRP (mg/l) 5 0.04 0.05 0 .07 0.08 0.08 0.08 N/A TN (mg/l) 8 0.65 0.76 0.90 0.88 1.08 1.15 N/A NH4 (mg/l) 2 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 N/A Chlor A (mg/l) 21 1.50 1.50 8.36 5.90 8.50 27.80 N/A Fecal (CFU/100 ml) 21 19 71 186 116 180 840 4.8 TSS (mg/l) 5 1.00 1.00 1.20 1.00 1 .00 2.00 N/A Arsenic (μg/l) 5 0.50 0.50 2.31 2.40 3.67 4.50 0 Cadmium (μg/l) 6 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.10 0.10 0 Chromium (μg/l) 6 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 Copper (μg/l) 6 0.50 0.50 1.72 1.50 2.20 4 16.7 Iron (mg/l) 5 0.06 0.20 0.22 0.23 0.26 0.36 20.0 Lead ( μg/l) 6 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0 Zinc (μg/l) 6 10.00 10.00 26.67 30.00 40.00 40.00 0

3.5 Golden Gate Canal Current Water Quality Conditions

Water quality conditions in Golden Gate Canal (Table 3.7) varied more than in the upper bay , the
canal’s receiving water

. Sampling locations included both tailwater and headwater, which influenced the range of salinity, which was very low west of the weir where much of the sampling occurred. Turbidity
, although usually low
, included a few values several times greater than the typical condition. Water clarity ( secchi disk depth) was similar to that in the upper bay locations. Dissolved oxygen levels were indicative of impaired water conditions. Elevated total phosphorus concentrations
, typically above 0.1 mg/ L , might likely have a negative effect on downstream water quality. Total nitrogen and ammonium ion remained within relatively narrow ranges of concentration
, but TN concentrations were higher than CHNEP and16

IRL acceptable levels. As with most other location s in the bay, more than 10% of the copper and iron concentration data exceeded state water quality criteria for Class III marine waters.

Table 3. 7 Summary of Current Water Quality Parameters in Golden Gate Canal D ownstream from
the Golden Gate Weir

Golden Gate Canal Parameter N Min 25th % Mean Median 75th % Max % Exc Salinity (% o ) 88 0.00 0.34 7.74 0.37 19.06 31.97 N/A Temperature ( o C) 151 18.10 23.10 25.24 25.00 23.10 33.10 N/A Turbidity (NTU) 92 0.70 1.50 2.42 2.10 2.90 14.20 N/A Secchi (m) 134 0.15 1.30 1.55 1.55 1.75 6.00 N/A DO (mg/l) 151 0.60 4.61 5.48 5.46 6.60 14.00 17.9 TP (mg/l) 57 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.10 0 SRP (mg/l) 46 0.002 0.006 0.012 0.010 0.02 0.04 N/A TN (mg/l) 66 0.12 0.66 0.75 0.74 0.84 1.14 N/A NH4 (mg/l) 57 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.21 N/A Chlor A (mg/l) 54 1.10 1.50 5.25 3.20 5.90 48.60 N/A Fecal (CFU/100 ml) 92 2 16 85 31 69 1900 2.2 TSS (mg/l) 66 1.00 4.00 4.56 4.00 4.00 24.00 N/A Arsenic (μg/l) 11 0.50 0.50 1.99 1.50 3.80 4.28 0 Cadmium (μg/l) 12 0.05 0. 05 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.27 0 Chromium (μg/l) 12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 Copper (μg/l) 12 0.50 0.50 0.80 0.50 0.80 2.20 0 Iron (mg/l) 18 0.25 0.50 2.78 0.50 5.00 12.00 44.4 Lead (μg/l) 12 0.50 0.50 0.66 0.50 0.50 2.37 0 Zinc (μg/l) 12 10.00 10.00 1 7.50 20.00 20.00 30.00 0

3.6 Lely Canal Current Water Quality Conditions

Water quality conditions in Lely Canal varied by sample station location (Table 3.8) . Sampling
locations for current condition s included one station at the northern section of the canal . This fact explains the low salinity values measured

— between 0.09 % o and 14.74 % o . Water clarity ( secchi disk depth) was
lower that the lower

bay locations. Dissolved oxygen levels were indicative of impaired water conditions

—54 % of the measureme nts were below 5 mg/ l. Elevated total phosphorus concentrations, typically above 0.1 mg/L, could have a negative effect on downstream water quality

. Metal concentration s never exceeded state water quality criteria for Class III fresh waters.17 Table 3.8 Sum mary of Current Water Quality Parameters in Lely Canal

Lely Canal Parameter N Min 25th % Mean Median 75th % Max % Exc Salinity (% o ) 39 0.09 0.32 0.98 0.36 0.38 14.74 N/A Temperature ( o C) 39 18.10 23.40 26.02 26.50 29.10 32.00 N/A Turbidity (NTU

) 41 0.60 1.30 2.09 1.80 2.40 7.50 N/A Secchi (m) 35 0.30 0.70 0.97 0.90 1.20 1.60 N/A DO (mg/l) 31 2.44 3.83 5.00 4.92 5.95 8.83 54.8 TP (mg/l) 25 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.17 4.0 SRP (mg/l) 12 0.005 0.005 0.013 0.007 0.01 0.07 N/A TN (mg/l) 25 0.02 0.55 0.61 0.70 0.80 1.02 N/A NH4 (mg/l) 22 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.07 0.21 N/A Chlor A (mg/l) 24 3.20 3.70 7.67 4.80 10.40 20.30 N/A Fecal (CFU/100 ml) 26 23 62 142 94 143 700 0 TSS (mg/l) 7 2.00 2.00 4.14 4.00 6.00 9.00 N/A Arsenic (μg/l) 8 1.70 1.87 2.63 2.49 3.31 4.00 0 Cadmium (μg/l) Chromium (μg/l) 1 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 0 Copper (μg/l) 7 1.90 2.00 2.94 3.20 3.60 4.10 0 Iron (mg/l) 12 0.19 0.27 0.41 0.36 0.54 0.77 0 Lead (μg/l) 1 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0. 54 0 Zinc (μg/l) 2 10.00 10.00 14.00 14.00 18.00 18.00 0

3. 7 Gulf of Mexico Current Water Quality Conditions

Current samples from Gulf of Mexico came primarily from a station directly adjacent to Gordon
Pass . The data (Table 3.9) showed the effect of N aples Bay water on water quality at the station . Salinity, typically marine (35 ppt) fell as low as 29 ppt during the three

- year period of evaluation. Elevated

m aximum values of nutrients, chlorophyll a, and fecal coliform counts reflected the occasional i mpact of the bay on the nearshore Gulf Waters. Lead concentrations, measured nine times, exceeded the state water quality standard in six of the nine samples.18 Table 3. 9 Summary of Current Water Quality Parameters in the Gulf of Mexico

Gulf of Mexico Parameter N Min 25th % Mean Median 75th % Max % Exc Salinity (% o ) 102 29.20 34.30 35.14 35.20 36.30 37.90 N/A Temperature ( o C) 94 7.50 21.40 25.03 25.60 29.40 31.50 N/A Turbidity (NTU) 55 0.30 1.10 3.51 2.00 3.30 25.10 N/A Secchi (m) N/A D O (mg/l) 94 2.10 5.50 6.36 6.20 6.90 16.80 2.1 TP (mg/l) 50 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.09 0 SRP (mg/l) 62 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 N/A TN (mg/l) 32 0.05 0.15 0.21 0.18 0.27 0.51 N/A NH4 (mg/l) 54 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.20 N/A Chlor A (mg/l) 5 8 0.40 1.30 2.98 2.50 3.60 11.90 N/A Fecal (CFU/100 ml) 254 1 2 23 4 12 1500 0.8 TSS (mg/l) 9 5.20 5.60 18.61 5.70 43.00 46.20 N/A Arsenic (μg/l) 9 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 Cadmium (μg/l) 9 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 Chromium (μg/l) 9 2.5 2.5 7.0 2.5 13 19.0 0 C opper (μg/l) 9 0.5 5 4.6 5 5 10.0 0 Iron (mg/l) Lead (μg/l) 9 3 8 15.7 18 23 34 66.7 Zinc (μg/l) 9 5 5 5 5 5 5 0

3. 8 Summary of Chemical Contaminant Data

Data for a large number of chemical contaminants reside in the database

. Collection of t he majority of the chemical contaminant (industrial chemicals, herbicides, and pesticides) data occurred in
the 1970s. Data from a 1996 and 1997 C ity of Naples effort to measure chemical contaminant s in the waters of the bay and tributaries sampling resid e in the database. The results of this sampling effort and
those of more recent sampling did not usually exceed detection limits and did not show chemical
contamination as a major concern where tested. In 2002, s ampling of Townsend Canal near the Berry
Gro ve Pump Station found a variety of chemical contaminants. Few of the detected compounds have
numeric water quality standard concentrations , but many have recognized toxicity
, a concern if found in
the potable water pumped by the Berry Grove Station

.19

3. 9 Summary of Current Water Quality Conditions in Naples Bay

Water quality data from Naples Bay and its tributaries show ed several signs of water quality impairment. Dissolved oxygen reach ed levels of concern in all areas of the bay. One or more of the metals

— copper, iron, zinc, and lead concentrations

— exceed ed water quality standards in the several locations
evaluated within the bay and in the Gulf of Mexico. Slightly elevated phosphorus levels in lower Naples Bay increased in upper Naples Bay and in Gold en Gate Canal, the main freshwater discharge to the bay.
Greater than 10% of the total samples collected in each location except the Gulf of Mexico exceeded state dissolved oxygen standards

. Nitrogen levels in the lower bay were close to CHNEP and IRL wate r quality criteria, but the upper bay concentrations were higher and clearly exceeded those standards. Chlorophyll a values in all locations typically (as mean or median value) exceeded criteria developed for Charlotte
H arbor and the Indian River Lagoon.20

4.0 WATER QUALITY CONDIT IONS OVER TIME

Water quality data were minimally sufficient to provide a picture of current and past water quality
conditions . While the database contained a large number of sites (Figure 1 .1 )
, the relatively incomplete
distributio n of the sampling stations in space and time and the inconsistent collection of key parameter data limited the strength of conclusions drawn from the dataset. A few single sampling station s generated data sufficient to develop a trend analysis as long as f ive years. Therefore, Taylor Engineering approached analysis of potential trends by plotting daily and median values of all available data for comparison. Collection of multiple samples of some parameters such as dissolved oxygen often occurred

o n the same day. Daily averages of those values plotted with the raw data provided a better understanding of the typical condition at those sites.

T he water quality period for any particular parameter with relatively large numbers of data typically extended back no f urther than the late 1980s. The historic analysis includes s amples from the
1970s. Visual examination of superimposed individual and annual median parameter values provided
heuristic trend assessment. The trend assessment focuses on traditional water quali ty parameters: salinity, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, total nutrients, chlorophyll a, and coliform counts . However, the discussions of water quality trend in each lo cation include only present parameter data of particular interest. N ot all parameters provi ded key information in any particular location

.

4.1 Lower Naples Bay

Trends in water quality became most apparent in lo wer Naples Bay . Salinity data suggest ed that episodes of low salinity have occurred in the lower bay since the late 1980s (Compare Figur e 4.1
, available historic salinity data, to Figure 3. 1 , recent salinity data from the lower bay). Turbidity, while occasionally very high, remained relatively consistent for the period of record. Multiple dissolved oxygen
measurements occurred within a 24

- hour period. Figure 4.2 provides all values and daily average values.
D.O. values below 4.0 mg/L increased in recent years, but little difference occurred in daily average
values i n the data from 1988 to 1994 (Figure 4.2).

Total nitrogen (TN or TKN) conce ntrations (Figure 4.3) decreased significantly (statistically significant trend line slope) over the period of record (1988

– 2002). Changes in total phosphorus levels did not accompany c

hanges in TN

. Orthophosphate concentrations in the 1970s (Figure 4.4) may have been higher than current levels, but insufficient data exist between that time and the present to assess change. Chlorophyll a concentrations varied in the same range throughout the data record. Annual median21

concentrations of the past five years suggest lower chlorophyll a levels, but only sampling since 2000
included all months of each year. Monthly average chlorophyll a concentrations for the period s before and since January 1
, 2000 (Figure 4.5) suggest that recent chlorophyll a levels were les s variable and lower
than in the previous period (Figure 4.6 : average month = 6 mg/m 3 after 2000 and 8 mg/m 3 before that time)

. However, regular monthly sampling in recent years has produced as many samples as in the rest of the remaining data record . I n t he data set for the period before 2000
, data from two month s (April and August) comprise d

45% of the data. Data from a dditional years will determine whether the current data reflect a long

- term trend or a short

- term condition.

The database provided fecal a nd total coliforms data dating to 1971. The few data available comprised values that were generally close to current sample values. Recent (1999

— 2002) samples however, included higher total coliform counts than previously recorded.

Historic Salinity Data

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Aug-87 Dec-88 May-90 Sep-91 Jan-93 Jun-94 Oct-95 Mar-97 DateSalinity (ppt)

Figure 4.1 Salinity Data for the L ower Bay 1988

– 1997.22 D.O. Values - Lower Bay

0 5 10 15 20

Jan-78 Oct-80 Jul-83 Mar-86 Dec-88 Sep-91 Jun-94 Mar-97 Dec-99 Sep-02 Datemg D.O. / L D.O. Values Average Daily D.O.

Figure 4.2 All Dissolved Oxygen Values and Daily Average Values for Lower Bay Samples

TN Lower Bay

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Aug-87 May-90 Jan-93 Oct-95 Jul-98 Apr-01 Jan-04 Datemg TN or TKN / L TN or TKN Values

Annual Median

Figure 4.3 Total Nitrogen and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Concentrations, Lower Naples Bay.23 Orthophosphate, Lower Bay

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Mar-71 Aug-76 Feb-82 Aug-87 Jan-93 Jul-98 Jan-04 Datemg PO4 as P / L

Figure 4.4 Orthophosphate Concentrati ons with Time, Lower Naples Bay

Chlorophyll a Lower Bay

0 25 50 75 100

Aug-87 May-90 Jan-93 Oct-95 Jul-98 Apr-01 Jan-04 Datemg Chlor a / m3 Chlor a Values
Annual Median

Figure 4.5 .Chlorophyll a C oncentration Data and Annual Median Values
, Lower Naples Bay24 Average Monthly Chlorophyll a

0 5 10 15 20 25JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
Monthmg Chlor a / m3 2000+ Before 2000

Figure 4.6 Average Monthly Chlorophyll a Concentrations b efore and a fter January 1 2000
, Lower Naples Bay

4.2 Upper Bay Trend Eval uation

Upper bay data occurred in three clusters: a small dataset from the early 1970s, a second, larger set of samples collected between 1988 and 1994, and data from 1997 to the present. Regular m onthly sampling did not begin until the fall of 2000. The s alinity data between 1988 and 1994 show ed the same range as the current (1999

– 2002) dataset. No patterns appeared in salinity, turbidity, or coliform datasets. Dissolved oxygen concentrations lower than 4.0 mg/L (Figure 4.7) did not decrease greatly
betw een the early 1990s and the current period, although both periods had lower percent exceedance s than data from the beginning of the record ( Figure 4.7 )

.

Nitrogen data consisted primarily of sets of multiple samples within a 24

- hour period , separated by mon ths or years. Combining TN and TKN data provide d the largest set of data for review. The available data, plotted with daily average values (Figure 4.8)
, suggest no pattern of change in
concentrations over time.

The phosphorus data collected since early 19 92 show a smaller range of values than the previous period of data (Figure 4.9). The data may represent a long

- term improvement in water quality for this25

parameter, but phosphorus in the upper bay has yet to meet the state water quality criterion for phosp horus

. Chlorophyll a concentration data showed no clear pattern of change (figure 4.10).

Dissolved Oxygen Upper Bay

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Mar-71 Aug-76 Feb-82 Aug-87 Jan-93 Jul-98 Jan-04 Datemg D.O. / L

Figure 4.7 Dissolved Oxygen Concentration Data for Upper Naples Bay

TN or TKN, Upper Bay

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

08/11/87 05/07/90 01/31/93 10/28/95 07/24/98 04/19/01 01/14/04 Datemg TN or TKN / L All Values
Daily Average Values

Figure 4.8 TN and TKN D ata for Upper Naples Bay26 Total Phosphorus Upper Bay

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Mar-71 Aug-76 Feb-82 Aug-87 Jan-93 Jul-98 Jan-04 Datemg TP / L All Values Daily AVerage Values

Figure 4.9 Phosphorus C oncentration D ata and D aily A verage V alues

Chlorophyll a Upper Bay

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00

8/11/1987 5/7/1990 1/31/1993 10/28/1995 7/24/1998 4/19/2001 1/14/2004 Datemg Chlorophyll a / m3 All Values Average Daily Values

Figure 4.10 Chlorophyll a D ata for Upper Naples Bay27

4.3 Haldeman Creek

Haldeman Creek sampling has occurred several times each year since 1989

. The current sampling effort on the creek began in 1999. Sampling, historically intermitt ent, now occurs monthly.

Historically, salinity values have ranged from less than 1 to over 30 ppt. Turbidity, typically less than 10 units, has risen as high as 60 NTU. Dissolved o xygen has often fallen below 4 mg /L through the period of record (Figure 4.11) . Depth of measurement varied, but did not show a strong influence on the
measured dissolved oxygen level (Figure 4.12) . Annual median data suggest a recent decline in typical dissolved oxygen concentrations compared to the first half of the 1990s.

T N values varied little over the 12

- year period of record
, and no trend appeared in the data. Total phosphorus concentrations may have fallen since the early 1990s and
, with few exceptions,
concentrations have remained below 100 μ g/L (Figure 4.13)

.

Fecal co liform counts since 1989 exceeded 400 counts/100 ml in 18% of the samples. similar
exceed a nces occurred across the period of record, (Figure 4.14)

.

Dissolved Oxygen Haldeman Creek

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Aug-72 Feb-78 Aug-83 Feb-89 Jul-94 Jan-00 Jul-05 Datemg D.O. / L D.O. Values Annual Median

Figure 4. 11 Dissolved Oxygen data for Haldeman Creek28 D.O. with Depth Haldeman Creek (2000 - 2002)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Depth (m)mg D.O. / L

Figure 4. 12 Dissolved Oxygen with Depth, from Hald eman Creek

TP Haldeman Creek

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

May-90 Sep-91 Jan-93 Jun-94 Oct-95 Mar-97 Jul-98 Dec-99 Apr-01 Sep-02 Jan-04 Datemg TP / L TP Values

Annual Median

Figure 4. 13 Total Phosphorus Data for Haldeman Creek 1990

– 200229 Fecal and Total Coliforms Haldeman Creek

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Oct-89 Jul-92 Apr-95 Jan-98 Oct-00 Jun-03 DateCounts / 100 ml

Fecal Coliforms Total Coliforms

Figure 4. 14 Fecal and Total Coliform Counts from Haldeman Creek

4.4 Rock Creek

The sparse sampling record , the result of an inconsistent sampling program, includes 32 samples
with 10 dates before 1990 and 22 dates between 1990 and 1997. The available data (Table 4.1) indicate relatively low water quality: D issolved oxygen less than 4.0 mg/L occurred in 45% of the samples collected over the 10 years of available data. Nutrient concentrations were relatively high through the period, and maximum values for the parameters shown in Table 4.1 all indicate affected conditions.

Table 4.1 Summary of Selected Water Quality Data for Rock Creek

Parameter n Min 25th % Median Mean 75th% Max salinity 54.00 0.00 0.00 2.25 9.55 17.95 32.90 D.O. 70.00 0.55 2.73 4.40 4.30 6.00 9.15 Turbidity 73.00 0.30 1.40 2.40 2.73 3.05 13.19 TP 35.00 0.02 0.06 0.10 0.13 0.18 0.33 TN 51.00 0.10 0.61 0.70 1.46 0.98 32.00 NH4 55.00 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.10 0.16 0.37 Chlor a 40.00 0.17 2.10 5.30 8.31 8.78 58.0030

4.5 Golden Gate Canal

The Golden Gate Ca nal data set shows two breaks in the record of data since the early 1970s. Little sampling occurred in the late 1980s and between 1992 and 1996. Data from the larger system
, combined with data near the weir
, provided data for analysis of historic condition s. Across the period of record, salinity varied seasonally and with depth. Values near zero between June and November increased to near marine conditions (30 ppt) during winter and spring months. Turbidity remained low in the data record, with a median val ue of 2.2 NTU and a maximum value of 12 NTU between 1978 and 2002.

More frequent

ly collected Total Nitrogen (TN)

- and or Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN ) data provided a large data record for review. TN and TKN data collected between 1996 and 2002 showed
low er annual median values than the preceding 20 years of data (Figure 4.15) . Little change in total phosphorus levels occurred (Figure 4.16) , but greater numbers of high chlorophyll a values (> 10 mg /

m 3 ) have occurred over the past 10 years compared to ear lier data (Figure 4.17)

.

Dissolved oxygen levels (Figure 4.18) have exceeded the water quality criterion (4 mg/L) throughout the period of record. Data before 1998 indicate either no sample depth s or record depth s of
“0 ”, indicating a surface sample. Diss olved oxygen data collected deeper in the water column (0.1 to 2.7 m) are included after that point. A correlation of 0.2 between depth and dissolved oxygen occur for that period. A difference in recent dissolved oxygen data is the occurrence of extremely high oxygen concentrations, correlated with high chlorophyll a values.

Fecal coliform counts (Figure 4.19) exceeded water quality standards (>400 counts) a number of times across the period of record. However, data since 1995 include most of the values gr eater than 1
, 000 counts. The faction of samples exceeding 400 counts/100 ml increased in recent years. More frequent sampling may provide

clear evidence of a water quality exceed a nce condition that has occurred through out

the period of record

for this trib utary

.31 TN or TKN Golden Gate Canal

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Mar-71 Aug-76 Feb-82 Aug-87 Jan-93 Jul-98 Jan-04
Datemg TN or TKN / L TN or TKN values

Annual Median Values

Figure 4. 15 Total Nitrogen and TKN V alues and Annual Median Values for Golden Gate Canal Stations

TP Golden Gate Canal

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5

Mar-71 Aug-76 Feb-82 Aug-87 Jan-93 Jul-98 Jan-04
Datemg TP / L TP values Annual Median TP

Figure 4. 16 All TP Values and Annual Median TP Values for Golden Gate Canal Stations32 Chlorophyll a Golden Gate Canal

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Apr-89 Dec-91 Sep-94 Jun-97 Mar-00 Dec-02
Datemg Chlor a / m3

Figure 4.17 Chlorophyll a Values for Golden Gate Canal Stat ions

Dissolved Oxygen Golden Gate Canal

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Apr-68 Oct-73 Apr-79 Sep-84 Mar-90 Sep-95 Feb-01 Datemg DO / L All Values

Annual Median

Figure 4.18 Dissolved Oxygen Values and Annual Medians for Golden Gate Canal Stations33 Fecal Coliform Counts Golden Gate Canal

1 10 100 1000 10000

Mar-71 Aug-76 Feb-82 Aug-87 Jan-93 Jul-98 Jan-04 DateCounts / 100 ml

Figure 4. 1 9 Fecal Coliform Counts , Golden Gate Canal Stations

4.6 Gordon River Tributaries

Gordon River tributary sampling occurred only 10 times between 1970 and 1990. No sampling
occurred in this area during most of the 1990s. The insufficient dat a could not provide insight into changes in condition s

over time.

4.7 Lely Canal

Lely Canal water quality sampling between 1979 and 1998 yielded samples from four s tations
, with almost all the data provided by the at the intersection of Lely Canal and US 41

. Sampling also
occurred on five dates in the mid

- 1990s at a station midway in the main canal reach and at a station near the Intracoastal Waterway. Salinity and c onductivity samples indicated a relatively freshwater (<1 ppt to 5 ppt salinity) canal except at the canal’s mouth where salinity varied from about 13 ppt to 27 ppt over the period of record. Water clarity (secchi disk depth) remained high across the data record (median 0.8 m).
F ecal coliform
, total coliforms and dissolved oxygen regularly (20%, 22% and 30% of sample values respectively) exceeded water quality standards. Exceedance s were sufficient to consider the canal impaired under Florida impaired wate r criteria. Current annual median D.O values (Figure 4.20) suggest a34

continuing decline in D.O. conditions over the period of record. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen concentrations may have declined some over the past decade (Figure 4.21) . Total phosphorus concent rations however, appear to have changed little over time (Figure 4.22).

Dissolved Oxygen Lely Canal

0 5 10 15 20

Nov-78 Dec-82 Jan-87 Mar-91 Apr-95 May-99 Jun-03 Datemg D.O. / L All Values

Annual

Figure 4.20 Dissolved Oxygen, Lely Canal Stations

TKN Lely Canal

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Nov-78 Dec-82 Jan-87 Mar-91 Apr-95 May-99 Jun-03 Datemg TKN / L All values

Annual Median

Figure 4.21 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Lely Canal Stations35 TP Lely Canal

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

Nov-78 Apr-84 Oct-89 Apr-95 Oct-00 Datemg TP / L

All Values Annual Median

Figure 4.22 Total Phosphorus, Lely Canal Stations36

5 .0 HY

DRAULIC

– WATER QUALITY MODEL ING DATA GAP EVALUAT ION

5.1 Introduction

Review of the final data set and summary statistics of those data focused on questions related to water quality modeling and long

- term monitoring efforts

• Were station locations appropriate to support water quality modeling and long

- term monitoring?

• Were the data sufficient to provide overall water quality characterization of Naples Bay?

• What data sets were available to evaluate potential trends, either in the bay as a whole or at specific l ocations?

• What changes should Taylor Engineering recommend to meet SFWMD objectives for modeling and monitoring Naples Bay?

5 .2 Data Trends and Water Quality Conditions Gap Analysis

5 .2.1 Sampling Station s Location and Periods

The data record for Naples B ay and its tributaries contains several characteristics that limit statistical trend analysis. Before the current sampling effort, which began at most stations in 1999 or 2000, sampling occurred at quarterly or more infrequent intervals. Monthly sampling o ccurred most often for a few years and often for only one year. The database contains considerable data from single intensive day efforts, repeated months later, for a few years. Consistent temporal sampling patterns are rare in the database with respect t

o the total period of record (1970

– 2002)
The current sampling effort covers most of the bay and some of the tributaries (Figure 5.1)

. Sampling includes

• Dissolved oxygen , s alinity, pH, temperature, secchi disk depth, color, turbidity, total suspended sol

ids

• Arsenic, c alcium , cadmium, chromium, chloride, fluoride, magnesium, lead, sulfate, zinc

• Ammonium, Nitrate+Nitrite, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen ,Total Phosphorus, orthophosphate

• Chlorophyll a and Phaeophytin, Fecal and Total Coliform

• Samples collected at t he surface supplemented at some stations with deeper water column field parameter measurements.

### ! ( ! ( !

( ! ( ! (

! ( ! ( ! ( !

(

! (

! ( ! (

! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! ( ! (

! ( ! (

! ( ! ( ! ( B C 1

B C 5 B C 4

B C 3

B C 2

N B A Y 5 0

N B A Y 4 1

N B A Y 2 4

N B A Y 2 2

N B A Y 2 0 G O R D 6 0

R O O K 4 6 5 G G C A T 3 1

H A L D C R K

R O O K 4 6 4

R O O K 4 6 3 2 8 0 3 0 0 4 8 2 8 0 3 0 0 4 7

2 8 0 3 0 0 3 1 2 8 0 3 0 0 3 0

L E L Y C A N A L G O L D E N G A T E M A I N C A N A L G O R D O N R I V E R

T A M I A M I C A N A L A I R P O R T R O A D C A N A L

H A L D

E M

A N C

R E E K I - 7 5 C A N A L

F i g u r e 5

. 1 C u r r e n t S a m p l i n g S t a t i o n s a n d R e c o m m e n d e d S t a t i o n A d d i t i o n s 

### L E G E N D
R i v e r C r e e k P r i m a r y C a n a l T

e r t i a r y C a n a l ! ( C u r r e n t S a m p l i n g S t a t i o n s R e c o m m e n d e d S a m p l i n g S t a t i o n s ! ( W a t e r Q u a l i t y ! ( T i d e G a g e

0 1 2 M i l e s 

# ·

3 738

5 .3 Water Circulation and Water Quality Modeling

5 .3.1 I ntroduction Taylor Engineering proposes a two

- dime nsional hydrodynamic and water quality model for evaluation of water quality in Naples Bay. The level of complexity represented in a two

- dimensional model should provide spatial and temporal dynamics necessary to understand, simulate, and predict water

qua lity conditions at the necessary spatial and temporal scales . This class of model should provide the

most cost

- effective solution to the challenge of developing a long

- term water quality management

planning tool in a relatively short period

.

The physical complexity and size of Naples Bay clearly indicate that a one

- dimensional model ( such as CSTR or a continuously stirred tank reactor simulation model) would not adequately describe or predict the range of water quality conditions found in Naples Bay. Howev er, a vailable hydraulic and water quality data are ina dequate for use in a three

- dimensional model. Almost all the data represent
surface conditions. Multi

- depth water quality data , necessary to understand changes through the water
column
, were una

vailable . Further, no velocity measurements (were available. These two factors would constrain modeling efforts in the near future to two dimensions. Therefore, Taylor Engineering evaluated
the hydraulic and water quality data gaps to identify the requirements of a two

- dimensional model. Two

dimensional modeling would provide the circulation and water quality variation with respect to time and

space. Model results would include depth

- averaged value s of a parameter (e.g., velocity for circulation and DO for water qu ality) at any given point in the model domain and at any time during the model simulation period. A two

- dimensional model cannot provide the variation of a parameter along the
vertical axis and thus would not simulate a condition such as a salt wedge.

Data requirements for two

- dimensional water circulation and water quality modeling include at least tidal data, flows from tributary sources
, and runoff data (typically developed from rainfall).
Sufficient data exist

to set up and calibrate a model (limited hy draulic model calibration) for the year
2001. Ongoing monthly sampling efforts at key points in the bay and tributaries would provide much of the necessary data for model validation (Figure 5.1)

. However, calibrating the models in detail would require inte nsive hydraulic and water quality monitoring.

5 .3.2 Data for Physical Forcing in the Model

Tidal circulation provides the primary driving force for water circulation and transport of pollutants within the study area. Secondary forcing mechanisms include w ind shear and pollutant39

dispersion. Therefore, to simulate the water quality in the bay, an hydraulic model must first adequately
simulate the tidal circulation in the area. The hydraulic model would require stage or flow input values at its boundaries (me asured stage or computed flow). Depending on the modeling

software, the input data set may also include (or require) wind data for hydraulic simulation. The water quality model would likewise require water quality parameter input values (measured water qua lity data ) at its boundaries and estimates of loadings within its model domain. Independent estimates could provide pollutant loadings. Dispersion is a well

- described physical mechanism built into current water quality models

. Most models require only the specification of a dispersion rate.

5.3.3 Model Domain

For this project, Taylor Engineering assumed Naples Bay as the primary area of interest for modeling. Secondary areas of interest included the Gordon River Extension and Lely Canal. Given these

areas o f interest, t

he available data suggest ed a model domain extending from SFWMD flow station
16019 in Golden Gate Canal to the Gordon River Extension weir at the north end of the bay and to the
confluence of Marco River and the Gulf of Mexico south of the pro ject area. The domain would also include a portion of the Gulf of Mexico adjacent to the City of Naples and would extend east to the road crossings over Rock Creek (at Highway 31), Haldeman Creek (at US 41), Lely Canal (at US 41)
, and
Henderson Creek at Ta miami Trail

. The model domain would extend south to Marco River because the Intracoastal Waterway (IWW) interconnects areas (i.e., Dollar Bay, Shell Bay, etc.) south of Naples Bay

. Given the unlikely availability of tidal and water quality data along the I WW , l ocating the south boundary to Marco River allows application of Gulf tidal data as a model boundary. Further, t he areas south of Naples Bay could convey water to and from Naples Bay and significantly affect water quality. Future
diversions from Golden Gate Canal through creeks draining to these areas would increase local pollution loading and redistribute pollution loading in Naples Bay. These factors strongly encourage inclusion of
these areas in the model domain.

5.3.4 Model Elevation Data

Bathymetr ic data from the survey in Task 1 of this project

would provide the primary elevation data for the model setup. Inclusion of bulkhead survey data for the major canal systems would complete
the data necessary for model bathymetr ic setup in the area of inter est. Earlier survey data, nautical charts, and topographic maps might supplement the survey data to provide elevation data for the extensive model
domain outside the area of interest.40

5 .3.5 Model Input Data

The hydraulic and water quality models would req uire input data for all periods of model
simulations at

the following points as a minimum (Figure 5 .2 ):

• Stage and water quality at the Gulf of Mexico boundary (Gordon Pass and the confluence of Marco River and Gulf)

• Flow (or stage) and water quality at St ation 16019 (Golden Gate Canal)

• Flow (or stage) and water quality at Gordon River Extension weir , Lely Canal, Rock Creek, Haldeman Creek, and Henderson Creek The hydraulic water quality model require s an intensive calibration dataset. Forty

- eight

- hour hydr aulic and water quality measurements made during the dry and wet seasons would provide sufficient
calibration information . Needed information would include:

• Stage and velocity measured hourly at the hydraulic monitoring stations.

• Water quality parameters of interest to include temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, nitrogen species (TKN and nitrite+nitrate), total phosphorus, dissolved orthophosphorus, and chlorophyll a measured either hourly or once every six hours.

• Proposed stations for in tensive hydraulic and water quality calibration monitoring (Figure 5.2) include:

o Golden Gate Canal weir
, Gordon River Extension weir, Rock Creek, Haldeman Creek, Lely Canal and Henderson Creek ( weir stage measurements where available, or stage and velocity measurements in the absence of a weir )

.

o US 41 crossing over Gordon River (stage, velocity, and water quality measurements)

o A point of constriction in the bay south of the US 41 crossing (stage, velocity
, and water quality measurements)

o A location at the s outh end of the project area (stage and velocity monitoring only)

o Gordon Pass ( stage, velocity
, and water quality measurements)

o Confluence of Marco River and the Gulf of Mexico (stage data only)

To provide an optimal dataset to verify the model performance
, Taylor Engineering recommend s a yearlong hydraulic and water quality data monitoring at the model’s external boundaries and at specific points within the bay. Water quality data collected at least every two weeks would provide an ideal ba sis41

to verify wa ter quality predictions. Six

- hour average flow at Station 16019 and hourly stage measurement at the other stations would provide sufficient resolution to simulate tidal circulation. Measured s tage or rainfall would provide estimates of flows from Golden Ga te Canal weir, Gordon River Extension weir, Rock Creek, Haldeman Creek, Lely Canal, and Henderson Creek . Available rainfall data w ould provide
the basis to estimate flows and chemical loads from the contr ibuting watersheds to the bay. Water quality

s amplin g at watershed discharge points would provide model validation data.

5.3.6 Available Hydraulic Data

Hydraulic modeling requires either flow or stage data at the model boundaries for the entire simulation period. In the absence of flow data, a runoff model coul d simulate flow based on rainfall data

. Available hydraulic data (Tables 5. 1, 5. 2, and 5. 3: metadata from SFWMD DBHYDRO database) would include rainfall, stage, and flow measurements.

A comparison of the periods of record of the rainfall, stage, and flow d ata in Tables 5. 1, 5. 2
, and
5. 3 indicated that concurrent measurement of these variables sufficient for hydraulic modeling occurred from January 25, 2001 to June 19, 2002. More recent data from the recommended stations will become
available in the DBHYDRO database. The addition of this data will extend the period of concurrent

measurements.

The available conc

urrent flow data (computed from stage data) comes from :

• Golden Gate Canal Weir (Collier County Station DOS536)

• Gordon River Extension weir (DBHYDRO: D bkey FI256 )

• Lely Canal at US 41 (DBHYDRO: Dbkey 16044)

• Henderson Creek at Tamiami Trail (DBHYDRO Dbkey FI251) Flow data from these stations could serve as the flow boundaries for the hydraulic model.

Concurrent rainfall data from SFWMD COLGOV_R station wou ld provide the means to estimate the runoff flows from Rock Creek. Given the drainage area of the creek, rainfall

- runoff modeling could provide the time series of flows from the creek’s upstream boundary. SFWMD HALDEMAN_T would provide the stage boundary c ondition at Haldeman Creek at the US 41 model boundary.42

Along the model’s western boundary, concurrent stage data from NOAA 8725110 would provide

a continuous record of water surface elevation for the model boundary along the Gulf. DBHYDRO could provide s t age data for stations along Henderson Creek.

T idal gauges could provide good model calibration data

. However, as of this writing, no available stage data occur within the model domain from January 25, 2001 to June 19, 2002. Therefore, published tidal range s at the bay could provide limited model calibration. Addition of tidal gauges in the bay (Figure 5.1) would allow a detailed calibration of the tidal behavior of a two

- dimensional model.

5.3.7 Recommended

Water Quality Data Collection

The insufficient w ate r qu ality data from the present sampling program preclude calibration of the water quality model. Further, the data cannot support a process level water quality model that might simulate fluctuations in dissolved oxygen. However, the data should suffice for mo st of the necessary water quality model verification data for a two

- dimensional model of the bay. The data from present sampling program s (Figure 5.1) would provide comparison information to evaluate errors in water quality model performance over the simul ation period or periods. Additional water quality stations recommended for better water quality model verification would include the following station locations (Figure 5.1):

• J ust inside Gordon Pass,

• W ithin the main passages from residential canal areas o n the west side of the bay
,

• I n the main body of the bay south of Gordon Inlet

• In the IWW at the mouth of Lely Canal

• At a constriction near the mouth of Henderson Cree k! (

! ( ! ( ! (



## ! ( ! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! ( ! (

! ( G o l d e n G a t e C a n a l

H e n d e r s o n C r e e k R o c k C r e e k

H a l d e m a n C r e e k

G o r d o n P a s s L e l y C a n a l G o r d o n R i v e rHendersonCreekCanal I

- 7 5 C a n a l

T

a

m

i a

m

i

C

a

n

a

l L E L Y U S 4 1 N A P L E S

_ R

C O L G O V

_ R G O L D

. W 1

_ W G O L D

. W 1

_ H G O R D O N 2

_ H

H E N D T A M I

_ H H A L D E M A N

_ T G u l f o f M e x i c o 

### 0 1 2 M i l e s 

# ·

L E G E N D



## ! ( R a i n ! ( 

### S t a g e

! ( 

### F l o w ! ( 

### I n t e n s i v e C a l i b r a t i o n

F i g u r e 5

. 2

. L o c a t i o n s f o r W a t e r C i r c u l a t i o n a n d W a t e r Q u a l i t y M o d e l C a l i b r a t i o n D a t a4344

5.4 Summary of Recommendations

Taylor Engineering envision s the use of a two

- dimensiona l model to simulate long

- term water circulation and water quality dynamics. This class of model would likely provide sufficient capability to
simulate ambient water quality conditions for management of the bay to achieve and maintain Class III water qualit y standards. However, calibrating the model would require additional sampling and data
collection

. A dditional long

- term sampling stations would likely increase the ability to verify model performance, develop management plans, and monitor changes in the sy stem.

Sufficient hydrologic data collected since 2000 from currently active hydrologic stations provide sufficient information for use in developing a limited calibrated water circulation model

. Rainfall , flow at Golden Canal weir, and the Gordon River Ext ension weir
, stage measurements from Haldeman Creek, Rock Creek, Lely Canal, Henderson Creek
, and from gauges in the Gulf of Mexico would provide most
of the data. Taylor Engineering recommends r unoff modeling to provide stormwater flows from developed are as of the watershed, particularly the City of Naples.

Given t he absence of

tid e gauges in Naples Bay
, p ublished tidal ranges would substitute for direct measurement to provide a limited calibration of the hydraulic model. The addition of several tide gauge s would greatly improve hydraulic model calibration and verification capabilities

Intensive 48

- hour hydraulic and water quality parameter measurements during the dry and wet seasons would provide the ideal data sets for a detailed calibration of the hydra ulic and water quality
models.

Data from monthly sampling efforts in the bay, augmented by data from recommended additions to the current sampling network
, would provide v erification data for the hydraulic and water quality
model

. T he recommended sampling stations would suffice for verification of the model calibration and simulation period performance testing

. The new stations would extend the monitored area south to Henderson Creek, potentially affected by proposed changes in the Naples Bay watershed cana l drainage system.45

Table 5.1 Collier County Rainfall Data

DBKEY STATION GROUP FREQUENCY AGENCY START
DATE END DATE LONGITUDE LATITUDE

PT210 082850

- 2 82850 Daily NOAA 1

- Jan

- 31 26

- Jan

- 97

- 81.3869 25.8456 PT211 082850

- 2 82850 Daily NOAA 27

- Jan

- 97 28

- Dec

- 0 1

- 81.3869 25.8456 PT308 085359

- 1 85359 Daily NOAA

- 81.7139 25.9492 PT328 086076

- 1 86076 Daily NOAA

- 81.7753 26.1522 PT445 086078

- 1 86078 Daily NOAA 1

- Jul

- 48 28

- Aug

- 50

- 81.8167 26.1167 PT329 086078

- 2 86078 Daily NOAA 1

- Sep

- 50 28

- Sep

- 50

- 81.8167 26. 1500 PT330 086078

- 3 86078 Daily NOAA 1

- Jun

- 51 28

- May

- 61

- 81.7833 26.1500 PT331 086078

- 4 86078 Daily NOAA 1

- Jun

- 61 28

- Aug

- 98

- 81.7833 26.1667 PT332 086078

- 5 86078 Daily NOAA 21

- Feb

- 84 6

- Jun

- 84

- 81.8000 26.1667 PT333 086078

- 6 86078 Daily NOAA 1

- Sep

- 98 28

- May

- 00

- 81.7883 26.1653 PT334 086078

- 7 86078 Daily NOAA 1

- Jun

- 00 4

- Apr

- 01

- 81.7878 26.1664 PT335 086078

- 8 86078 Daily NOAA 5

- Apr

- 01 28

- Jun

- 01

- 81.7878 26.1667 PT336 086078

- 9 86078 Daily NOAA 1

- Jul

- 01 28

- Dec

- 01

- 81.7158 26.1686 DO534 951EXT_R 951EXT_R Daily WMD 19

- Jun

- 96 1

- Jun

- 04

- 81.6884 26.3026 DJ225 ASGROW ASGROW Daily WMD

- 81.7081 26.2712 5951 BAY WEST_R BAY WEST Daily WMD 26

- Apr

- 80 30

- Sep

- 85

- 81.7023 26.2751 DJ226 BCBNAPLE_R BCBNAPLE Daily WMD 1

- Dec

- 90 13

- May

- 97

- 81.8081 26.2254 DU536 COLGOV_ R COLGOV_R Daily WMD 30

- Apr

- 96 1

- Apr

- 05

- 81.7626 26.1298 5978 COLLIER_R COLLIER Daily WMD 30

- Sep

- 81 31

- Mar

- 05

- 81.6581 26.1568 OU145 NAPCON_R NAPCON_R Daily WMD 4

- Feb

- 02 2

- Apr

- 05

- 81.7878 26.1672 16633 NAPLES_R NAPLES Daily WMD 8

- Jan

- 91 15

- Apr

- 05

- 81.78 98 26.168146

Table 5.2 Collier County Stage Data. with Currently Active Stations in Bold Type

DBKEY STATION GROUP FREQUENCY AGENCY START DATE END DATE LONGITUDE LATITUDE
SN319 GG1_H GG1_H Daily WMD 13

- Jul

- 04 22

- Sep

- 04

- 81.7742 26.1680
SN321 GG1_T GG1_T Daily WMD 13

- Jul

- 04 22

- Sep

- 04

- 81.7742 26.1680
839 GOLD.W1_H GOLD.W1 Daily USGS 31

- Mar

- 77 17

- May

- 80

- 81.7672 26.1680
840 GOLD.W1_H GOLD.W1 Daily USGS 1

- Oct

- 67 3

- Oct

- 84

- 81.7672 26.1680
841 GOLD.W1_H GOLD.W1 Daily USGS 1

- Oct

- 64 3

- Oct

- 84

- 81.7672 26.1680 5382 GOLD.W1_H GOLD.W1 Daily WMD 6

- Dec

- 84 19

- Oct

- 94

- 81.7672 26.1680
16019 GOLD.W1_H GOLD.W1 Daily WMD 19

- Oct

- 94 22

- Sep

- 04

- 81.7672 26.1680 4278 GORDON 2_H GORDON 2 Daily WMD 9

- Oct

- 80 14

- Aug

- 95

- 81.7837 26.1740
4280 GORDON 2_T GORDON 2 Daily WMD 3

- Sep

- 80 30

- Oct

- 89

- 81.7837 26.1740
13004 GORDON 2_T GORDON 2 Daily WMD 30

- Oct

- 89 5

- Nov

- 03

- 81.7837 26.1740
FI256 GORDON 2_H GORDON 2 Daily WMD 22

- Apr

- 97 6

- Oct

- 04

- 81.7837 26.1740 QS282 GORDON 2_T GORDON 2 Daily WMD 5

- Nov

- 03 6

- Oct

- 04

- 81.7837 26.1740 MQ906 H ALDEMAN_T HALDEMAN Daily WMD 25

- Jan

- 01 21

- Oct

- 04

- 81.7620 26.1240 P6258 NAPLE_T NAPLE_T Daily WMD 2

- Nov

- 00 6

- Oct

- 04

- 81.7668 26.1815
5530 GOLD.W2_H GOLD.W2 Daily WMD 28

- Apr

- 83 20

- Oct

- 94

- 81.7348 26.1684
8725110 Gulf of Mexico 6

- minutes NOAA 1

- Jan

- 96 31

- Jan

- 05

- 81.8067 26.1300
8725114 Naples Bay

North Daily NOAA 1

- Apr

- 78 31

- Aug

- 78

- 81.7883 26.1367

16044 LELYUS41 LELYUS41 Daily WMD 20

- Jan

- 95 15

- Mar

- 05

- 81.7462 26.1040
FI256 GORDON 2_H GORDON 2 Daily WMD 22

- Apr

- 97 06

- Apr

- 05

- 81.7837 26.1740

FI251 HENDTAMI_H HENDTAMI Daily WMD 14

- May

- 97 28

- Mar

- 05

- 81.6890 26.058747

Table 5.3 Collier County Flow Data

DBKEY STATION GROUP FREQUENCY AGENCY START DATE END DATE LONGITUDE LATITUDE

842 GOLD.W1_W GOLD.W1 Daily USGS 1

- Oct

- 64 3

- Oct

- 84

- 8 1.767180 26.167968 5386 GOLD.W1_W GOLD.W1 Daily WMD 29

- Oct

- 89 30

- Dec

- 97

- 81.767180 26.167968 6518 GOLD.W1_W GOLD.W1 Daily USGS 27

- Aug

- 81 13

- Sep

- 84

- 81.767180 26.167968
DO536 GOLD.W1_W GOLD.W1 Daily WMD 30

- Sep

- 91 19

- Jun

- 02

- 81.767180 26.167968REFERENC ES

Janicki Environmental, Inc. 2003. Water Quality Data Analysis and Report for the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. Prepared for: Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program
, North Fort Myers, Florida

.APPENDIX A
Station Names , Locations , and Periods of RecordStation Code Station_NA Location Start Date End Date 3495 GOLDEN GATE CANAL AT C.R. 31 Golden Gate Canal 12/14/1998 8/13/2002 2291300 GOLDEN GATE CANAL AT NAPLES, FLA Golden Gate Canal 11/27/1965 12/3/1979 28030038 GOLD GATE CAN SR 951 B R Golden Gate Canal 4/3/1973 7/10/1991

28030053 GOLDEN GATE CANAL BETWEEN SR31/I75UPSTREAM OF Golden Gate Canal 12/22/1988 12/11/1991 AIRPORT886 Golden Gate Canal Basin Golden Gate Canal 12/4/1991 8/19/1997

BC4 Downstream weir in Golden Gate Canal across from Bear's Paw Country Club Golden Gate Canal 10/18/2000 6/19/2002 GGCAT31 Bridge at intersection of Airport Rd and Golden Gate Canal Golden Gate Canal 1/17/1979 6/6/2002 2291280 GORDON RIVER AT NAPLES,FL A Gordon River 10/26/1970 9/11/1980 28030047 GORDON R ABOVE WIER 951 Gordon River 8/30/1972 9/11/2002 28030048 GORDON R BEMBURY CANA L Gordon River 8/30/1972 9/28/1989

BC3 Gordon River Ext. at mouth of canal leading to Main Post Office Gordon River 10/18/2000 6/19/2002

GORDONRV Bridge at intersection of Golden Gate Pkwy and Gordon River Extension Gordon River 7/6/1981 12/19/1988 GRESTA10 Gordon River 7/15/1997 7/15/1997 10 Gulf 10/27/1993 11/15/1999 9573 US Fish & Wildlife Service Gulf 8/19/1957 11/14/1957 COLLIER316 NAPLES PIE R Gulf 6/18/2001 6/18/2001 COLLIER55 LOWDERMILK PARK BEAC H Gulf 6/18/2001 6/18/2001 ROOK465 Gulf 1/26/1999 12/17/2002 3 Haldeman Cree k 10/27/1993 11/15/1999 6 Haldeman Cree k 10/27/1993 11/15/1999 28030029 NAP BAY HALD C K Haldeman Cree k 8/30/1972 8/18/1975 BC5 Bridge at intersection of Haldeman Creek and Bayshore Dr. Haldeman Cree k 10/18/2000 6/19/2002 HALD32 Haldeman Creek at end of Palm Lane Haldeman Cree k 4/16/1992 9/22/1992

HALDCRK Upstream of amil gate at intersection of US41 and Haldeman Cree k Haldeman Creek 12/5/1989 8/20/1997 HALDNB Junction of Haldeman Creek and Naples Bay Haldeman Cree k 4/16/1992 8/22/1996 LELY Bridge at intersection of US41 and Lely Main Canal Lely Cana l 12/5/1989 6/15/1998 LELYIC W Lely Cana l 4/24/1996 8/22/1996 LMAIN2 Lely Cana l 12/20/1995 8/27/1996 4 Lower Ba y 11/27/1993 11/15/1999 5 Lower Ba y 10/27/1993 11/15/1999 7 Lower Ba y 10/27/1993 11/15/1999 8 Lower Ba y 10/27/1993 11/15/1999 9 Lower Ba y 10/27/1993 11/15/1999 28030004 Lower Ba y 1/5/1971 7/28/1975 28030033 NAP BAY YACHT BASI N Lower Ba y 8/30/1972 4/11/1990 28030034 NAP BAY CAN BETW PEL & BL P T Lower Ba y 7/6/1972 6/7/1976 28030035 NAP BAY JAYCEE P K Lower Ba y 8/30/1972 9/28/1989 28030050 NAPLES BAY CANAL BETW ENDS KING F Lower Ba y 8/30/1972 8/18/1975 260700081472800 NAPLES BAY (FCD STATION ) Lower Ba y 9/8/1978 9/8/1978 BC1 Channel Marker 38 in Naples Bay Lower Ba y 10/18/2000 6/19/2002 COL-COL10-017 Collier-COL10-017 Lower Ba y 4/10/2001 4/10/2001 COL-COL10-034 Collier-COL10-03 4 Lower Ba y 2/5/2001 2/5/2001 COL-COL10-041 Collier-COL10-041 Lower Ba y 5/23/2001 5/23/2001 COL-COL3-939 Collier-COL3-93 9 Lower Ba y 5/23/2001 5/23/2001 COL-COL3-964 Collier-COL3-96 4 Lower Ba y 12/19/2000 12/19/2000 COL-COL3-965 Collier-COL3-965 Lower Ba y 4/10/2001 4/10/2001 COL-COL5-889 Collier-COL5-88 9 Lower Ba y 4/10/2001 4/10/2001 COL-COL5-903 Collier-COL5-903 Lower Ba y 2/5/2001 2/5/2001 COL-COL5-907 Collier-COL5-90 7 Lower Ba y 5/23/2001 5/23/2001 COL-COL6-617 Collier-COL6-61 7 Lower Ba y 4/10/2001 4/10/2001 COL-COL6-631 Collier-COL6-631 Lower Ba y 2/5/2001 2/5/2001 COL-COL6-633 Collier-COL6-633 Lower Ba y 5/23/2001 5/23/2001 COL-COL7-009 Collier-COL7-00 9 Lower Ba y 4/10/2001 4/10/2001 COL-COL7-988 Collier-COL7-988 Lower Ba y 5/23/2001 5/23/2001 COL-COL7-998 Collier-COL7-998 Lower Ba y 2/5/2001 2/5/2001 COL-COL8-972 Collier-COL8-97 2 Lower Ba y 4/10/2001 4/10/2001 COL-COL8-973 Collier-COL8-973 Lower Ba y 2/5/2001 2/5/2001 COL-COL8-986 Collier-COL8-98 6 Lower Ba y 5/23/2001 5/23/2001 COL-COL9-716 Collier-COL9-71 6 Lower Ba y 4/10/2001 4/10/2001 COL-COL9-742 Collier-COL9-74 2 Lower Ba y 2/5/2001 2/5/2001 COL-COL9-775 Collier-COL9-775 Lower Ba y 5/23/2001 5/23/2001 COLLIER57 GORDONS PASS Lower Ba y 6/18/2001 6/18/2001 COL-NA-ESBAY-1 Collier-Naples Bay-1 Lower Ba y 4/25/2001 8/23/2001 COL-NA-ESBAY-2 Collier-Naples Bay- 2 Lower Ba y 4/25/2001 8/23/2001

Page 1Station Code Station_NA Location Start Date End Date COL-NA-ESBAY-3 Collier-Naples Bay-3 Lower Ba y 4/25/2001 8/23/2001 DOLLAR15 Dollar Bay at Marker 68 Lower Ba y 4/15/1992 9/21/1992 GORD10 Lower Ba y 4/11/1989 9/21/1992 NBAY20 Naples Bay at Channel Marker 21 Lower Ba y 4/16/1992 9/21/1992 NBAY22 Naples Bay at entrance to Treasure Cove Lower Ba y 4/15/1992 12/2/1992 NBAY24 Naples Bay at Marker 24 Lower Ba y 4/18/1990 8/22/1996 NBAY41 Naples Bay at mouth of canal entering Royal Harbo r Lower Ba y 4/13/1992 9/22/1992 NBAY50 Naples Bay at Marker 31 Lower Ba y 4/13/1992 9/22/1992 NTK200120 N 10K Islands - Naples Ba y Lower Ba y 10/18/2000 6/19/2002 NTK200121 N 10K Islands - Naples Ba y Lower Ba y 7/13/2001 7/13/2001 NTK200121_B N 10K Islands - Naples Ba y Lower Ba y 10/5/2001 10/5/2001 ROOK463 Naples Bay south of Gordon Pass Lower Ba y 1/26/1999 12/17/2002 ROOK464 Lower Ba y 1/26/1999 12/17/2002 28030032 NAP BAY ROCK C K Rock Cree k 8/30/1972 9/28/1989

ROCK62 Located at junction of Rock Creek and Harbor Lane adjoining the Brookside Subdivision Rock Creek 4/13/1992 8/22/1996 ROCKE Rock Cree k Rock Cree k 12/5/1991 8/21/1997 ROCK W Rock Cree k Rock Cree k 12/5/1991 8/20/1997 119001 EV-GAC CORP CANAL CROSSING-NAPLE GG C Tributaries 3/5/1970 3/25/1970 119002 EV-GAC CNL CROSSING-GOLDEN GATE GG C Tributaries 3/5/1970 3/25/1970 119003 EV-GAC CNL NR GOLDEN GATE ESTATE GG C Tributaries 3/5/1970 3/25/1970 119004 EV-GAC CNL RD TO PRODUCE COMPANY GG C Tributaries 3/5/1970 3/25/1970

2291393 COCOHATCHEE RIVER CANAL AT WILLOUGHBY ACRE BRID G Tributaries 5/19/1970 10/10/1979 261009081411400 GOLDIN GATE CA E OF NAPLES, FL A Tributaries 1/20/1972 1/24/1979 261335081352400 10B GORDON RIVER CANAL AT NAPLES FL A Tributaries 10/26/1970 1/24/1979 28020265FTM Cocohatchee River at Immokalee Rd and Palm River Blvd Tributaries 9/13/2000 8/20/2002 9CN@GGBL Golden Gate Canal Basin Tributaries 12/16/1996 8/21/1997 ARN@VAN D Golden Gate Canal Basin Tributaries 12/12/1996 8/18/1997 ARS@896 Golden Gate Canal Basin Tributaries 12/9/1996 8/18/1997 BC15 Airport Rd. Canal at entrance to Sam's Club GGC Tributaries 10/17/2000 6/20/2002

BC23 Bridge at intersection of Main Golden Gate Canal and CR951 (GGCAT951) Tributaries 10/25/2000 6/6/2002

BC26 Intersection of 951 Canal and Immokalee Rd. Canal ("COCAT951" ) Tributaries 10/25/2000 4/3/2002

BRYPUMSW Surface Water Site on Townsend Canal Downside Berry Grove Pump Station GGC Tributaries 9/19/2002 3/5/2003

COCAT951 COCOHATCHEE CANAL AT THE JUNCTION OF S.R. 951 AND S.R. 846 Tributaries 1/17/1979 8/18/1998 COCEOF31 Golden Gate Canal basin Tributaries 12/7/1989 6/15/1998

COCPALM Bridge at Intersection of Palm River Drive and Coconut Palm Rive r Tributaries 12/7/1989 8/18/1998 CORK@846 Bridge at intersection of Corkscrew Canal and CR846 Tributaries 12/12/1996 6/11/2002 CYPR@GGB Golden Gate Canal basin Tributaries 12/16/1996 8/21/1997 D2886 Golden Gate Canal basin Tributaries 12/4/1991 8/18/1997 GCB01@20 Golden Gate Canal Basin Tributaries 12/10/1996 8/19/1997 GCB02@SUN Golden Gate Canal Basin Tributaries 12/10/1996 8/19/1997 GGC@858 Bridge at intersection of Golden Gate Canal and CR858 Tributaries 12/16/1996 6/11/2002 GGC@GGBE Golden Gate Canal Basin Tributaries 12/16/1996 8/21/1997 GGC@WHITE Golden Gate Canal Basin Tributaries 12/16/1996 8/21/1997 GGC05@23 Golden Gate Canal Basin Tributaries 12/16/1996 8/21/1997 GGC10 Golden Gate Canal Basin Tributaries 12/4/1991 8/19/1997 GGC14 Golden Gate Canal Basin Tributaries 12/4/1991 8/18/1997 GGCAT951 Bridge at intersection of Main Golden Gate Canal and CR951 Tributaries 1/17/1979 8/19/1997 LP-BEACH LAKES PARK - Beac h Tributaries 1/14/1992 7/15/1992 LP-BIRD LAKES PARK - Bir d Tributaries 1/14/1992 7/15/1992 LP-IONA LAKES PARK - Ion a Tributaries 5/11/1989 10/6/1999 LP-RAMP LAKES PARK - Ram p Tributaries 1/14/1992 7/15/1992 LP-SIGN LAKES PARK - Sig n Tributaries 1/14/1992 7/15/1992 MGG03@32 Golden Gate Canal Basin Tributaries 12/10/1996 8/19/1997 ORANGET R Golden Gate Canal Basin Tributaries 12/12/1996 8/20/1997 PIPERS Golden Gate Canal Basin Tributaries 6/23/1992 8/18/1998 QUAILC K Golden Gate Canal Basin Tributaries 9/21/1992 8/18/1998 ROYALP Gordon River Extension basin Tributaries 12/4/1991 8/20/1992 WILSON846 Golden Gate Canal Basin Tributaries 12/9/1997 8/18/1998 126801 SEA GATE CANAL AT MOUTH G R Tributaries 10/19/1977 10/20/1977 126802 SEA GATE CANAL AT MOUTH LAST ARM G R Tributaries 10/19/1977 10/20/1977 126803 CLAM BAY AT CONNECTOR TO DOCTOR S Tributaries 10/19/1977 10/20/1977 126804 SEA GATE CANAL AT DEAD END G R Tributaries 10/19/1977 10/20/1977

Page 2Station Code Station_NA Location Start Date End Date 126805 CLAM BAY NEAR SEA GATE CANAL G R Tributaries 10/19/1977 10/20/1977 126810 CANAL DEAD END DOCTORS BAY G R Tributaries 10/20/1977 10/20/1977 126811 CANAL DEAD END DOCTORS BAY G R Tributaries 10/19/1977 10/20/1977 126813 DOCTORS BAY AT CONNECTOR TO CLAM G R Tributaries 10/19/1977 10/20/1977 126815 DOCTORS BAY OVERWATER STRUCTURE G R Tributaries 10/19/1977 10/20/1977 126816 DOCTORS BAY OVER WATER STRUCTURE G R Tributaries 10/19/1977 10/20/1977 COL-CL-YWEST-3 Collier-Clam Bay West-3 Tributaries 3/1/2001 12/12/2002 GRE896 Gordon River Extension at Pine Ridge Rd. Tributaries 12/4/1991 8/20/1992 GREEN@SB Gordon River Extension basin Tributaries 12/9/1996 8/18/1997 GRESTA1 Gordon River Extension basin Tributaries 10/28/1996 10/28/1996 GRESTA2 Gordon River Extension basin Tributaries 10/28/1996 8/4/1997 GRESTA3 Gordon River Extension basin Tributaries 10/28/1996 8/4/1997 GRESTA4 Gordon River Extension basin Tributaries 10/28/1996 11/20/1996 GRESTA5 Gordon River Extension basin Tributaries 10/28/1996 8/4/1997 GRESTA7 Gordon River Extension basin Tributaries 10/29/1996 8/4/1997 GRESTA8 Gordon River Extension basin Tributaries 10/29/1996 4/21/1997 I75C@VAN Golden Gate Canal basin Tributaries 12/12/1996 8/18/1997 1 Upper Ba y 8/31/1994 11/15/1999 2 Upper Ba y 8/31/1994 11/15/1999 28030030 NAP BAY GORD R @ PORT AV E Upper Ba y 8/30/1972 6/17/1974 28030031 NAP BAY S OF NAP STP EF F Upper Ba y 8/30/1972 9/28/1989 28030049 NAPLES BAY 5 AV S BR W Upper Ba y 8/30/1972 2/6/1991 260859081472400 10B GORDON RIVER AT US 41 AT NAPLES FL A Upper Ba y 10/26/1970 11/15/1999 261147081470400 10B GORDON RIVER AT US 41 AT NAPLES FL A Upper Ba y 7/13/1972 7/13/1972 BC2 Just inside the mouth of Rock Creek Upper Ba y 4/11/1989 6/19/2002 GORD60 Gordon River at US 41 bridge near Boat Haven Upper Ba y 4/13/1992 9/23/1992

GORD70 Gordon River opposite City of Naples Wastewater Treatment Plant outfall Upper Bay 4/13/1992 9/23/1992

GORD80 Mid-channel of Gordon River at confluence with reach leading to the Conservancy Upper Bay 4/13/1992 9/23/1992 260934081464100 10B NAPLES AIRPORT DRAINAGE CANAL NR NAPL E Upper Ba y 3/16/1977 12/3/1979

Page 3APPENDIX B
Box and Whisker Plots of Individual Station Data Used to Evaluate Current Water

Quality Conditions in Lower Naples BayROOK463 ROOK464 NTK200120 NTK200121 NTK200121_B BC1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Salinity (%o) Median 25%-75% Min-Max

Figure 1

. Box Plots for Salinity Data

ROOK463 ROOK464 BC1 NTK200120 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Temperature (oC)

Median 25%-75% Min-Max

Figure 2

. Box Plots for Temperature DataROOK463 ROOK464 BC1 NTK200120 Station 9064

Station 9065

Station 9067

Station 9069

Station 9068 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Turbidity (NTU) Median 25%-75% Min-Max

Figure 3

. Box Plots for Turbidity Data

BC1 NTK200120 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0Secchi Disk Depth (m) Median 25%-75% Min-Max

Figure 4

. Box Plots for Secchi Disk Depth DataROOK463 ROOK464 BC1 NTK200120 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22Dissolved Oxigen (mg/l) Median 25%-75% Min-Max

Figure 5

. Box Plots for Dissolved Oxygen Data

ROOK463

ROOK464 NTK200120 BC1 Station 9064 Station 9065

Station 9067

Station 9068

Station 9069 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12Total Phosphorus (mg/l)

Median 25%-75% Min-Max

Figure 6

. Box Plots for Total Phosphorus DataROOK463 ROOK464 BC1 NTK200120 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (mg/l) Median 25%-75% Min-Max

Figure 7

. Box Plots for Soluble Reactive Phosphorus Data

ROOK463 ROOK464 BC1 NTK200120 Station 9064

Station 9065

Station 9067

Station 9068

Station 9069 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8Total Nitrogen (mg/l) Median 25%-75% Min-Max

Figure 8

. Box Plots for Total Nitrogen DataROOK463 ROOK464 Station 9064 Station 9065

Station 9067

Station 9069

Station 9068 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8Ammonia (mg/l) Median 25%-75% Min-Max

Figure 9

. Box Plots for Ammonia Data

ROOK463

ROOK464 BC1 NTK200120 Station 9064

Station 9065

Station 9067

Station 9068

Station 9069 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Chlorophyll A (mg/l) Median 25%-75% Min-Max

Figure 10

. Box Plots for Chlorophyll A DataCOLLIER57 BC1 NTK200120 Station 9064

Station 9065

Station 9067

Station 9069

Station 9068 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500Fecal Coliform (CFU/100ml) Median 25%-75% Min-Max

Figure 11

. Box Plots for Fecal Coliform Data

NTK200120 BC1 Station 9064 Station 9065

Station 9067

Station 9069

Station 9068 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Median 25%-75% Min-Max

Figure 12

. Box Plots for Total Suspended Solids DataAPPENDIX C
Box and Whisker Plots of Individual Station Data Used in to Evaluate Current Water

Quality Conditions in Upper Naples BayBC2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Salinity (%o) Median 25%-75% Min-Max

Figure 1

. Box Plots for Salinity Data

BC2 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34Temperature (oC)

Median 25%-75% Min-Max

Figure 2

. Box Plots for Temperature DataBC2 Station 9052 Station 260859081472400 Station 9062 0 2 4 6 8 10 12Turbidity (NTU) Median 25%-75% Min-Max

Figure 3

. Box Plots for Turbi dity Data

BC2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6Secchi Disk Depth (m)

Median 25%-75% Min-Max

Figure 4

. Box Plots for Secchi Disk Depth DataBC2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Dissolved Oxigen (mg/l)

Median 25%-75% Min-Max

Figure 5

. Box Plots for Dissolved Oxygen Data

BC2 Station 9052 Station 260859081472400 Station 9062 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22Total Phosphorus (mg/l)

Median 25%-75% Min-Max

Figure 6

. Box Plots for Total Phosphorus DataBC2 Station 9052 Station 260859081472400 Station 9062 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (mg/l) Median 25%-75% Min-Max

Figure 7

. Box Plots for Soluble Reactive Phosphorus Data

BC2 Station 9052 Station 260859081472400 Station 9062 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6Total Nitrogen (mg/l) Median 25%-75% Min-Max

Figure 8

. Box Plots for Total Nitrogen DataBC2 Station 9052 Station 260859081472400 Station 9062 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22Ammonia (mg/l)

Median 25%-75% Min-Max

Figure 9

. Box Plots for Ammonia Data

BC2 Station 9052 Station 260859081472400 Station 9062 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28Chlorophyll A (mg/l) Median 25%-75% Min-Max

Figure 10

. Box Plots for Chlorophyll A DataBC2 Station 9052 Station 260859081472400 Station 9062 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500Fecal Colliforms (CFU / 100 mg) Median 25%-75% Min-Max

Figure 11

. Box Plots for Fecal Coliform Data

BC2 Station 9052 Station 260859081472400 Station 9062 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Median 25%-75% Min-Max

Figure 12

. Box Plots for Total Suspended Solids Data