# Integrated Water Quality Assessment

for Florida:

**200 8**  **305(b) Report and 303(d) List Update** 

Octo ber 2008

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Division of Environmental Assessment

And Restoration

Bureau of Watershed Management200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

ii 

## TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................. ix

Chapter 1: Introduction

................................ ................................ ........... 1

**Purpose and Contents**

**................................ ................................**  **.............................. 1** 

**Federal Assessment and Reporting Requirements**

**................................ ...............**  **1**

**Integrating the Federal Requirements into Florida’s Watershed**  **Management Approach**

**................................ ................................**  **.................. 3** 



## Chapter 2: Background Information

................................ ....................... 4

**Overview**

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ....................**  **4**

Population

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 6

Climate

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 6



### Surface Water and Ground Water Resources

**................................ ........................**  **7**

Streams and Rivers

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 7

Lakes

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 8

Estuaries and Coastal Waters

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

Wetlands

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

Aquifers and Springs

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



### Hydrogeology

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ..........**  **11**

Surface Water

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

Ground Water

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

Surface Water

– Ground Water Interactions

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



### Water Pollution Control Programs

**................................ ................................**  **........ 13** 

Florida’s Water Resource Management Program

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

Florida Water Plan

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

Overview of Surface Water Protection Programs

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

Water Quality Standards Program

................................ ................................ ........... 14 Watershed Management Approach

................................ ................................ ......... 15 Total Maximum Daily Load Program

................................ ................................ ........ 17 Surface Water Improv ement and Management Program

................................ ......... 18 Point Source Control Program

................................ ................................ ................. 19 Healthy Beaches Program

................................ ................................ ....................... 21 Nonpoint Source Management Program

................................ ................................ . 22 Atmospheric Deposition Reduction Strategies

................................ ......................... 24

Overview of Ground Wa ter Protection Programs

................................ ........................ 26200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

iii Permitting Programs

................................ ................................ ................................ 26 Underground Injection Control

................................ ................................ ................. 26 Delineation Program

................................ ................................ ................................ 26

Wellhead Protection

................................ ................................ ................................ 27 Source Water Assessment and Protection Program

................................ ................ 27

Watershed

- based Monitoring and Reporting

................................ ........................... 28 Springs Initiative

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 29

Coordination with O ther State, Tribal, and Local Agencies

................................ ....... 30



### Results of Florida’s Surface Water Protection Programs

**................................ ...**  **32**

Nature and Extent of Nonpoint Source Pollution

................................ ........................ 33

Recommended Nonpoint Source Programs

................................ ................................ 33

Costs and Benefits of Implementing Florida’s Surface Water

Protection Programs To Meet the Clean Water Act’s Objectives

........................ 33

Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund Program

................................ ..................... 35 Construction Grants Program

................................ ................................ .................. 36 Section 319(h) Grant Funds

................................ ................................ .................... 36 TMDL Water Quality Restoration Grants

................................ ................................ . 36



### Special State Concerns and Recommendations

**................................ ..................**  **37**

Concerns

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 37

Recommendations

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 37


## Chapter 3: Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment

...................... 40

**Florida’s Surface Water Monitoring Program**

**................................ .......................**  **40**

Background

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 40

Florida’s Integrated Water Resources Monitoring Program

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

Element 1: Monitoring Objectives

................................ ................................ ........... 45 Element 2: Monitoring Strategy

................................ ................................ .............. 45 Element 5: Quality Assurance

................................ ................................ ................ 46 Element 6: Data Management

................................ ................................ ................ 47 Element 9: Program Evaluation

................................ ................................ .............. 47 Element 10: General Support and Infrastructure Planning

................................ ...... 48 Evolving Approaches to Monitoring

................................ ................................ ......... 48



### Surface Water Assessment

**................................ ................................**  **.................... 49** 

Statewide Probabilistic Assessment (Tie r 1)

................................ ............................... 49

Update 2006

– 08

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 49 Analytes

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 50 Monitoring Program Strategy f or All Tiers of Monitoring

................................ ........... 51 Trend Monitoring

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 51

Statewide Basin Assessment (Tier II)

................................ ................................ .......... 54

Approach to the Comprehensive Assessment: Sections 305(b) and 303(d)

........... 54 Determining Attainment of Designated Use(s)

................................ ......................... 58

How Data Are Identified and Evaluated

................................ ................................ ... 58200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

iv How Data Are Used To Make Attainment Determinations

................................ ....... 64

Results of Statewide Basin Assessments

................................ ................................ 64 Summaries of Designated Use Support for Rivers/Streams, Lakes, Estuaries, and Coastal Waters

................................ ................................ ......... 65 303(d) List o f Verified Impaired Waters

................................ ................................ ... 68 Delisting

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 68 Status of Total Maximum Daily Load Development

................................ ................. 70 Trend Analysis for Rivers/Streams, Lakes, Estuaries, and Coastal Waters

............. 74 Special Focus: Lake Issues

................................ ................................ .................... 75 Drinking Water

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 76 Freshwater, Estuarine, and Marine Sediment Contamination

................................ .. 78



### Public Health Concerns and Programs

**................................ ................................**  **. 80** 

Drinking Water

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 80

Bacterial and Mercury Contamination

................................ ................................ ......... 81

Harmful Algal Blooms

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 81

Blue

- green Algae

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 81

Pfiesteria

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 83

Red Tide

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 83



### Wetlands Program

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ..**  **83**

Wetlands Inventory and Wetlands Protection

................................ ............................. 83

Major Wetland Syste ms

................................ ................................ ........................... 83 Historical Wetlands Coverage in Florida

................................ ................................ .. 84 Development of Wetlands Water Quality Standards

................................ ................ 85 Integrity of Wetlands Resources

................................ ................................ .............. 85 Wetlands Management and Protection

................................ ................................ .... 85


## Chapter 4: Ground Water Monitoring and Assessment

...................... 91

**Summary of Ground Water Monitoring Programs**

**................................ ...............**  **91**

FDEP

- maintained Ground Water and Springs Monitoring P rograms

........................ 92

Potable Water Monitoring by FDOH/FDEP Water Supply Restoration Program

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 92

Public Water System (PWS) Monitoring

................................ ................................ ...... 93

Monitoring of Discharges to Ground Water

................................ ................................ . 93



### Summary of Ground Water Quality

**................................ ................................**  **....... 94** 

Overall Ground Water Quality

................................ ................................ ...................... 94

Ground Water Quality Issues and Contaminants of Concern, Including Public Health Issues

................................ ................................ .............. 96

Volatile Organic Compounds

................................ ................................ ................... 96 Synthetic Organic Chemicals/Pesticides

................................ ................................ 100

Nitrates

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 100 Primary Metals

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 101

Radionuclides

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 102

Saline Water

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 102200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

v Trihalomethanes

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 102 Bacteria (Coliform)

................................ ................................ ................................ 103



### Summary of Ground Water Contaminant Sources

**................................ ............**  **103**

Petroleum Facilities

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 103

Drycleaning Solvent Facilities

................................ ................................ .................... 104

Federal and State Waste Cleanup and Monitoring Si tes

................................ .......... 104

Nonpoint Sources

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 104



### Ground Water

**– Surface Water Interaction** 

**................................ ...........................**  **105**

Setting and Pathways

................................ ................................ ................................ . 105

Ground Water Parameters of Concern for Impaired Surface Waters

....................... 105

Springs and Spring

- related Issues

................................ ................................ ............. 107



## Chapter 5: Public Participation

................................ ........................... 112

**Public Participation Process**

**................................ ................................**  **................ 112** 

**Responsiveness Summary**

**................................ ................................**  **.................. 113** 



## References

................................ ................................ ............................ 114

Appendices

................................ ................................ ........................... 117

**Appendix A. Discussion of Status Network Surface Water Indicators**  **for Rivers and Lakes, and Ground Water Indicators**

**............................... 117** 

Surface Water Indicators for Rivers and Lakes

................................ ......................... 117

Fecal Coliform Bacteria

................................ ................................ ......................... 117 Dissolved Oxygen

................................ ................................ ................................ . 117 pH 117

Unionized Ammonia

................................ ................................ .............................. 118 Chlorophyll a

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 118 Trophic State Index

................................ ................................ ............................... 119

Ground Water Indicators

................................ ................................ ............................ 119

Total Coliform Bacteria

................................ ................................ .......................... 119

Arsenic

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 120

Cadmium

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 120

Chromium

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 121

Fluoride

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 121

Lead

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 121

Nitrate

- Nitrite

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 122

Sodium

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 122



### Appendix B. Status Network Surface Water Methodology

**............................... 123** 

Monitoring Design

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 123

Geographic Design

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 124

Water Resource Types

................................ ................................ ................................ 125200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

vi Lakes

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 125 Rivers, Streams, and Canals

................................ ................................ ................. 125



### Appendix C. Impaired Surface **Waters Rule Methodology for Evaluating Impairment for the Basin Assessments** 

**................................ 127** 

Aquatic Life Based Attainment

................................ ................................ ................... 127

Exceedances of Nu meric Water Quality Criteria

................................ .................... 127

Exceedances of Nutrient Thresholds

................................ ................................ ..... 128 Exceedances of Biological Thresholds

................................ ................................ .. 129

Lake Condition Index

................................ ................................ ............................. 130

Stream Condition Index

................................ ................................ ......................... 130

BioReconnaissance

................................ ................................ ............................... 131 Biological Integrity Standard

................................ ................................ .................. 132 Evaluation of Toxicity Data

................................ ................................ .................... 132

Primary Contact and Recreation Attainment

................................ ............................. 132

Fish and Shellfish Consumption Attainment

................................ ............................. 132

Drinking Water Attainment and Protection of Human Health

................................ ... 133



### Appendix D: Impaired Lakes in Florida, Group 1

**– 5 Basins** 

**............................. 134** 



## List of Tables

Table 1. Flori da Atlas

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 5

Table 2. Primary Coordination Mechanisms for Managing State, Regional,

and Local Water Resources

................................ ................................ ............ 30

Table 3. Results of the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey for Florida

................................ . 35

Table 4. Federal, State, Regional, and Local Agencies and Organizations that Carry Out Water Quality Monitoring in Florida

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

Table 5. Summary of FDEP’s Monitoring Programs (Tiers I, II, and III)

.............................. 44

Table 6. Indicators Used for the Status and Trend Monitoring Network s

.......................... 52

Table 7. Temporal Variability Network Core and Supplemental Indicators

........................ 53

Table 8. Water Quality Standards

................................ ................................ ......................... 54

Table 9. Categories for Waterbodies or Waterbody Segments in the 2008 Integrated Report

................................ ................................ ............................. 5 5

Table 10. Basin Groups for Implementing the Waters hed Management Cycle, by FDEP District Office

................................ ................................ ........ 57

Table 11. Basin Rotation Schedule for TMDL Development and Implementation

................................ ................................ ................................ 57

Tab le 12. Designated Use Attainment Categories for Surface Waters in

Florida

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 58

Table 13a. Data Used in Developing the Planning and Verified Lists, First Basin Rotation Cycle

................................ ................................ ....................... 62

Table 13b. Data Used in Developing the Planning and Verified Lists, Second Basin Rotation Cycle

................................ ................................ ......... 63200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

vii Table 14. Waters Assessed for the Statewide B asin Assessments, by Waterbody Type

................................ ................................ ............................... 64

Table 15. Size of Surface Waters Assigned to Each EPA Integrated Report Category

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 65

Table 16. Individual Designated Use Support Summary

................................ ..................... 66

Table 17. Size of Waters Impaired by Causes (Rivers/Streams, Lakes, Estuaries, and Coastal Waters)

................................ ................................ ....... 67

Table 18. Numbers of Measurements and Impairment Status for the BioRecon and SCI, 1992

– June 2004

................................ ............................... 73

Table 19. Trends in Water Quality for Rivers/Streams, Lakes, Estuari es, and Coastal Waters, 1997

– 2007

................................ ................................ ...... 74

Table 20. Trophic Status of Significant Publicly Owned Lakes

................................ .......... 75

Table 21. Total Miles of Ri vers/Streams and Acres of Lakes/Reservoirs Designated for Drinking Water Use

................................ ................................ 76

Table 22. Miles of Rivers/Streams and Acres of Lakes/Reservoirs Designated for Drinking Water Use that Are Assi gned to Each of the EPA’s Five Reporting Categories

................................ ........................ 77

Table 23. Summary of Impaired River/Stream Miles and Lake/Reservoir Areas Overlapping Source Water Areas of Community Water Systems

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 78

Table 24. Historical Estimates of Wetlands in Florida, 1780

– 1980

................................ ..... 84

Table 25. Acreage of Affected Wetlands Regulated by FDEP (sin ce 2003) and the Water Management Districts (since 2000)

................................ ........ 86

Table 26. Mitigation Banks in Florida

................................ ................................ ................... 89

Table 27. Summary of Ground Water Monitoring Programs and Data

Sources

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 91

Table 28. Indicator Analytes and Overall Ground Water Quality in Florida’s Aquifers

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 95

Table 29. Summary of Contaminants of Concern for Aquifers Used as

Potable Water Sources

................................ ................................ .................... 98

Table 30. Median Concentrations of Ground Water

– Surface Water Constituents in Unconfined Aquife rs (2000

– 07)

................................ .......... 106

Table 31. Reference Springs and Statewide Medians for Nitrate Nitrogen

...................... 108

Table A

- 1. Status Network Water Qualit y Standards for Ground Water

........................... 120

Table B

- 1. Basin Groups for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle, by FDEP District Office

................................ ................................ ...... 124

Table B

- 2. Status Network Primary Index Periods

................................ ............................. 126200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

viii 

## List of Figures

Figure 1. Springs of Florida

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

Figure 2. Agencies Responsible for Water Resource Coordination and Management in Florida

................................ ................................ .................... 32

Figure 3. Phosphorus Trends in Florida Waters, 1970

– 2005

................................ .............. 34

Figure 4. Five

- Year Rotating Basin Cycle in FDEP’s Six Districts

................................ ...... 49

Figure 5. Results of Florida’s Surface Water Quality Assessment for all Parameters (Excludi ng Mercury)

................................ ................................ .... 71

Figure 6. Results of Florida’s Surface Water Quality Assessment for Mercury

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 73

Figure 7. Statewide Summary of Con taminants of Concern in Potable

Ground Water Sources

................................ ................................ .................... 97

Figure 8. Comparison of Nitrate Trends for Selected Springs (2000

– 06)

......................... 109

Figure 9. Comparison of Recent and Historical Nitrate Concentrations in Florida Springs

................................ ................................ ............................... 110

Figure 10. Distribution of Nitrate Concentrations in Springs Monitored by

FDEP

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 111200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

ix 

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

**Purpose and Contents.** This report on water quality in Florida, prepared by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), provides an overview of Florida’s surface water and ground water quality a nd trends as of 2008 . The report, which must be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) every two years, meets the reporting requirements of Sections 305(b) and 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). Under Section 305(b), each s tate must report to the EPA on the condition of its surface waters, and Section 303(d) requires each state to report on its polluted waterbodies (those not meeting water quality standards). Using the information from all the states, the EPA provides Congr ess with a broad

- scale national inventory of water quality conditions and also develops priorities for future federal actions to protect and restore aquatic resources.

**Successes in Water Quality Protection.** Florida has abundant, diverse water resources

, which support various habitats, plants, and animals, as well as food crops, industry, tourism, and recreation. In addition, an enormous underground aquifer system supplies potable water to 90% of the population.

Despite rapid population growth over the past 35 years, Florida has been very successful in protecting its water resources by reducing pollution from existing point and nonpoint sources. This has been accomplished by implementing new technologies, requiring better treatment of
wastewater, reusi ng treated wastewater, eliminating many surface water discharges, and treating stormwater. The graph on the next page illustrates the success of the state’s

programs. a

a The points on the grap h are annual averages of all surface water quality stations found in Florida STORET. They were first averaged by waterbody

— approximately 2,200 streams, lakes, and estuaries for each year

. It shows that after 1982, phosphorus levels decreased, because of regulations that

eli minated many point sources and led to the reuse of treated domestic wastewater, and because of the implementation of stormwater treatment regulations.

**Future Challenges**

**.** T he close connection between surface and ground water, in combination with the press ures of continued population growth, accompanying development, and extensive agricultural operations, present Florida with a unique set of challenges for managing both water quality and quantity in the future.

Despite Florida’s successes in protecting its water resources , the graph on the next page also points to a potential problem that is emerging . After trending downward for 20 years, beginning in 2000 phosphorus levels again began moving upward, likely due to the cumulative impacts of nonpoint source pollution associated with increased population and development.

Increasing pollution from urban stormwater and agricultural activities is having other significant effects. In many springs across the state, for example, nitrate levels have increased

drama tically (twofold to threefold) over the past 20 years, reflecting the close link between surface and ground water. Nitrate sources in groun d water include the following:200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

x **•** Excess fertilizer from agricultural operations (particularly high levels of nitrates

are found under neath intense

, center

- pivot agricultural operations associated with dairy farming ; crops ; and areas with wastewater reuse )

,

**•** Excess fertilizer from urban lawns and landscapes, and

**•** Excess nutrients leaching into ground water from septic tank s.



## Surface Water Results

FDEP evaluated data from 6,300 waterbodies statewide against state water quality standards. There were sufficient data to evaluate (by area or length) 53 % of the state’s rivers and streams,

81 % of its lakes, and 99 % of its est uaries and coastal waters . Ninety different chemical and biological parameters were evaluated.

This report encompasses results from the completion of a 5

- year cycle that evaluates water quality for the entire state

— i.e., 20% of the state is assessed each year for 5 years. T he figure on the next page shows that most surface water quality problems are found in highly urbanized

central and south Florida ( except for mercury contamination, which is statewide )

. Areas with intense agricultural and industrial u se are also associated with poor water quality. Water quality

in the northwest and west

- central sections of the state is generally better than in other areas.

Of the waterbodies that were evaluated, poor water quality (for all causes except mercury) was found in 28 % of the river and stream miles, 25 % of the lake acres, and 59 % of the square miles Phosphorus pollution peaks in early 1980s

0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005phosphorus (mg/l) Phosphorus pollution builds

up in Florida

waters In 1982, Florida implements Stormwater

Rule and no

- discharge policy for point sources

Cumulative effects of nonpoint sources are driving phosphorus levels up a gain

— TMDLs are seeking to address these impacts200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

xi of estuaries. To date, with 100 % of the state evaluated, approximately 2, 565 TMDLs will be required for 1, 688 Florida waters. Because TMDLs are developed for i ndividual pollutants, a waterbody may have multiple TMDLs. To date, FDEP has developed , proposed, or adopted

322 TMDLs for 166 waterbodies , and 3 Basin Management Action Plan s (BMAP s ) have been completed and adopted by Secretarial Order (for the Upper Ock lawaha River Basin , Orange Creek, and Long Branch )

.

The percentage of unpolluted waterbodies (not including mercury in fish) for each surface water

classification was as follows:

**•** Class 1 waters (potable supplies), which supply about 13% of Florida’s dr inking

water: 16 % of river/stream miles and 1 % of lakes

.

**•** Class II waters (shellfish propagation or harvesting): 4 % of river/stream miles

and 16 % of estuarine square miles.

**•** Class III fresh waters (recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy,

wel l

- balanced population of fish and wildlife) : 9 % of river/stream miles and 1 5 %

of lake acres

.

**•** Class III marine waters (recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy,

well

- balanced population of fish and wildlife): 18 % of estuarine square miles

and 63 % of coastal square miles.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

xii All estuaries and coastal waters have been tested for mercury levels in fish tissue , and consumption advisories have been established for a number of fish species. The figure below shows the results for mercury only. Freshw ater and marine TMDLs for mercury will be developed statewide and are due in September 2012

.

Causes of Surface Water Impairment

. Florida’s major pollution problems are caused by mercury in fish , low dissolved oxygen (DO), fecal coliform bacteria, and nut rients . Low DO is caused by natural conditions, hydrologic modifications, or pollution discharges.

Surface Water Quality Trends

. Changes in water quality over time are an important indicator

of the health of surface waters. Out of 823 rivers/streams, l akes, estuaries, and coastal waters

evaluated from 1997 to 2007 , about 54 % were stable, about 22 % were improving (in urban areas, due to improved wastewater and stormwater treatment), and about 24 % were degrading (in agricultural areas, the Suwannee River Basin, and areas of urban growth).200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

xiii 

## Ground Water Results

Ground water, which provides more than 90% of Florida’s drinking water, is highly vulnerable to contamination in much of the state. Generally, the overall quality of the evaluated potable aquife rs was good. However, a number of ground water issues should continue to receive

attention.

The evaluation used historical ground water data from monitoring networks, private wells, and public water systems. The results were as follows:

**• Volatile organic**  **s**

— Benzene most frequently exceeded its primary drinking water maximum contaminant level (MCL). Trichloroethene (TCE) was the second most frequently detected compound above its MCL in samples from public water systems and private wells, closely followed by tetrachloroethene. The greatest number of exceedances for volatile organics in public water systems was in the Ocklawaha Basin, and the greatest numbers of contaminated private wells were in the Lower St. Johns

Basin and in the basins of west

- central Flo rida. The detection of contaminants in private wells is in part a function of sampling density, and these areas were intensively sampled because of problems with leaking underground storage tanks.

**• Pesticides (Synthetic Organic Chemicals)** 

— In public water s ystem samples, the greatest number of pesticide MCL exceedances were for lindane, toxaphene, and methoxychlor (mainly detected in the 1980s and since banned). Pesticides have historically been a more significant issue for private well owners in agricultur al areas than for public water systems. In private wells, most exceedances were for another banned compound, ethylene dibromide (EDB), which was found in samples collected in the 1980s. More recent issues in private wells were identified for the agricult ural

chemicals bromacil and alachlor.

**• Nitrates** 

— Exceedances of the MCL for nitrate

- nitrogen or nitrate+nitrite

- nitrogen were found in samples from 148 public water systems and over 2,500 private wells, with the greatest number found in or near agricultural areas. Most private well exceedances were found in agricultural areas, with almost half of the total found in the ridge citrus

– growing area of the Kissimmee River Basin.

**• Metals** 

— Samples from public water systems have historically exceeded MCLs for one

or m ore primary metals; however, some data, particularly for lead and cadmium, may not be valid because of the influences of metal piping and tanks used to transport and store water. In samples from private drinking water wells, exceedances were most frequent for arsenic and lead, with lead most often associated with plumbing or fixtures rather than ground water.

**• Radionuclides** 

— Most exceedances in samples from public water systems were found in the large phosphate

- mining area of west

- central Florida. Radioacti vity is a natural characteristic of phosphate.

**• Sodium** 

— Most of the elevated sodium concentrations were found in public water systems in central and southwestern Florida, two areas where the intrusion and upwelling of saline waters are serious concerns due t o heavy ground water use and drought conditions. Sodium is a key indicator of saline water influx.

**• Trihalomethanes (THMs)** 

— THMs are byproducts of the disinfection of water containing organic matter and are most often found in public water system samples. Most incidences of THMs exceeding primary MCLs were found in public water systems

in the Middle St. Johns Basin and also in coastal areas of the state where shallower aquifer systems are being utilized.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

xiv **• Bacteria** 

— Bacterial contamination was an issue for mon itoring well samples and is a common issue with water from private wells and water systems. Well contamination is typically from a localized source.

**• Sources of Ground Water Degradation** 

— The most significant sources were petroleum sites, drycleaners, hazard ous waste sites, and nonpoint pollution. Point sources such as leaking underground storage tanks, drycleaners, and waste sites are most frequently associated with volatile organics contamination. Nonpoint sources such as citrus groves and other agricultu ral sites are the most common sources of nitrates and pesticides. Salinity (as sodium) is a result of local or regional overuse of the ground water resource and is a looming issue as growth and drought conditions

coincide.

**• Ground Water** 

**– Surface Water Inter**  **action**

— Nutrients, dissolved oxygen, and iron were the ground water constituents most frequently identified with affected surface waters that exceed criteria. Ground water inflows account for most of the water in many

Florida surface waters.

**• Springs** 

— Florid a’s springs are unique water resources that represent the discharge of ground water to surface water. Spring systems are being threatened statewide by biological imbalances caused by excessive nutrients that are being delivered by ground

water. Nitrate i s the major indicator of nutrient enrichment.



## Conclusion

The Florida Oceans and Coastal Council recently released the “Phase II

- Florida’s Ocean and Coastal Economies Report

, ” ( http://www.floridaoceanscouncil.org/meetings/files/2008/09

- 30/Florida_Phase_II_Report.pdf ) which reveals that Florida’s ocean and coastal resources (e.g., fishing, marine transportation, and tourism) were estimated to contribut e $25 Billion and $562

Billion to Florida’s Gross State Product in 2006. Sustaining t he value of these resources is intimately linked to maintaining the quality of the aquatic environment. Water quality in Florida’s surface and ground water systems is be ing evaluate d on a rotating basin approach, allowing greater monitoring and evaluation of the health of these resources . Tremendous progress has been made in addressing point and nonpoint pollution. However, as the state’s rapid population growth continu es, the increasing amount of nonpoint source pollution ( including urban

stormwater ), atmospheric deposition (including nutrients and mercury )

, and agricultural activities

remain a concern that needs further study and review

.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

1 

# CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION

Purpose and Contents

This report, Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, provides an overview of Florida’s surface water and ground water quality and trends. Referred to as the I ntegrated R eport because it fulfills the reporting requirements und er Sections 305(b) and 303(d) of the federal

Clean Water Act (CWA) , the report must be submitted to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) every two years.

C hapter 1 of this report provides background information on the federal assessment and

re porting requirements and how these requirements are integrated into Florida’s watershed management approach. Chapter 2 contains background information on the state’s population,

surface water and ground water resources, climate, and hydrogeology. It also summarizes Florida’s major programs and activities to protect and manage water resources , and the results of these programs . Chapter 3 describes Florida’s approach to surface water monitoring

, presents significant surface water quality findings , and summ arizes attainment of designated uses ( i.e., f unctional classifications such as recreation, drinking water, and aquatic life) for rivers
and streams, lakes, estuari es, and coastal waters. Long

- term trends in surface water quality, public health and drinkin g water issues, and wetlands protection efforts are discussed. Chapter

4 describes the state’s ground water monitoring program, presents significant ground water quality findings , summarizes ground water contaminant sources, and characterizes ground

water

– surface water interactions

. Evaluating ground water resources is particularly important because 90% of the state’s drinking water supplies come from ground water. The Appendices provide background information and supporting data

.



# Federal Assessment and Reporting Requirements

Section 305(b) of the CWA requires states and other jurisdictions to submit biennial water quality reports to the EPA. These reports, referred to 305(b) reports, describe surface water and ground water quality and trends, the extent to which waters are attaining their designated uses ( such as drinking water, recreation, and shellfish harvesting) , and major impacts to surface water and ground water. Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, states are also required to identify

waters that are not attaining their designated uses, submit to the EPA a list of these impaired waters (referred to as the 303[d] list because they are required under Section 303[d] of the CWA), and develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for them. A TMDL represents t he maximum amount of a given pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate and still meet its designated uses.

Water quality monitoring and data analysis are the foundation of water resource management decisions. The EPA and its state partners have worked to gether to develop an integrated 305(b) and 303(d) assessment approach to address water quality monitoring strategies, data quality and data quantity needs, and data interpretation methodologies. This Integrated R eport continues the consolidation and align ment of the 305(b) and 303(d) assessment and reporting requirements. It also includes Section 314 reporting on the status and trends of significant publicly owned lakes.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

2 The Integrated Report allows states to document whether water quality standards are being attained, documents the availability of data and information for each waterbody segment, identifies trends in water quality conditions, and provides information to managers in setting priorities for future actions to protect and restore the health of Florida’s aquatic resources. This comprehensive approach to assessment enhances Florida’s ability to track important programmatic and environmental goals of the CWA and ideally, speeds up the pace of achieving these goals.

Florida’s integrated approach to monitoring and assessment consists of three tiers: probability

based

, basin

- specific

, and site

- specific

. Probabilistic assessments (Tier I) are used to develop

statistical estimates of water quality across the entire state, based on a representative s ample, and to examine changes in water quality and flow over time statewide. The use of probability assessments can eliminate the risk of generating a biased picture of water quality conditions

statewide , provide information on changes in water quality an d flow over time statewide, and provide a cost

- effective benchmark of the effectiveness of Florida’s water quality program. The

results can also provide information on whether it would be useful to target certain waters for further assessment, or if limit ed resources for water quality assessment can be used more effectively in other ways.

B asin

- specific and stream

- specific monitoring (Tier II) is used to carry out strategic monitoring to address gaps in data provided by other monitoring agencies , to addre ss questions in specific basins and waterbody segments that are associated with determinations of waterbody impairment for the TMDL Program , and to obtain information on springs across the state

. S ite

specific monitoring (Tier III) includes intensive surv eys for TMDLs, monitoring for the development of water quality standards and site

- specific alternative criteria, and fifth

- year inspections for permit renewal s for facilities that discharge to surface waters.

Placing each waterbody segment into one of fiv e reporting categories, based on available data,

is an essential part of the assessment. According to the EPA, this approach allows the states to document the attainment of applicable water quality standards and develop monitoring strategies that effectiv ely respond to the needs identified in the assessment, while ensuring that the attainment status of each water quality standard applicable to a particular waterbody segment is addressed. The five broad categories are as follows:

**•** Category 1: All designat ed uses are supported; no use is threatened.

**•** Category 2: Available data and/or information indicate that some, but not all, of the designated uses are supported.

**•** Category 3: There are insufficient available data and/or information to make a use support d etermination.

**•** Category 4: Available data and/or information indicate that at least one designated use is not being supported or is threatened, but a TMDL is not scheduled for development

.

**•** Category 5: Available data and/or information indicate that at lea st one designated use is not being supported or is threatened, and a TMDL is needed.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

3 

# Integrating the Federal Requirements into Florida’s Watershed Management Approach

For the 2008 305(b) report, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) ha s continued to mo v e towards a comprehensive assessment by integrating the federal assessment and reporting requirements into its watershed management approach. The 1999 Florida

Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA) directed FDEP to implement a comprehensive, i ntegrated watershed approach to evaluating and managing cumulative impacts to the state’s waters. FDEP’s Division of Water Resource Management initiated the watershed management approach in 2000, through the Bureau of Watershed Management.

To implement the watershed management approach, Florida’s 52 basins were divided into 29 groups that are distributed among FDEP’s 6 districts. There are 5 basins each in the Northwest,

Central , Southwest, South, and Southeast Districts, and 4 basins in the Northeast District. One basin is assessed in each district every year. Using a rotating basin management cycle, which ensures that each basin is assessed every 5 years, FDEP and local stakeholders assess individual basins, identify impaired waters requiring the de velopment of TMDLs, and develop Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs) to restore water quality. The order and specific time frame for evaluating each basin are based on a number of priority factors, including watersheds

that contain surface water sources of drinking water, watersheds with more severe water quality problems , and watersheds where Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) plans are proposed or under way.

The assessment, consisting of multiple phases, has been completed in all of the st ate’s basins (the Group 1

– 5 basins), and the scope of the 303(d) list submittal comprises the se basins. As part of its watershed management approach

, which rotates through all of the state’s basins over

a five

- year cycle, FDEP developed Verified L ists of impaired waters for the Group 1

– 5 basins in

2002

, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, respectively . A s required by Subsection 403.067(4), Florida Statutes (F.S.), the lists were then adopted by Secretarial Order. The resulting V erified L ists of impaired waters a nd waters to be delisted in th ose basins amend the 1998 303(d) list of impaired Florida waters maintained by the EPA. FDEP plans to submit annual amendments to its 303(d) list as part of the watershed management approach, and the watershed cycle will be

r epeated beginning with the Group 1 basins over the next year.

Florida continues to d evelop an integrated database of assessment information that reflects whether water quality standards are being attained. The Master List provided in the Water Quality As sessment Report for each basin provides detailed results of the assessment. The basin reports, as well as all of the Verified Lists and lists of waters to be delisted, are available

at http:/ /www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/index.htm

.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

4 

# CHAPTER 2 : BACKGROUND

INFORMATION

Overview

Florida's 65,758 square miles support abundant, diverse natural resources. Some of these

— for example, the Everglades

— are found nowhere else. Florida also contains the only coral reef in

the continental United States

. The state has 11,761 square miles of surface water (ranking third in the country in total water area) and enormous supplies of fresh water in its underground aquifers. Florida depends on water resourc es in many ways

— for example, for its $7 billion fishing and $32 billion tourism industries.

The pressures of population growth and its accompanying development are stressing the state’s freshwater, ground water, and saltwater resources

. Although the stat e ranks twenty

- second in the country in total land area, it currently ranks fourth in population, and that population continues to grow rapidly. Florida will soon be t he third largest state. Most Floridians live in

coastal areas where less fresh water is available , and about three

- fourths of new Florida

residents choose coastal locations for their new homes . As development continues, different users vie for water resources. Major challenges include maintaining overall water quality and supplies, protect ing public health, satisfying competing and rapidly increasing demands for finite quantities of fresh water, minimizing damage to future water reserves, and ensuring healthy populations of fish and wildlife.

Despite the fact that water is plentiful in man y areas, w ater quantity and quality are critical issues. In 1950, Florida’s population of 2.8 million used about 2.9 billion gallons per day ( BGD ) of fresh ground water and surface water. In 1995, that number had risen to 7.2 BGD , and consumption is proj ected to rise to 9.3 BGD by 2020. In many areas, surface water and ground water quality has been degraded by industrial, residential, and agricultural land uses. Many point sources of pollution such as sewage treatment plant discharges have been eliminat ed, but contamination from widespread, diffuse nonpoint sources such as urban development and agriculture remains a problem. Nitrate in ground water discharging from springs is a widespread concern.

Along the coasts, water quality in many estuaries has d eteriorated , habitat losses have affected commercial and recreational fisheries, and s ediments in many urban estuaries contain heavy metals and organic contaminants. Consumption advisories have been issued because tissues

in a number of freshwater and sal twater fish species in many waters contain excessive concentrations of mercury. In Florida Bay, there have been algal blooms and extensive mangrove and seagrass die offs in recent years.

This chapter provides background information about Florida’s popula tion, water resources, climate, and physical features. It also describes Florida’s Water Resource Management Program for protecting surface water and ground water.

**Table 1** summarizes basic information on the state and its surface water resources.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

5 **Table 1** 

**. Florida**  **Atlas**

200 6 estimated population (U.S. Census Bureau) 1 8,089,888 people

Ranking by population among 50 states 4 th largest

% change, April 1, 2000, to July 1, 2006 + 13.2 %

Surface area 65,758 square miles

Ranking by land area among 50 state s 22 nd in size

Total water area 11,761 square miles

Ranking by total water area among 50 states 3 rd largest

Number of U. S. Geological Survey hydrologic units ( i.e., watersheds with hydrologic unit codes, or HUCs) 52

Total number of rivers and streams More than 1,700

Total number of river and stream miles 51,858 miles

Total river miles bordering other states 191 miles

Chattahoochee River 26 miles

Perdido River 65 miles

St. Marys River 100 miles

Total density of rivers/streams 0.89 miles/square m ile

Longest river (entirely in Florida) St. Johns River (273 miles)

Largest discharge Apalachicola River (average of 24,768 cubic feet per second [cfs] )

Perennial streams 19,705 miles

Density of perennial streams 0.39 miles/square mile

Intermittent s treams 2,956 miles

Density of intermittent streams 0.05 miles/square mile

Ditches and canals 25,909 miles

Density of ditches and canals 0.44 miles/square mile

Number of lakes, reservoirs, and ponds 7,712 (area greater than or equal to 10 acres)

Area o f lakes, reservoirs, and ponds 1, 529,280 acres

Area of l argest lake Lake Okeechobee (435,840 acres)

Area of e stuaries and bays 4, 462 square miles

Area of c oastal waters 6,758 square miles

Area of f reshwater and tidal wetlands 17,830 square miles

Prom inent wetland systems Everglades and Big Cypress Swamp, Green Swamp, Okefenokee Swamp, Big Bend coastal marshes, St.

Johns River marshes

Area of i slands greater than 10 acres 1,314 square miles

Number of known springs More than 700

Combined spring outfl ow 8 billion gallons per day

Largest spring Wakulla Springs (average discharge of 252 million gallons per day [ MGD ])

Number of first

- order magnitude springs (flows greater than 64.6 MGD ) 33200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

6 Florida Population, 1990

Source: Fernald and Purdum, 1998 Photo: Florida Department of Commerce 

## Population

According to the U.S. Census Bureau , Florida’s population in 2006 was 18,089,888

. Currently the fourth most populous state in the country, it is projected to be the third most populated in approximately 4 years

. 2

As the baby

- boom generation (those born

betwee n 1946 and 1964) reaches retirement age, the numbers of elderly residents (65 and over) are expected to accelerate rapidly in all states. In Florida, the proportion of elderly is projected to expand from 18.6 %

in1995 to 26.3 % in 2025. Florida had the

cou ntry’s highest proportion of elderly in 1995 and is also projected to have the highest proportion in 2025. Within the next two decades, the state’s total population is expected to increase by 7. 2 million people, the ninth largest gain in the country. Florida is also expected to gain 1.9 million people through international migration between 1995 and 2025, the third largest net gain in the country.

The state has a number of large, expanding population centers, including southeastern Florida (Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties), Jacksonville , Tampa

– St. Petersburg, southwest Florida (from Sarasota to Naples), and Orlando. In contrast, other relatively large areas of

Florida are a sparsely populated.



## Climate

The state’s climate ranges from a transitional zone between temperate and subtropical in the north and northwest, to tropical in the Keys. As a result, Florida's plants and animals are a mix of those from more temperate northern climates and those from the tropical Caribbean. Three hundred native trees and 3,500 vascular plants have been recorded. More than 425 bird species, about half the known species in the United States, can be seen in Florida.

Summers are long, with periods of very warm, humid air. Maximum temperatures average about 90° F., although temperatures of 100° F. or great er can occur in some areas. Winters are generally mild, except when cold fronts move across the state. Frosts and freezes are possible, but typically temperatures do not remain low during the day, and cold weather usually lasts no

more than two or three days at a time.

Rainfall across the state varies with location and season. On average, more than 60 inches per year falls in the far northwest and southeast, while the Keys receive about 40 inches annually. This variability can create local water shorta ges. The heaviest rainfall occurs in northwestern Florida and in a strip 10 to 15 miles inland along the southeast coast.

2 Vogel , April 2006.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

7 Florida’s Average Annual Rainfall, 1961

– 90 Source: Fernald and Purdum, 1998 Except for the northwestern part of the state, most of Florida has a rainy season and a relatively long dry season. In the peninsu la, half the average annual rainfall usually falls between June and September. In northwestern Florida, a secondary rainy season occurs in late winter to early spring. The lowest rainfall for most of the state occurs in fall (October and November) and

sp ring (April and May). The varying patterns of rainfall create differences in the timing of high and low discharges from surface waters.

An approximate diagonal line drawn from the

mouth of the St. Johns River at the Atlantic Ocean to the boundary of Levy and Dixie Counties on the Gulf of Mexico depicts a climatic

river basin divide. North and northwest of the divide, streams have high discharges in spring and late winter (March and April) and low discharges in the fall and early winter (October

and Novem ber). A second low

- water period occurs from May to June. South of the climatic divide, high stream discharges occur in September and October, and low discharges occur from May to June.



# Surface Water and Ground Water Resources

Florida has 51,858 miles of streams and rivers (about half of which are ditches and canals). It contains more than 7,700 lakes greater than 10 acres in size, with a total surface area of 1,618,368 acres. The state also has 4,460 square miles of estuaries and a coastline ranking

se cond in length only to Alaska. A line running from the northeast corner of the state to Key West and back up to the northwest corner along the Gulf Coast would extend 1,300 miles. If the
distance around barrier islands and estuaries were included, the li ne would stretch 8,460 miles.



## Streams and Rivers

The state has more than 1,700 streams and rivers. Differences in climate, hydrogeology, and location all affect their water quality. The longest river entirely in the state is the St. Johns,

which flows n orth as a recognizable stream about 273 miles from the St. Johns Marsh in

north ern St. Lucie County

, to its mouth at Jacksonville. The river drains a land area equal to

about one

- sixth of Florida's surface. The Apalachicola River, in the Florida Panhandl e, has the largest discharge flow , averaging almost 25,000 c ubic feet per second . Its basin, draining over 19,000 square miles, extends to north Georgia’s southern Appalachian Mountains. Also, in the Panhandle, spring discharges give rise to ground water rivers, where the ground water base flow comprises 80 % of the rivers’ flow.

Florida has several types of natural river systems. In fact, most Florida rivers exhibit characteristics of more than one type of river system, either at different places along their length200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

8 or at different times of the year. The links between surface water and ground water can also affect natural systems. A good example is the Suwannee River, which originates in the Okefenokee Swamp as a blackwater stream and becomes spring fed south of Ellaville. During periods of high flow, it carries sand and sediments, behaving like a true alluvial stream. During low flow, however, the river’s base flow comes from underground springs. These variations in

flow affect the downstream stretch es of the river and the receiving estuary. Ground water has higher nitrate concentrations that can affect animals and plants downstream, while the sand and sediments carried by the river during periods of high flow have a different effect on biological

li fe.

In north and northwest Florida, many rivers are alluvial. The Choctawhatchee, Apalachicola,

and Escambia Rivers best represent this type. Common features include a well

- developed floodplain, levees, terraces, oxbows, and remnant channels (sloughs) t hat parallel the active riverbed. Typically, because flows fluctuate more than with other types of rivers, habitats are

more diverse.

There are many blackwater streams and rivers in Florida. Blackwater rivers usually have acidic, highly colored, slowly moving waters containing few sediments. These systems typically drain acidic flatwoods or swamps and are low in biological productivity. The upper Suwannee River and the north New River are good examples.

Many major river systems that originate as sprin gs are found in central and north Florida, the Big Bend area of the Gulf Coast, and the southern portion of the Tallahassee Hills. Chemically, these rivers are clear, alkaline, and well buffered, with little temperature variation. They have relatively co nstant flows and little sediment. Their clear water encourages the growth of submerged plants that provide habitat for diverse animal species. Many spring

- fed rivers flow directly into estuaries; the constant temperatures offer protection from temperatur e extremes to a number of species, including estuarine fish such as spotted seatrout and red drum, a s well as

manatees.

Major dams have been built on the Apalachicola, Ocklawaha, Ochlockonee, Hillsborough, and Withlacoochee (Citrus County) Rivers. The mo st extreme alterations were damming the

Ocklawaha to create the Cross

- Florida Barge Canal and channelizing the Kissimmee River. The southern third of Florida's peninsula has been so hydrologically altered that few naturally flowing streams and rivers rema in. Most fresh waterbodies in South Florida are canals, which usually support plants and animals more typical of lakes than rivers.



## Lakes

Florida's lakes provide important habitats for plant and animal species and are a valuable

resource for human activi ties and enjoyment. The state has m ore than 7,700 lakes , which occupy close to 6% of its surface. The largest, Lake Okeechobee (covering 435,840 acres) , is the ninth largest lake in surface area in the United States and the second largest freshwater

lake wholly within the conterminous United States. 3

3 Fernald and Purdum, 1998. Most of the state’s lakes are shallow, averaging 7 to 20 feet deep, although many sinkhole lakes and parts of other lakes can be much deeper.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

9 Florida’s lakes are physically, chemically, and biologically div erse. Many lakes are spring

- fed; others are seepage lakes fed by ground water, and still others are depression lakes fed by

surface water sources. There are two principal lake types, based on color and alkalinity. In addition, FDEP has defined 47 differe nt lake regions as part of its Lake Bioassessment/ Regionalization Initiative

. These regions provide a framework for assessing lake characteristics and establishing management goals and strategies. 4



## Estuarie **s and Coastal Water s**  Within each lake region, the lakes have similar geology , soils, chemistry, hydrology, and biology , and lakes in one region may differ

s ignificantly from those in another region. For example, most lakes in the New Hope Ridge/Greenhead Slope lake region in northwestern Florida (in Washington, Bay, Calhoun, and Jackson Counties) tend to have lower total nitrogen, lower total phosphorus, lower chlorophyll

concentrations

, and higher Secchi depths compared with other Florida lakes. L akes in the Lakeland/Bone Valley Upland lake region in central Florida (in Polk and Hillsborough Counties) tend to have higher total nitrogen, higher total phosphorus, higher chlorophyll concentrations

, and lower Secchi depths when similarly compared.

With over 8,000 coastal miles, Florida is second only to Alaska in amount of coastline. The

state’s west coast alone contains almost 22 % of the Gulf Coast estuarine acreage in the United States. Florida's estuaries are some of the nation's most diverse and productive. They include embayments, low

- and high

- ene rgy tidal salt marshes, lagoons or sound s behind barrier islands, mangrove swamps, coral reefs, oyster bars, and tidal segments of large river mouths.

The Atlantic coast of Florida from the mouth of the St. Marys River to Biscayne Bay is a high

energy sho reline bordered by long stretches of barrier islands, behind which lie highly saline lagoons. This 350

- mile stretch of coast contains only 18 river mouths and inlets. Biscayne Bay spans the transition from high

- to low

- energy shorelines, which are more t ypical of Florida’s

west coast.

At the southern end of the state lie Florida Bay and the Ten Thousand Islands, both of which are dominated by mangrove islands fronting expansive freshwater marshes on the mainland. Many tidal creeks and natural passes con nect the islands and marshes. Historically, the area’s fresh water came mainly from sheet flow across the Everglades.

Florida's west coast has low relief, and the continental shelf extends seaward for many miles.
Unlike the east coast, numerous rivers, creeks, and springs contribute to estuarine habitats. Generally, the west coast’s estuaries are well

- mixed systems with classically broad variations in salinity. They often lie behind low

- energy barrier islands or at the mouths of rivers that discharge i nto salt marshes or mangrove

- fringed bays. The Big Bend coast from the Anclote Keys north to Apalachee Bay is low

- energy marsh shoreline. While it does not conform to the classical definition of an estuary, its flora and fauna are typically estuarine. M any freshwater rivers and streams feeding the shoreline here are either spring runs or receive significant quantities of spring water. The Florida Panhandle from Apalachee Bay west to Pensacola Bay comprises high

- energy barrier islands, with sand beaches fronting the Gulf of Mexico.

Major coastal and estuarine habitats vary from northern to southern Florida. Salt marshes dominate from Apalachicola Bay to Tampa Bay and from the Indian River Lagoon north to the

4 Florida LakeWatc h, October 1999a; EPA, 2006a. Additional information on Florida lake regions and the ecology of Florida’s lakes is available from Florida LakeWatch ( http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/ and the EPA ( http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/fl_eco.htm ).200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

10 Georgia state line. The estuaries w est of Ap alachicola Bay have few salt marshes. Mangrove swamps dominate the southern Florida coast. There are about 6,000 coral reefs between the city of Stuart on the Atlantic Coast south and west to the Dry Tortugas, while seagrasses are most abundant from Tarp on Springs to Charlotte Harbor, and from Florida Bay to Biscayne Bay.



## Wetlands

Because of its low elevation and peninsular nature, Florida has many varied types of wetlands, including estuarine Spartina and mangrove marshes, as well as freshwater sawgrass marshes, cypress swamps, and floodplain marshes. Wetlands comprise almost one

- third of the state. The following are the largest and most important in the state:

**•** The Everglades and the adjacent Big Cypress Swamp. Including the Water

Conservation Areas (diked portions of the original Everglades system) and excluding the developed coastal ridge, this system extends from about 20 miles south of Lake Okeechobee to Florida Bay.

**•** The Green Swamp in the state’s central plateau.

**•** The Big Bend coast from the St. M arks River to the (South) Withlacoochee

River.

**•** Vast expanses of Spartina marsh between the Nassau and St. Mary’s Rivers.

**•** The system of the St. Johns River marshes. Before alteration by humans, all

but the northernmost one

- fifth of the river basin was an e xtensive freshwater system of swamps, marshes and lakes. 5

**•** The headwaters and floodplains of many rivers throug hout the state, especially the Apalachicola, Suwannee, St. Johns, Ocklawaha, Kissimmee, and Peace

Rivers. Even today, half of the length of the St. Johns River is actually marsh, and in many respects it functions like a

northern

- flowing Everglades.



## Aquifers **and Springs**

Florida lies a top a vast underground aquifer system that provides potable water to most of the state’s population. Ground water naturally discharges into streams, lakes, wetlands , coastal waters, and springs. Florida has more than 700 known springs ( **Figure 1**  ) , which discharge about 8 billion gallons of water per day ( BGD ) ; the state may contain the largest concentration

of freshw ater springs on Earth. The largest spring by discharge is Wakulla Springs, with an average discharge of 252 million gallons per day ( MGD ) . Florida also contains 33 of the 78 first

magnitude springs (defined as springs that discharge on average at least 6 4.6 MGD ) in the United States. Several river systems in the state originate as spring discharges.

Archaeological evidence indicates that humans have been attracted to Florida’s life

- giving springs for thousands of years. Florida’s 14 state parks that ar e named for springs attract

millions of visitors each year, and p rivate spring attractions and parks are a multimillion

- dollar tourist industry.

5 Kushlan, 1990.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

11 **Figure 1**  **. Springs of Florida**



# Hydrogeology

**Surface Water**

Most of Florida is relatively flat. The highest elevations are 345 feet near Lakewood, in Walton County in the Panhandle, and 312 feet at Sugarloaf Mountain in the peninsula (Lake County). 6

In the past, many wetlands were drained (for agriculture and urban development), and

numerous rivers were channelized for nav igation. The modifications were most intense in south Florida where, beginning in the 1920s, canals and levees were built to control flooding and drain The longest river, the St. Johns on Florida’s east coast, only falls about a tenth of a foot per mile

from the he adwaters to the mouth. Farther south, below Lake Okeechobee, the land relief is

less than 6 feet. Surface drainage and topographic relief are greatest in the streams and rivers entering north and northwest Florida from Alabama and Georgia. Most of these streams are alluvial, or sediment carrying. As the land flattens farther south, surface drainage becomes less distinct. Rivers and streams are typically slower moving, non

- eroding, and non

- alluvial.

Many of Florida ’s rivers have their headwaters in wet lands. In its natural setting, the Green Swamp in c entral Florida is the headwater for five major river systems: the (South) Withlacoochee, Ocklawaha, Peace, Kissimmee, and Hillsborough. In north Florida, the Suwannee and St. Marys Rivers originate in t he Okefenokee Swamp. Throughout the state, smaller streams often disappear into wetlands and later re

- emerge as channeled flows.

6 http://www.americasroof.com/highest/fl.shtml

.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

12 wetlands. These modifications resulted in the loss of much of the original Everglades wetlands

from La ke Okeechobee south and the channeling of the Kissimmee River.



## Ground Water

Florida is in the Coastal Plain physiographic province, which is blanketed by surficial sands and underlain by a thick sequence of bedded limestone and dolomite. Together the sur ficial sands, limestone, and dolomites form an enormous ground water reservoir that provides proportionally larger quantities of ground water than in any other state.

These sources of high

- quality, potable ground water underlying virtually all of Florida supported average withdrawals of more than 5,078 MGD in 2000 . This remarkable resource supplies

more than 90 % of the drinking water for more than 18 million residents. In addition, ground water resources supply over 50 % of all water needs, including agri cultural, industrial, mining, and electric power generation.

Florida primarily relies on the following four aquifer systems as drinking water sources:

**•** The Floridan aquifer system, one of the most productive sources of ground water in the United States, e xtends across all of Florida, southern Georgia, and adjoining parts of Alabama and South Carolina. Many public water systems

— including Jacksonville, Orlando, Clearwater, St. Petersburg, and Tallahassee

— tap into the Floridan. It is also a major supplier o f water for industrial, irrigation, and rural use. This aquifer provides 60 % (2, 790 MGD ) of Florida’s potable water supplies.

**•** Unnamed surficial and intermediate aquifers, which are present over much of the state, are used when the deeper aquifers contain nonpotable water. They supply water needs for about 10 % of the population, especially in rural locations. These aquifers provide 20 % (948 MGD ) of the state’s potable water supplies.

**•** In southeast Florida, the Biscayne aquifer supplies virtually all the wa ter needs for over 4 million residents in densely populated Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Monroe Counties. This aquifer provides 18 % (824 MGD ) of Florida’s potable water supplies. The EPA has designated the Biscayne Aquifer as a sole source drinking wate r aquifer.

**•** The sand and gravel aquifer, the major source of water supply in the western part of the Florida Panhandle, provides 2 % (103 MGD ) of Florida’s potable

water.



## Surface Water

**– Ground Water Interactions** 

Florida’s low relief

, coupled with its geolo gic history

, ha s created unique hydrogeologic features. Large areas are characterized by karst topography, which forms when ground water dissolves limestone. Landforms in these areas include streams that disappear underground, springs and seeps where gro und water rises to the surface, sinkholes, and caves. Surface water commonly drains underground and later reappears, sometimes in a completely different surface water basin from where it entered the ground. For example, drainage from a large karst area i n200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

13 Hydrologic Divide

Source: Fernald and Purdum, 1998 Marion County provides water for Silver Springs, which discharges to the Ocklawaha River and then to the St. Johns River and the Atlantic Ocean. The same area also provides water for Rainbow Springs, which discharges to the Withlacoochee River and then to the Gulf of Mexico.

Florida's sandy soils, high average rainfall, shallow water table, and porous karst terrain promote close and extensive interactions between ground water and surface water. By the same mechanisms, surface waters recharge undergroun d aquifers. The fact that Florida

contains more than one

- third of the first

- magnitude springs in the United States is an indication of significant ground water and surface water interchange. Most lakes and streams receive some ground water, but in a sign ificant number of watersheds, ground water inflow contributes the

base flow for streams. In the Springs Coast region of western Florida, for example, ground water provides 70 % to 80 % of the flow in spring runs.

A hydrologic divide interrupts the

movemen t of Florida’s ground water

and surface water. The divide is represented by an approximate line extending from near Cedar Key on the Gulf Coast to New Smyrna

Beach on the Atlantic Coast. Except

for the St. Johns and Ocklawaha
Rivers, little , if any, surf ace water or ground water moves across this barrier. Most major rivers north of the line receive part of their discharges from outside Florida, in addition to rain. South of the divide, rain is the sole fresh water source. Hydrologically, the half of Fl orida lying south of the

divide is an island. About 75 % of the state’s population lives in this area in peninsular Florida.



# Water Pollution Control Programs

**Florida’s Water Resource Management Program**

Florida’s Water Resource Management Program is a comp rehensive effort comprising a number of activities and programs. These include the Florida Water Plan, watershed management, water quality standards, the management of nonpoint source pollution, wastewater facilities permitting, ambient monitoring, ground water protection, educational programs, and land use management. The Water Resource Management Program also includes extensive FDEP coordination with other agencies and programs, including the S WIM Program, run by the five regional water management distr icts.



### Florida Water Plan

In 1972, the Florida legislature, recognizing the importance of the state’s water resources, passed the Water Resources Act, Chapter 373, F.S., and the Florida Air and Water Pollution200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

14 Control Act, Chapter 403, F.S. Many goals and policies in the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, F.S., also address water resources and natural systems protection. Section 373.036, F.S., outlines the requirements for developing the Florida Water Plan, which is to include the following:

**•** FDEP’s p rograms and activities related to water supply, water quality, flood protection, floodplain management, and natural systems;

**•** FDEP’s water quality standards for surface water and ground water;

**•** The water management plans of the water management districts; an d

**•** The Water Resource Implementation Rule (Rule 62

- 40, Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]), which provides goals, objectives, and guidance for the development and review of programs, rules, and plans relating to water

resources.

Under Florida's water man agement system, FDEP oversees the water management districts, an approach that balances the need for consistent statewide regulations with regional flexibility. As the primary stewards of the state's water resources, FDEP and the water management district s often must address competing public demands for water supplies, flood protection, water quality, and natural systems protection. To accomplish this, they have developed comprehensive water management plans for each region.



## Overview of Surface Water Pro **tection Programs** 

Water Quality Standards Program

Florida’s surface water quality standards system is published in Rule 62

- 302 (and Section 62

- 302.530 ) , F.A.C. The components of this system, which are described below, include water quality classifications; water quality criteria; an antidegradation policy; moderating provisions; and the special protection of certain waters, such as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs)

, because of their natural attributes.

**Water Quality Classifications**

**.** Florida’s W ater Q ualit y S tandards P rogram, the foundation of the state’s program of water quality management, designates the “present and future most beneficial uses” of the waters of the state (Subsection 403.061[10], F.S.). Florida’s surface water is protected for five desig nated use classifications, as follows:

Class I Potable water supplies

Class II Shellfish propagation or harvesting

Class III Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well

- balanced population of fish and wildlife

Class IV Agricultural water supplies (large agricultural lands, located mainly around Lake Okeechobee)

Class V Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)

Class I waters generally hav e the most stringent water q uality criteria and Class V the least. However, Class I, II, and III surface waters share water quality criteria established to protect recreation and the propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well

- balanced population of fish200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

15 and wildlife. All waters of the state are considered to be Class III, except for those specifically

identified in Section 62

- 302.600, F.A.C. All waters of the state are required to meet the “Minimum Criteria for Surface Waters,” as identified in Section 62

- 302.500, F.A.C.

A Des ignated Uses and Classification Refinement Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) was recently formed to help FDEP re

- evaluate the current class ifications and assess whether refinements or a new system are needed to provide mo re appropriate levels of protect ion f or different surface water body types and the uses they support

. The PAC met for the first time in February 2006. The many complex challenges faced by this committee quickly became
apparent

, and the Department continues to evaluate the options this group has prepared.

**Water Quality Criteria**

**.** Water quality criteria, expressed as numeric or narrative limits for specific parameters, describe the water quality necessary to maintain designated uses (such as fishing, swimming, and drinking water) for surface w ater and ground water. Chapter 3 discusses the relationship between the state and the EPA’s designated use classifications.

In response to recent initiatives put forth by the EPA, Florida has been working to develop biological criteria and nutrient crite ria for fresh waters and estuaries.

**Antidegradation Policy**

**.** The Florida Antidegradation Policy (Sections 62

- 302.300 and

62

- 4.242, F.A.C.) recognizes that pollution that causes or contributes to new violations of water quality standards or to the continu ation of existing violations is harmful to the waters of the state. Under this policy, the permitting of new or previously unpermitted existing discharges is prohibited where the discharge is expected to reduce the quality of a receiving water below the

c lassification established for it. Any lowering of water quality caused by a new or expanded discharge to surface waters must be in the public interest (that is, the benefits of the discharge to public health, safety, and welfare must outweigh any adverse impacts on fish and wildlife or recreation). Further, the permittee must demonstrate that other disposal alternatives (for example, reuse) or pollution prevention are not economically and technologically reasonable

alternatives to the surface water discha rge.

**Moderating Provisions**

**.** Moderating provisions (provided in Subsection 62

- 302.300[10] and

Rules 62

- 4 and 62

- 6, F.A.C., and described in Sections 62

- 302.300, 62

- 4.244, 62

- 302.800,

62

- 4.243, F.A.C., and Sections 403.201 and 373.414, F.S.) include mixin g zones, zones of discharge, site

- specific alternative criteria, exemptions, and variances. These provisions are intended to moderate the applicability of water quality standards where it has been determined that, under certain special circumstances, the social, economic, and environmental costs of such applicability outweigh the benefits.



### Watershed Management Approach

FDEP 's statewide approach to water resource management, called the watershed management approach, is the framework for developing and impl ementing TMDLs as required by federal and

state laws (a later section of this chapter discusses FDEP’s TMDL Program )

.

Watershed management is a comprehensive approach to managing water resources on the basis of hydrologic units

— which are natural boundarie s such as river basins

— rather than arbitrary political or regulatory boundaries. It does not focus on individual causes of pollution. Instead, each basin is assessed as an entire functioning system, and aquatic resources are evaluated from a basinwide pe rspective that considers the cumulative effects of human

activities.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

16 On a simple level, Florida’s watershed management approach provides a mechanism to focus resources on specific units (river or estuary basins) rather than trying to work on all state wat ers at one time. An important feature is the involvement of all the stakeholders who have an

interest in an individual basin (including federal, state, regional, tribal, and local governments and individual citizens) , in a cooperative effort to define, pr ioritize, and resolve water quality problems. Existing programs are coordinated to manage basin resources without duplicated

effort.

The watershed management approach is not new, nor does it compete with or replace existing programs. Rather than relying on single solutions to water resource issues, it is intended to improve the health of surface water and ground water resources by strengthening coordination among such activities as monitoring, stormwater management, wastewater treatment, wetland

restorat ion, land acquisition, and public involvement.

The Bureau of Watershed Management, within FDEP’s Division of Environmental Assessment

and Restoration

, is responsible for implementing and coordinating watershed management activities. The key components of this approach include the following:

**•** A **basin management unit,** or geographic or spatial unit, is used to divide the

state into smaller areas for assessment

— generally groups of HUCs. HUCs are a nationwide cataloging system commonly used for watershed as sessment and management. They provide a common framework for delineating watersheds and their boundaries at different geographic scales.

**•** A five

- year **watershed management cycle** provides a set schedule that organizes work activities and helps to ensure that all waters are addressed in a timely manner. At the conclusion of the cycle, the process begins anew, allowing basin managers and stakeholders to respond to changing conditions or adjust strategies that have not performed as anticipated. The cycle was

i nitiated in the state on July 1, 2000.

**•** A **Basin Management Action Plan** (B MAP ) , developed for each basin in cooperation with stakeholders and local communities, coordinates and guides management actions. Other plans that provide reasonable assurance that

wa ter quality goals will be met may also be used. The BMAP specifies how pollutant loadings from point and nonpoint sources of pollution will be allocated

and reduced to meet TMDL requirements.

**• Forums and communication networks**  help participants collect inf ormation, fill data gaps, and reach a consensus on solutions to the basin’s problems.

**•** A statewide **basin rotation schedule** ensures that each of the state’s river basins is assessed every five years.

To implement the watershed management approach, Florida’s 52 basins (51 HUCs plus the Florida Keys) have been divided into 29 groupings. T hese have been further subdivided into 5 groups within each of FDEP’s 6 districts statewide. There are 5 basins each in the Northwest,

Central , Southwest, South, and Southea st Districts, and 4 basins in the Northeast District. Each district assesses 1 basin each year. The order and specific time frame for evaluating each basin in each district is based on a number of priority factors, including watersheds that contain200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

17 surfa ce water sources of drinking water, watersheds with more severe water quality problem s

, and watersheds where SWIM plans are proposed or under way.



### T otal Maximum Daily Load Program

Section 303(d) of the federal CWA requires states to submit to the EPA list s of surface waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards (i.e., their designated uses or water quality

criteria ) and establish TMDLs for each of these waters on a schedule. Po llution limit s are then allocated to each pollutant source in an individual river basin. A waterbody that does not meet its designated use is defined as impaired

.

The 1999 FWRA ( Section 403.067, Florida Statutes) clarified FDEP’s statutory authority to establish TMDLs, required FDEP to develop a scientifically sound m ethodology for identifying impaired waters, specified that FDEP could develop TMDLs only for waters on a future state list of impaired waters developed using this new methodology, and directed FDEP to establish an Allocation Technical Advisory Committee (A TAC) to assure the equitable allocation of load reductions when implementing TMDLs. The act also declared Lake Okeechobee impaired and, as required under the TMDL Consent Decree, allowed the state to develop a TMDL for total phosphorus for the lake that w as completed in 2001

.

Another significant component of the FWRA was the requirement for FDEP and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) to adopt, by rule, best management practices (BMPs) to reduce urban and agricultural nonpo int sources of pollution.

As Florida already has an urban stormwater regulatory program, this new authority was particularly important in strengthening Florida’s agricultural nonpoint source management program. This section of the law requires FDACS to a dopt, by rule, BMPs to reduce agricultural nonpoint source pollution

, and for F DEP to verify the effectiveness of the BMPs in reducing pollutant loads through monitoring at representative sites. Once FDACS adopts the BMPs

, landowners must submit a Notice of Intent to FDACS

, specifying the BMPs that will be applied on specific land parcels and the schedule for BMP implementation. The landowners also must maintain records, such as fertilizer use, and allow FDACS staff to inspect the BMPs. By submitting a N otice of Intent, the landowners become eligible for state and federal cost

- share funding to implement BMPs and receive a presumption of compliance that they are meeting water quality standards. The BMP rules and the associated BMP manuals that have been

a dopted are available from FDACS ’ Office of Agricultural Water Policy at http://www.floridaagwaterpolicy.com/

.

Florida ’s Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) (Rule 62

- 303, F.A.C.)

, provi des a

science

- based methodology for evaluating water quality data in order to identify impaired waters, and establishes specific criteria for impairment based on chemical parameters, the interpretation of narrative nutrient criteria, biological impairment, fish consumption advisories, and ecological impairment. The IWR also establishes thresholds for data sufficiency and data quality, including the minimum sample size required and the number of exceedances of the applicable water quality standard for a giv en sample size that identify a waterbody as impaired. The number of exceedances is based on a statistical approach designed to provide greater confidence that the outcome of the water quality assessment is correct. Waters that are identified as impaired through the IWR are prioritized for TMDL development and implementation.

In 2006, and again in 2007, the IWR was amended to address legal challenges that arose following the original adoption in 2001. After t he state rulemaking process was completed , the200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

18 revised IWR was submitted to the EPA on September 14, 2007, as a change to water quality standards. On February 19, 2008, the EPA sent a letter of approval to FDEP acknowledging

that the IWR was an approved change to water quality standards.

BMAPs to re store water quality are d eveloped over 18 to 24 months following TMDL development

. The s trategies developed in each BMAP are implemented into National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES ) permits for wastewater facilities and municipal separate storm sewer system ( MS4 ) permits.

The 2005 Florida legislature’s amendments to the FWRA focused on the development and adoption of BMAPs as an appropriate method for implementing TMDLs. The legislature also established a long

- term funding source that pro vides $20 million per year for urban stormwater retrofitting projects to reduce pollutant loadings to impaired waters. Additionally, the 2005 amendments provide FDEP with the ability to take enforcement action against nonpoint sources that do not implemen t the BMPs that they agreed to implement in the BMAP.



### Surface Water Improvement and Management Program

In 1987, the Florida legislature passed the SWIM Act, Sections 373.451 through 373.4595, F.S. The act directed the state to develop management and rest oration plans for preserving or restoring priority waterbodies. The legislation designated 6 SWIM waterbodies: Lake Apopka, Tampa Bay, Indian River Lagoon, Biscayne Bay, Lower St. Johns River, and Lake Okeechobee.

As of 2006 , SWIM plans ha d been develop ed for 47 waterbodies statewide.

The SWIM Program addresses a waterbody’s needs as a system of connected resources, rather than isolated wetlands or waterbodies. Its goals are protecting water quality and natural systems, creating governmental and other partnerships, and managing watersheds. While FDEP oversees the program, the water management districts are responsible for its implementation

— including developing lists of additional high

- priority waterbodies and waterbody plans (outlined under Rule 62

- 43 , F.A.C.). The districts also provide matching funds for state revenues. In a collaborative effort, other federal and state agencies, local governments, and the private sector provide funds or in

- kind services.

SWIM plans must contain the following:

**•** A description of the waterbody;

**•** A list of governmental agencies with jurisdiction;

**•** A description of land uses;

**•** A list of point and nonpoint source discharges;

**•** Restoration strategies;

**•** Research or feasibility studies needed to support restoration strategies;

**•** A restoration schedule;

**•** An estimate of costs; and

**•** Plans for interagency coordination and environmental education.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

19 **Pollutant Load Reduction Goals**

**.** A pollutant load reduction goal (PLRG) is an estimated reduction in stormwater pollutant loadings needed to p reserve or restore designated uses in SWIM waterbodies that receive stormwater. Ultimately, water quality in a receiving water should meet state water quality standards, and PLRGs provide benchmarks toward which specific strategies can be directed. Inter im PLRGs are best

- judgment estimates of the pollution reductions from specific corrective actions. Final PLRGs are goals needed to maintain water quality standards.

The Water Resource Implementation Rule (Rule 62

- 40, F.A.C.) requires the water management districts to establish PLRGs for SWIM priority waters and other waterbodies, and include them as part of a SWIM plan, other watershed management plan, or districtwide or basin

- specific

rules.



### Point Source Control Program

Florida's well

- established wastew ater facility permitting program was revised in 1995 when the EPA authorized FDEP to administer a partial NPDES Program, and then was expanded again in

2000 when the EPA authorized FDEP to administer the NPDES s tormwater p rogram. While the federal program only regulates discharges to surface waters, the state wastewater program issues permits for facilities that discharge to either surface water or ground water. Of about
4, 100 wastewater facilities in Florida, approximately 5 00 are permitted to discharge to state surface waters under individual permits. While an additional 500 facilities discharge to surface water under general permit authorization (and many others discharge stormwater to surface

water under the NPDES s tormwater p rogram), most wastewater facilities in Florida discharge indirectly to ground water via land application

.

An important component of Florida’s wastewater management is the encouragement and promotion of reuse. In fact, the current reuse capacity (year 200 4 data) represents about 5 6% of the total permitted domestic wastewater treatment capacity in Florida.

FDEP's district offices handle most of the permitting process, with the Tallahassee office overseeing the program, providing technical assistance, and coordinating with the EPA. The Tallahassee office also oversees the administrative relief mechanisms for applicants that are allowed under Florida law, as well as permits for steam electric

– generating power plants that discharge to waters of the state. Wastewater permits, issued for up to five years, set effluent limits and monitoring requirements to provide reasonable assurance that water quality criteria will be met. A permit may allow a mixing zone when there is enough dilution to ensure that a waterbody's designated use will not be affected. In other special cases, a variance or exemption allows certain water quality standards to be exceeded. Facilities that cannot comply with new requirements may be issued or reissued a permit containing the effluent limitations to

be met a nd an administrative order setting out the steps required to achieve compliance. This procedure applies only to facilities complying with an existing permit, and is not used in lieu of enforcement when a permittee is out of compliance with an existing per mit or operating without a required permit.

All facilities must meet, at a minimum, appropriate technology

- based effluent limitations. In many cases, water quality

– based effluent limitations (WQBELs) may also be necessary. Two types of WQBELs are used ( as defined in Rule 62

- 650, F.A.C.). Level I WQBELs are generally based on more simplified evaluations for streams and for permit renewals. To determine Level II WQBELs, which are typically calculated for more complicated situations, a waterbody is200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

20 genera lly sampled intensively

, and computer models are used to predict its response to a facility’s discharge.

Ground water discharge permits address an array of discharge options, including sprayfields, percolation ponds, and injection wells. Direct discharge to ground water through wells is not allowed, except through the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program. Ground water discharges are provided a ”zone of discharge

, ” where ground water standards are not applied

and the attenuation and dilution of con taminants occurs in the surficial aquifer. Zones of discharge are typically the lesser of 100 feet in diameter or the facility’s property boundary in areal extent, and vertically to the top of the next aquifer unit. Ground water monitoring plans are

requ ired to ensure that ground water flowing from the zone of discharge complies with ground water standards. Monitoring plans comprise upgradient background wells and downgradient compliance wells, and generally require quarterly monitoring. There are provi sions for exemptions from individual ground water quality standards that allow certain standards to be exceeded. Historically, these have been primarily granted for the sodium standard in coastal

areas.

**Permit Compliance.** The primary objective of FDEP’s W astewater P rogram is to protect the quality of Florida's surface water and ground water by ensuring that permitted wastewater

facilities meet the conditions of their individual permit s and to quickly identify unpermitted pollution sources and those facil ities that do not meet water quality standards or specific permit

conditions. To provide proper oversight of the wastewater facilit ie s in the state, FDEP’s Wastewater Compliance Evaluation Section developed a compliance inspection strategy based

on its fi ve

- year permitting cycle (permits are issued for five years). For NPDES

- permitted facilities, the goal is to conduct an annual inspect with at least a Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CEI) and to conduct a Performance Audit Inspection (PAI) immediately f ollowing permit renewal. When an NPDES

- permi tted facility is approximately one year away from submitting a permit renewal application, a much more comprehensive inspection, or Fifth Year Inspection (FYI), is scheduled. The FYI consists of an overview of the facilities operation, but

also includes an in

- depth sampling plan consisting of a Compliance Sampling Inspection (CSI), a Toxic Sampling Inspection (XSI, a Compliance Biomonitoring Inspection (CBI), and an Impact Bioassessment (IBI) and Water Quality I nspection (WQI). The results of these inspections help

to determine if current permit limits are adequate to protect the quality of the receiving waters. Land application facilities are also inspected on an annual basis as resources allow; however, they are not subject to the same sampling intensity as the surface water dischargers.

District compliance and enforcement staff make every effort to work with a permittee to resolve minor problems before beginning a formal enforcement action. During an inspe ction, it is the inspector’s responsibility to determine if a facility is in compliance with its permit limits and compliance schedules. This is accomplished by verify ing the accuracy of facility records and reports, plant operation and maintenance requir ements, effluent quality data (D ischarge Monitoring Reports, or D MRs) , and the general reliability of the facility’s self

- monitoring

program.

**Enforcement.** FDEP’s W astewater P rogram uses the Office of General Council’s Enforcement Manual as a guide for de veloping specific types of enforcement actions such as Consent Orders

and Notice s of Violations. However, in order to provide guidance on specific wastewater issues related directly to the W astewater P rogram, the Wastewater Program Enforcement Response

Gu ide was developed to aid inspectors in determining the correct course for corrective actions.

Th e g uide also provides consistency in addressing enforcement actions specifically related to

wastewater issues.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

21 When formal enforcement is necessary, staff att empt to negotiate a consent order

— a type of administrative order in which civil penalties (such as fines) and corrective actions for noncompliance can be assessed. Consent orders also establish step

- by

- step schedules for complying with permit conditions a nd Florida law.

In 2001, the Florida legislature enacted the Environmental Litigation Reform Act (ELRA) to provide a fair, consistent, and expedient method for determining appropriate penalty amounts

for violations. If a settlement cannot be reached thro ugh the consent order process, FDEP has the authority to issue a Notice of Violation (NOV) to collect penalties (up to $10,000), as specified in ELRA. The NOV can also be used when only corrective actions are needed and no penalties are being sought. Whe n a serious violation endangers human health or welfare

, or the environment, FDEP issues a complaint for injunctive relief or takes other legal action, including an immediate final order for corrective action.



### Healthy Beaches Program

As part of Florida’s Healthy Beaches Program, FDOH monitor s the state’s coastal beaches for high levels of bacteri a . In August 2000, the beach water sampling program was extended to all 34 of Florida's coastal counties through state legislation (Senate Bill 1412 and House Bil l 2145) and funding. With additional funding from the E PA in 2002 , the program was expanded to include sampling on a weekly basis for fecal coliform a nd enterococci bacteria at 307 beach

locations throughout Florida

.

In a healthy environment, an array of bacteria is normally found in the soil, on plants, on and in ourselves and our pets and other animals, and in water. When concentrations of bacteria are too high, they can present problems themselves, or they can be an indicator of other organisms

that c an cause problems to humans. Two bacteria types that normally inhabit the intestinal tract

of humans and animals are fecal coliform and enterococci

.

The presence of elevated levels of these enteric bacteria in water is an indication of possible pollutio n that may come from stormwater runoff, pets and wildlife, or human sewage. While not necessarily pathogenic, their presence i n high concentrations in recreational waters indicates that pathogens may be present. If waste pathogens are present in high qua ntities and are ingested while swimming

, or if they enter the skin through a cut or sore, the bacteria may cause human disease, infections

, or rashes. The rationale for selecting these two bacteria for analysis

and the implications of the sampling results are described in more detail on F DOH ’s website at http://esetappsdoh.doh.state.fl.us/irm00beachwater/terms.htm

.

I f a sampling event leads to a "poor" bacterial indicator result in a single sample, then the county health department immediately collects a resample. If the resample confirms the high result, then an advisory or warning is issued, signs are posted parallel to the sample point, the results are posted on FDOH’s websit e , and the news media are notified. If the county health department cannot collect a timely resample, it issues an advisory or warning with the first "poor" result obtained. Sampling events resulting in a "poor" classification normally require

additional sampling.

In a calendar year, i f FDOH posts more than 21 da ys of advisories for a water body , th at

water body is considered impaired for swimming , and is listed as impaired on the 303(d) list so

that the sources of the bacteriological levels can be addres sed.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

22 The most recent results from the current Florida’s Healthy Beaches Program can be reviewed at http://esetappsdoh.doh.state.fl.us/irm00beachwater/default.aspx . A samplin g history of the original counties included in the program and the counties that were added, and a sampling history between 1998 and July 2000 are available at http://e setappsdoh.doh.state.fl.us/irm00beachwater/history/hisintro.htm

.



### Nonpoint Source Management Program

The importance of minimizing nonpoint source pollution, especially from new developments, was recognized in Florida in the late 1970s when the state’s gro wth rate increased greatly. Over the past 25 years, Florida has implemented one of the most comprehensive and effective nonpoint source management programs in the country. The N onpoint S ource M anagement

P rogram include s a mixture of regulatory, nonregula tory, land acquisition, public education, and finance assistance components , which are discussed below.

The cornerstone of Florida’s nonpoint source program is the state Stormwater Rule. Florida was the first state in the country to establish a statewide S tor mwater P ermitting P rogram that requires the treatment of stormwater from all new development. The state’s first S tormwater

R ule was adopted in 1979 , with a more comprehensive rule going into effect in February 1982. New developments, except for sing le

- family dwellings, and modifications to existing discharges must obtain stormwater permits. Projects must include a stormwater management system that provides flood control and BMPs such as retention, detention, or wetland filtration to reduce

stormwate r pollutants. The Stormwater Rule

, a technology

- based rule

, establishes design

criteria for various stormwater treatment BMPs to obtain the minimum level of treatment

established in the s tate ’s Water Resource Implementation Rule (Rule 62

- 40, F.A.C.)

. Spe cifically, t hese BMPs are designed to remove at least 80 % of the total suspended solids (TSS) pollutant loading. For OFWs, some other sensitive waters (such as shellfish

- harvesting areas), and waters that are below standards, BMPs must be designed to remo ve 95 % of the TSS loading.

A 1989 stormwater law directed FDEP to establish statewide goals for treatment and to oversee the implementation of stormwater regulatory programs, which were also delegated to the water management districts. Delegation allows minor design adjustments for Florida’s diverse landscape. In 1993, the legislature modified portions of Chapters 373 and 403, F.S., to streamline permitting. The Wetlands Resource Permit and the Management and Storage of Surface Water (MSSW) Permit were unified into a single Environmental Resource Permit to increase statewide consistency in minimizing the impacts of new land uses.

Therefore, except in the area served by the Northwest Florida Water Management District,

where FDEP still issues stormwater and dredge

- and

- fill permits, an Environmental Resource Permit is issued that provides for flood control, stormwater treatment, and wetlands protection.

A second important nonpoint source regulatory program is the state’s wetlands protection law and permit ting program. This program has been instrumental in minimizing the loss of wetlands, especially isolated wetlands. Details about this program can be found in Chapter 3, in the section on wetlands protection.

As discussed earlier in this chapter (in the section on the TMDL Program), t he FWRA requires

FDACS ’ Office of Agricultural Water Policy to develop and adopt, by rule, BMPs to reduce agricultural nonpoint source pollution. F DEP is charged with monitoring the effectiveness of the BMPs. To date, FDACS has developed and/or adopted BMP manuals for Ridge c itrus, Indian200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

23 River c itrus, l eather l eaf f erns, s ilviculture, cow/c alf operations , Peace River c itrus, v egetable

and a gronomic c rops, c ontainer

- g rown p lants, f orage g rass, t ri

- c ounty a griculture, s outh Fl orida

n urseries, and Gulf c itrus. The BMP rules and the associated BMP manuals that have been adopted are available at http://www.floridaagwaterpolicy.com/

.

This nonregulatory program provides agricul tural producers with incentives to implement BMPs

. P articipation in the program opens the door for state and federal cost

- share dollars to implement

BMPs

, and it provides the landowner with a presumption of compliance that water quality

standards are bein g met. To participate, land owners must submit a Notice of Intent to F DACS

, specifying the lands to be covered, the BMPs to be implemented, the BMP implementation schedule, and the annual tracking requirements such as fertilizer use.

Land acquisition is o ne of the most important components of Florida’s N onpoint Source

M anagement P rogram. The state’s first environmental land acquisition program was enacted by the legislature in 1972 ( the Environmentally Endangered Lands Act). In 1981, the Save our

Coasts and Save our Rivers P rograms were enacted to expand land acquisition. In 1989, recognizing the importance of accelerating land acquisition

, given the state’s rapid population growth, the Preservation 2000 program was enacted. This decade

- long program pro vided $300 million annually for land acquisition. In 1999, Preservation 2000 was extended for another decade by the enactment of the Florida Forever P rogram

, which continued the $300 million annual commitment for another decade. These programs have led t o the acquisition of over 1

million acres of sensitive lands.

The state’s growth management program, implemented by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (FDCA) and the state’s local governments, is another key component of

Florida’s Nonpoint Source Management Program . The 1985 State Comprehensive Plan and the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act require local governments to establish blueprints for future growth (local comprehensive plans) and to adopt local la nd development regulations to minimize the adverse social, economic, and environmental impacts of growth.

Dedicated funding for nonpoint source management programs is crucial to their success. In 1986, legislation was passed that authorized local governm ents to implement stormwater utility fees to provide funding for stormwater treatment and infrastructure. Today, over 140 of Florida’s local governments have implemented a stormwater utility fee

, with the average fee for a single

- family homeowner of $3.50 . These dedicated local stormwater funds open the door for

cost

- sharing from F DEP and the water management districts for stormwater retrofitting projects. In 1994 the legislature adopted the Nitrate Bill

, which imposed a small fee on nitrogen fertilizers

. These funds are used to fund research to develop BMPs to reduce the leaching of nitrogen into ground water, especially from agricultural producers. In 2004, the Nitrate Bill was expanded to add a fee for phosphorus fertilizers and to also address the e utrophication of surface waters. In 1997, legislation expanded the scope of the State Revolving Load F und to provide funding for stormwater retrofitting projects and for agricultural BMP implementation. With the passage of

the FWRA in 1999, F DEP and FDAC S were authorized to receive documentary stamp funding

for the research and demonstration of urban and agricultural BMPs. Funding has varied from $2.8 million to $9.2 million per year. Finally, as discussed earlier, in 2005 the legislature

established a new funding source that will provide F DEP with about $20 million per year for the TMDL Water Quality Restoration Grant Program

, allowing F DEP to partner with local governments on urban stormwater retrofitting projects.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

24 Public education on “ p ointless p erso nal p ollution” is the final component of Florida’s Nonpoint Source Management Program . Over the past 20 years

, a wide variety of educational materials, many of which can be customized for local areas, have been developed and distributed. Nearly

all of th ese materials are now available electronically and can be downloaded either from

F DEP ’s Nonpoint Source Management Section website ( http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/nonpoint/ )

, or from the Univers ity of Central Florida Stormwater Management Academy website ( http://www.stormwater.ucf.edu/ ). Given the state’s rapid growth rate, especially from people from out of state, these educational materials are i mportant in teaching residents how they contribute to nonpoint source pollution and how they can be part of the solution to pointless personal pollution.



### Atmospheric Deposition Reduction Strategies

Mercury

. Mercury

, a naturally occurring toxic trace elem ent

, has a complex cycle between the Earth’s crust, atmosphere

, and oceans. Some mercury is released by natural processes

, but the predominant emissions to the atmosphere result from human activities, principally the mining and smelting of mineral ores, f ossil fuel combustion

, and the use of mercury itself. Today these human activities liberate mercury from its geological sinks into the free

environment at a rate five to six times higher than in the pre

- i ndustrial era. Mercury released in this way can tr avel long distances through atmosphere, ultimately depositing from the air to

watersheds and wetlands.

Mercury deposited in wetlands, lakes

, and streams can be converted by natural bacteria into methylmercury, a toxic form that is accumulated and biomagn ified at each link in the food chain.
In some circumstances, th is results in sportfish that would be toxic if eaten by humans and prey fish that may be toxic to wildlife that eat them. This effect is particularly acute in the marshes of the Florida Everg lades, where largemouth bass once contained six times the level of mercury safe for human consumption

, and wading birds have ingested amounts of mercury close to levels that could reduce their populations.

Substantial progress has been made in alleviating the mercury problem in south Florida.

Human

- caused mercury emissions from industrial sources in south Florida, principally incinerators, have come under effective control during the past decade; emissions of mercury in south Florida have declined by 90%. Subsequently, mercury in f ish and wildlife of the Everglades has declined by about 75% to date. However, despite these encouraging results, mercury levels in fish and wildlife of the region remain excessive. In 2003 , the EPA promulgated nationwide merc ury standards for the nation’s waterbodies; the Florida Everglades remains above acceptable limits.

A private

– public partnership led by FDEP is investigating ways to alleviate th e problem. A consortium of electric utility interests and federal and state agencies is collaborating in the South Florida Mercury Science Program ( SFMSP )

. SFMSP m anagers meet regularly to apportion research responsibilities, correlate funding requests

, and share scientific results on Everglades mercury issues. While the SFMSP i s focused on the Everglades and s outh Florida, virtually all of its work has stat ewide and national application.

The EPA and FDEP are developing a field study in south Florida that seeks to obtain robust estimates of dry deposition of both fine and coarse particulate matter for mercury (as well as phosphorus , which is discussed in the next section) . The two

- year study will commence in 2006

and conclude in 2008.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

25 F DEP ’s mercury website ( http ://www.dep.state.fl.us/labs/mercury/index.htm ) describes SFMSP strategies, plans activities and results. It also provides links to the mercury

- related website s of SFMSP participants and to other useful website s dealing with mercury.

Beginning in 2007, F DEP initiated an effort to gather the detailed information needed to support

statewide TMDL s for mercury. Although many of the state ’ s rivers and lakes have been sampled and shown to have mercury in fish tissue concentrations that are well below the

thres holds that would prompt a consumption advisory, FDEP believes that developing and implementing a statewide approach will benefit all Florida’s waters and will be a more cost

effective means to set the necessary targets and reductions. Freshwater and marin e TMDL s

are due by September 2012.

F DOH

, FDEP , and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ( FWCC ) operate jointly to determine if environmental chemicals are present in fish from Florida waters. In most

instances

, the FWCC determines what f ish species should be sampled and collects those samples. F DEP measures the levels of chemicals in fish tissue. F DOH determines the potential for adverse human health effects from consuming the fish and issues fish consumption

advisories when needed. In formation on the latest advisories is available on FDOH’s website ( http://www.doh.state.fl.us/environment/community/fishconsumptionadvisories/index.html )

.

Phosphorus

. The fundamental role of phosphorus in controlling primary productivity and determining the basic structure of the algal community in freshwater aquatic systems has long been recognized. For seepage lakes, which by definition receive the pr eponderance of their hydrologic income from rainfall directly to the lake surface, atmospheric deposition directly to the lake is the dominant source of inorganic nutrients. In Florida, the atmospheric deposition of phosphorus is particularly important

, b ecause approximately 70% of the state’s lakes are seepage lakes.

Recent investigations, however, suggest that the atmospheric deposition of phosphorus is of secondary importance as a contributor to the load to the Everglades Protection Area

. Still, there has been very little research done to actually measure the dry deposition of phosphorus, or for that matter, of nutrients in general. As discussed earlier, the EPA and FDEP are developing a field study in south Florida that seeks to obtain robust estimat es of dry deposition of both fine and coarse particulate matter for phosphorus (as well as mercury, which is discussed in the preceding section) . The two

- year study will commence in 2006 and conclude in 2008.

N itrogen

. The a ir deposition of nitrates and ammonia (nutrients) can represent a significant pollutant load to estuaries and coastal waters (typically nitrogen

- limited systems), causing or contributing to eutrophication and waterbody impairment. In Florida, Tampa Bay typifies such
situations, invol ving a mix of fixed nitrogen loads from point and nonpoint source discharges, stormwater, and atmospheric deposition, and posing a challenge for source apportionment and abatement through TMDL analyses. There is limited scientific expertise, however, to

a dequately quantify nutrient deposition to the waterbo dy and watershed.

Current estimates suggest that atmospheric deposition comprises approximately 30% of the nitrogen budget of Tampa Bay. This estimate is based, however, on limited ambient monitoring

d ata and simple models. In 1999, the EPA, FDEP, and the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) and its many collaborators initiated a Bay Regional Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment (BRACE) study to provide better information on air quality in the Tampa Bay area, with specific reference to air deposition and its effects on water quality. The results of the study, which will be released in the coming year, will provide improved estimates of the effects of local and200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

26 regional emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NO

x ) on the b ay and the benefits of implement ing emissions reduction strategies.



## Overview of Ground Water Protection Programs

Permitting Programs

FDEP implements a comprehensive ground water quality protection program that establishes ground water quality standar ds, classifications, and permitting criteria. The basis for the prevention of ground water contamination is the rule that extablishes Florida’s ground water
standards, Rule 62

- 520, F.A.C. R egulatory tools includ e construction and operation permit require ments, setbacks, and ground water monitoring criteria.

Many additional FDEP rules exist to implement the standards for ground water protection. Each

rule addresses a specific type of discharge or potential discharge to ground water that, if not managed appropriately, may pose a potential threat to the resource. Each rule incorporates technical reviews of permit applications and associated data, construction and operation permits with standard and specific conditions that ensure all permit requirements a re met, ground water monitoring, compliance inspections, and enforcement actions when necessary.



### Underground Injection Control

Florida has obtained primacy for implementing the Underground Injection Control Program for Class I, III, IV, and V injection w ells. The purpose of the program is to protect Florida’s underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) from the potentially harmful effects of injection

wells. A USDW is defined as an aquifer that contains a total dissolved solids concentration of

less t han 10,000 milligrams per liter ( mg/L )

.

There are more than 140 active Class I wells in Florida. The majority of the Class I injection facilities in Florida dispose of nonhazardous, secondary

- treated effluent from domestic wastewater treatment plants, de salinization concentrate, or a blend of these two waste streams. Injection wells are required to be constructed, maintained, and operated so that the injected fluid remains in the injection zone, and the unapproved interchange of water between aquifers is prohibited. Class I injection wells are monitored so that if the migration of injection fluids were to

occur

, it would be detected before reaching the USDW.

There are no Class III wells

, and Class IV wells are banned in Florida. Class V wells are

gen erally used for the storage or disposal of fluids into or above a USDW. The fluid injected must meet appropriate criteria

, as determined by the classification of the receiving aquifer. Common types of Class V wells in Florida include air conditioning ret urn flow wells, swimming pool drainage wells, stormwater drainage wells, lake level control wells, domestic waste wells, and aquifer st orage and recovery (ASR) wells.



### Delineation Program

In 1988, the Florida l egislature directed FDEP to implement water we ll construction and water testing standards within areas of known ground water contamination. This was done primarily because of a widespread ground water contamination problem with the pesticide ethylene dibromide (EDB) in drinking water wells, These acti ons were taken to protect public health and ground water resources, and to promote the cost

- effective remediation of contaminated potable200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

27 water supplies (Subsection 373.309[ 1 ][ e ] , F.S. )

. While areas have bee n delineated based on

detections of solvents and gasoline, EDB, which has been detected in 38 counties statewide, has been the primary contaminant serving as the basis for the 427,897 acres delineated under

Rule 62

- 524, F .A.C.

F DEP’s primary responsibility in the implementation of Rule 62

- 524 has been the delineation of areas of ground water contamination and the corresponding development of maps identifying those areas. These are based on ground water quality data or knowledge of historical land

use s . Where data are incomplete, a 1

, 000

- foot protective setback is placed around the contaminated site or well to estimate the extent of the contaminated plume. The contaminated sites and associated plumes are plotted on maps

, and each plume is labeled with a unique

identifier that can be used to determine th e contaminants that it contains. A well permitted in a

delineated area must be tested for the contaminants for which the area was delineated be fore it

can be cleared for use.

All delineation maps undergo rigorous internal review, and are adopted under ru lemaking procedures (Chapter 120, F.S.) that include public meetings and approval by the Environmental Regulation Commission. The latest maps produced by F DEP were approved in 1994.

The i mplementation of the delineation rule has involved a cooperative e ffort among F DEP,

FDOH , and the water management districts. After F DEP delineates areas of ground water contamination, the water management districts implement stricter well construction standards through permitting requirements. Each permit application for a new well is reviewed to

determine the well’s location relative to delineated areas. If the well is located in a delineated area, the water management district will either require more rigorous well construction standards or connection to a public wa ter system. FDOH is responsible for collecti ng and testing water samples.



### Wellhead Protection

On August 18, 1998, the EPA approved Florida’s Wellhead Protection Program , which coordinates and builds on existing programs and rules that protect the state’s ground water

resources. The program also enables local governments to expand on these rules by implementing their own local strategies for protecting drinking water wells. FDEP supports local programs by providing technical assistance in wellhead deline ation methods and protection

measures.

The Wellhead Protection Rule, Rule 62

- 521, F.A.C.

, establishes a consistent 500

- foot radius producing a circular w ellhead p rotection area (setback) around all wells that serve community

and nontransient

, noncommunity public water systems. The rule prohibits certain new installations from locating in wellhead protection areas and specifies additional performance

standards for other new installations and activities. Outside of the setback area, the ground
water protec tion programs implement specific performance, permitting, and monitoring criteria designed to protect ground water on a statewide basis.



### Source Water Assessment and Protection Program

Originally passed by Congress in 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SD WA) was created to protect public health by regulating the nation’s public drinking water supply. It establishes national standards and practices to prevent the contamination of drinking water sources and to ensure proper drinking water treatment and dist ribution. In 1996

, the a ct was amended to200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

28 include the Source Water Assessment and Protection Program (SWAPP). To assess and report to the public on potential contaminants of Florida’s source water and threats to public water systems, SWAPP comprises the following four key steps:

**•** Define the source water protection area

,

**•** Identify known or potential sources of contaminants in the area

,

**•** Determine the susceptibility of the water source to the contaminants , and

**•** Notify the water systems and the public and expl ain the significance of the contaminants identified in the source inventory.

EPA Region 4 approved Florida’s s ource w ater a ssessment approach on April 1, 2000. The

Florida assessment , which is g eographic i nformation s ystem (GIS) based

, is designed to be repeated every five years.

In 2004, FDEP assessed all transient noncommunity, nontransient noncommunity

, and community public water systems. Th ese comprised approximately 6,300 public water systems, with close to 12,000 wells and 24 surface water intakes

. The r esults of the assessments were sent to the public water systems and posted on the SWAPP website at www.dep.state.fl.us/swapp

.

Currently , assessments for over 99 % of public water systems are poste d on the SWAPP

website . In 62 % of the assessed public water systems, no potential sources of contamination

were found. Of the 38 % of systems with one or more potential sources of contamination within their assessment areas, the most prevalent potential s ource is petroleum storage tank facilities, followed by wastewater treatment facilities, delineated ground water contamination areas

, and dry

- cleaning sites.

In 2006, FDEP repeated the SWAPP assessments for approximately 40% of the state. These

data ar e currently under review. A complete assessment of all public water systems in the state is planned for 2008.



### Watershed

- based Monitoring and Reporting

Integrating ground water into FDEP’s watershed management approach has required an expansion in the app roaches for both monitoring design and data analysis to include ground

water

– surface water issues. Historically, t he majority of ground water protection efforts emphasized land use and aquifer vulnerability, a s well as investigating and remediating local point sources of contamination to protect potable water supplies. Integrating ground water into watershed protection, however, has required the additional consideration of ground water contributions to surface waterbodies ( i.e., base flow). The water qua lity of base flow is now also considered an equally important ground water use to ensure the support of aquatic life in surface waterbodies. Identifying and quantifying ground water contributions where substances with extensive natural or anthropogenic ab undances in geological deposits coexist with high percentages of base flow are also important in evaluating impaired surface water s

.

FDEP has developed a methodology and screening tools to evaluate and identify ground water resource issues and potential i nfluences of ground water on surface water quality within Florida’s watershed management cycle. The f indings of these evaluations are used in guiding future monitoring and assessment efforts, identify ing potential private well sampling needs, and200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

2 9 identify ing more detailed evaluations to determine ground water’s influence on impaired or potentially impaired surface waters.



### Springs Initiative

In 1999, the Secretary of FDEP directed the formation of a multiagency Florida Springs Task

Force to recommend strat egies for protecting and restoring Florida’s springs. In 2000, the task force published its findings and recommendations in a report, Florida ’s Springs: Strategies for

Protection and Restoration

.

In 2001, the Florida Springs Task Force II was formed to guide the implementation of the “ a ction

s teps” in the report. During the same year, the Florida legislature, with the support of the Governor and FDEP’s Secretary, allocated approximately $2.5 million to begin the process of protecting and restoring Flori da’s springs. Annual funding at that level has continued on an annual basis for each succeeding year to the present. As of 200 7 , approximately $ 17 .5 million had been spent in three broad areas: research and monitoring, landowner assistance, and

educatio nal outreach.

The Florida Springs Initiative has funded a wide variety of projects, including septic system upgrades and relocations to reduce nutrient inputs ; the development of BMPs for golf courses ; the removal of invasive, non

- native aquatic plants ; w ater quality and spring flow monitoring ; ecological studies ; dye tracing studies ; the development of educational materials ; and the establishment of Springs Working Gro ups.

The physical restoration of springs and spring runs has also been a priority, and rules to protect state sovereignty springs have been developed and enacted. Educational projects have included producing informational booklets and flyers, creating spring

- specific local working groups, constructing kiosks at highly visited springs, devel oping and maintaining the award

winning interactive website

, http://www.floridasprings.org , and sponsoring the PBS film

, Water’s Journey

— The Hidden Rivers of Florida. A state

- approved educational effort cente red around

the film and associated Web resources is being developed for use in the curricul a of Florida public schools.

Springs Initiative projects that provide data for 305(b) assessments include the following:

**•** A quarterly trend

- monitoring network, desi gned to depict long

- term trends, that

includes all of Florida’s clear

- water first

- magnitude springs (flows of 100 cfs and greater) and select second

- magnitude springs (flows of 10 to 100 cfs). Although this quarterly springs network is not part of the Tem poral Variability Network discussed in Chapter 3, similar analytes are collected during the same

months. Quarterly sampling has been ongoing for over six years , and t rend analyses are in progress. A new effort to prepare annual summaries of springs

wate r quality is currently under way.

**•** Regular biological assessments in spring runs using FDEP’s Stream Condition

Index (SCI)

.

**•** The installation and maintenance of continuous stage and flow gaging stations

in most first

- magnitude spring runs.

**•** The installation a nd maintenance of continuous flow metering in selected spring

caves.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

30 **•** The delineation of ground water basins for major spring systems (“springsheds”).

**•** Biological baseline studies in spring systems.

**•** Spring

- specific ecosystem studies (e.g., Silver Springs 50

- Year Retrospective Ecosystem Study)

.



## Coordination with Other State, Tribal, and Local Agencies

Florida’s surface water protection programs all emphasize the need for interagency coordination in achieving statewide water management goals. **Table 2**  lists th e primary state, local, and regional coordination mechanisms for managing water resources. **Figure 2**  shows the agencies responsible for water resource management and coordination in Florida, and lists their principal

activities.

**Table 2**  **. Primary Coordin ation Mechanisms for Managing**  **State, Regional, and Local Water Resources** 

**Function/Entity Primary Mechanisms** 

General supervision over water management districts (policies, plans, and programs) (Florida Department of Environmental Protection) a. Water Reso urces Coordinating Commission b. Meetings of the water management districts’ executive directors c. Water Resource Implementation Rule (Rule 62

- 40, F .A.C. ) d. Florida Water Plan/District Water Management Plan (DWMP) work group

e. Issue

- specific work groups (policy and rule development) f. Reuse Coordinating Committee g. Memoranda of understanding (delegation of programs and authorities) h. Permit streamlining, mitigation banking i. FDEP review of water management district rules and budgets, auditing

Statew ide watershed management approach (Florida Department of Environmental Protection) a. Implementation of rotating watershed management cycle for assessing the state’s river basins b. Process for verifying impaired waterbodies in each basin c. Development of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for verified impaired waters d. Adaptive management

State Comprehensive Plan (Governor’s Office) Overall coordination by Governor’s Office

State Land Development Plan (Florida Department of Community Affairs) Interage ncy Planning Committees

Florida Transportation Plan (Florida Department of Transportation) Interagency plan review process

Strategic regional policy plans (Regional Planning Councils) a. Florida Water Plan/DWMP work group b. Plan review process (Subsec tion 186.507[2], F.S., and Rule

27E

- 5, F.A.C.)200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

31 **Function/Entity Primary Mechanisms** 

Agricultural interests (Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services) Agricultural Water Policy Committee

Local comprehensive plans (Florida Department of Community Affairs) Plan review process (Rule 9J

- 5, F.A.C.)

Water supply planning, wastewater management, stormwater management, solid waste management (Local governments) FDEP and water management district programs for technical and

financial assistance

Reuse of reclaimed water (Florida Depar tment of Environmental Protection, water management districts, Florida Department of Community Affairs, Florida Department of Transportation, Public Service Commission) Reuse Coordinating Committee

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers a. Public works program

b. State clearinghouse review process c. Quarterly meetings between FDEP and the Corps d. Joint FDEP/Corps permit application process ( CWA , Section 404) e. Memoranda of understanding f. Potential delegation of Section 404 permitting to FDEP

U. S. Environment al Protection Agency a. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/FDEP yearly work plans and grants b. EPA technical assistance and special projects c. Delegation of EPA/ CWA programs to FDEP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration a. Grants

b. C ooperative agreements and special projects

U. S. Geological Survey a. Contracts for technical services and data b. Cooperative agreements

U. S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service) Contracts for technical services and data

U. S. Forest Service Ecosystem Management teams

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service a. Acquisition programs b. Ecosystem Management teams c. Special projects

National Park Service a. Acquisition programs b. Ecosystem Managem ent teams

Alabama and Georgia a. Memorandum of Agreement for Apalachicola

– Chattahoochee

– Flint/Alabama

– Coosa

– Tallapoosa Rivers Comprehensive Study b. Suwannee River Coordinating Committee c. St. Marys River Management Committee

d. Florida

– Alabama Water Res ources Coordinating Council200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

32 Federal

Estuary Research, Weather Forecasting Clean Water Act Programs Research & Monitoring, Water

Resource Information We tlands Permitting,

Flood Control,

Restoration Land Management

Coordination,

Wildlife Protection Flood Zone Mapping,

National Flood Insurance Program &

Disaster Relief National Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin

. Environmental Protection Agency Geo logical Survey Army Corps of Engineers Fish and Wildlife
Service Federal Emergency Management Agency

State

Florida Water Plan, State Water Policy, Statewide

Pollution Control & Monitoring,

General Supervision of

Water Management Districts Growth Management,

Areas of Critical Concern, Developments of Regional Impact, Coastal Management, Fl

Communities Trust Emergency Management
Coordination, Disaster

Relief Enforce

Environmental Laws,
Research, Manage &

Asses s Impacts to

Saltwater & Protect Public Health, Solid Waste Disposal, Septic Tanks, Drinking

Water Water Utility Rate Structures Approval for Regulated Utilities Department of
Environmental Protection Department of Community
Affairs Departme nt of Health Public Service Commission

Regional & Local

Developments of Regional Impact,
Growth Management, Surface Water Quality

Planning & Studies,

Hurricane Evacuation Planning & Mapping Regional Planning Councils

Water Resource Planning, Reg . & Management, Water Supply, Flood Protection,

Water Quality Mgt.,

Natural Systems

Protection & Restoration Water Management Districts

Local Environmental Controls & Monitoring, Building Codes/Zoning/ Land,

Provide Potable Water,

Was tewater Services, Management/Planning, Land Acquisition/Management,

Emergency Preparedness Local Governments Operation, Maintenance

of Local Surface Water Management Districts Chapter 298 District Special Districts

Water Distribution,

Dev elopment of Regional

Sources Water Supply Authorities Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission

F reshwater Habitats **Figure 2**  **. Agencies Responsible for Water Resource Coordination and Management in Florida**



# Results of Florida’s Surface Water Protection Programs

Despite the increase in Florida’s population over the past 35 years

, from 6.8 million to almost 18 million, the state’s surface water management programs have been very successful in preventing and minimizing pollution from new sources, especially from new nonpoint sources of pollution, and in reducing existing pollutant loadings, e specially from point sources of pollution. This has been accomplished by implementing new technologies, requiring better treatment of wastes, eliminating many surface water discharges, and treating stormwater. **Figure 3,** which shows the history of phospho rus trends in Florida’s surface waters since 1970, illustrates the success of the state’s programs. The figure shows that phosphorus pollution began to increase beginning in about 1970, peaking in 1982. After 1982, levels decreased because of new regulat ions that eliminated many point sources , encouraged the reuse of treated domestic

wastewater

, and required the treatment of stormwater from all new development

.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

33 However, the graphic also points to an emerging problem. After trending downward for 20

years , beginning in 2000 phosphorus levels again began moving upward, perhaps because of the cumulative impacts of Florida’s increased population and development.

Two major water quality control programs were responsible for this decreasing trend in phosphorus . The first is the state’s point source regulatory/management program, which in the early 1980s recognized the low assimilative capacity of many of Florida’s surface waters. This led to the implementation of a “no discharge” policy, resulting in the elim ination of many point sources of pollution and the reuse of treated domestic wastewater. The second program responsible for a decline in phosphorus levels in Florida’s waters is the state’s stormwater treatment regulatory program. Implemented in 1979, th e program was further expanded with an increased level of treatment in February 1982, with the implementation of the state’s Stormwater

Rule.

However, **Figure 3** also illustrates an emerging problem. P hosphorus levels have begun to increase in recent years , most likely a result of the cumulative effect of nonpoint sources of pollution, since the state’s S tormwater R ule is based on a minimum treatment level of 80% average annual load reduction. Additionally, Florida’s intensive agriculture industry

, togethe r with the increasing population and the resulting increase in home landscapes

, has led to increased fertilizer usage

, which undoubtedly is contributing to this upward trend in phosphorus.



## Nature and Extent of Nonpoint Source Pollution

Florida’s major wat er quality concerns are increase d nitrates in ground water and increase d

nutrients in surface waters. FDEP’s comprehensive N onpoint S ource M anagement P rogram, in

collaboration with the TMDL Program (which is being implemented through the watershed

managem ent approach) , provide s the institutional, technical, and financial fra mework to address

these issues.



## Recommended Nonpoint Source Programs

FDEP is currently evaluating the need to increase the minimum level of treatment of nutrients

from stormwater disch arges and is working with the development community to promote low

impact development

, through approaches such as the Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program, to further reduce nutrient impacts from nonpoint sources of pollution.



## Costs and Benefits of Imp **lementing Florida’s Surface Water Protection Programs To Meet the Clean Water Act’s Objectives** 

The EPA, in partnership with the states, conducts the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) to identify and document the cost of projects needed to address water quality and public health in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S.

- held territories. The CWNS includes detailed estimates of the capital costs eligible for funding under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Program established by t he 1987 Amendments to the CWA

— that is,

CWSRF

- eligible costs. The CWNS includes publicly owned municipal wastewater collection and treatment facilities; facilities for the control of combined sewer overflows (CSOs); activities designed to control stormwate r runoff; activities designed to control nonpoint source pollution;200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

34 **Figure 3** 

**. Phosphorus**  **T rend**  **s in Florida**  **W aters** 

**, 1970** 

**–**

**2005** ( b ased on 733,000 measurements from 3,330 waterbodies)

and activities associated with implementing approved Comprehensive Co nservation and Management Plans (CCMPs) under the National Estuary Program (NEP) established by S ection

320 of the C WA

.

Key elements of the s urvey are as follows :

**•** Facilities must be publicly owned and operated

,

**•** Costs represent capital needs ( operating a nd maintenance costs are not represented) , and

**•** Costs must be documented

.

Historically, the costs have been interpreted as representing 20

- year design needs, but more recently, since the 1996 s urvey, costs have been documented by planning and design

docume nts representing horizons of 10 years or less.

The survey is conducted every four years, and the results are published in the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey Report to Congress . The 2004 survey is available at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/2004rtc/toc.htm

. **Table 3**  provides Florida’s survey results. Phosphorus pollution peaks in early 1980s

0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005phosphorus (mg/l) Phosphorus pollution builds

up i n Florida

waters In 1982, Florida implements Stormwater

Rule and no

- discharge policy for point sources

Cumulative effects of nonpoint sources are driving phosphorus levels up again

— TMDLs are seeking to address these impacts200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

35 These needs are being addressed by several funding mechanisms, most notably the CWA State Revolving Fund (SRF) Program; direct congressional a ppropriations through the State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) Program; state appropriations through the Community Budget Initiative Request (CBIR) Program; the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) (a joint 50/50 program funded by Florida a nd the EPA); Section 319 nonpoint source grants; TMDL Water Quality Restoration Grants; and local county, municipal, and water management district programs.

**Table 3** 

**. Results of the C**  **lean Watersheds Needs Survey for Florida** 

**C**

**ategory of Need N**  **eeds ($000)** 

Category I

– Secondary Treatment $ 33,611

Category II

– Advanced Treatment $ 4,595,918

Category III

- A

– Inflow/Infiltration Correction $ 310,526

Category III

- B

– Major Sewer Rehabilitation $ 960,088

Category IV

- A

– New Collector Sewers $ 1,752,257

Category IV

- B

– New Transmission Facilities $ 1,392,458

Category V

– Combined Sewer Overflow Correction 0

Category VI

– Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System ( MS4 ) Permitted Stormwater Management $ 2,182,750

Categ ory VII

– Nonpoint Source BMPs $ 9,285,007

Category VIII

– Confined Animals Point Source 0

Category IX

– Mining Point Source 0

Category X

– Recycled Reclaimed Water Distribution $ 1,672,115

Category XI

– Estuary Management $ 63,073

F lorida ’s T otal Needs $22,247,803



### Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund Program

The C WA SRF Program provides low

- interest loans for water pollution control activities and facilities. Water pollution sources ar e divided into poi nt source s (typically domestic and industrial wastewater discharges) and nonpoint source s ( generally associated with leaching or

runoff associated with rainfall events from various land uses ). Since the program began in

1989

, FDEP has made over $2 billion in loans . The p rogram revolves in perpetuity

, using state and federal appropriations, loan repayments, investme nt earnings, and bond proceeds.

Projects eligible for SRF loans include wastewater management facilities, reclaimed wastewater

reuse facilitie s, stormwater management facilities, widely accepted pollution control practices (sometimes called BMPs ) associated with agricultural stormwater runoff pollution control activities, brownfields associated with the contamination of ground water or surface w ater

, and estuary protection activities and facilities.

For the SRF Program

, the funds awarded/disbursed to date are as follows :200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

36 **Source Awarded**  **Disbursed**

Wastewater $2,571,853,033 $1,964,241,331

Stormwater $116,233,210 $73,599,936

Nonpoint Source s $16,506,130 $2,960,487



### Construction Grants Program

The primary purpose of f ederal grant assistance under th e Construction Grants P rogram was to help municipalities meet the enforceable requirements of the C WA , particularly applicable

NPDES permit re quirements. Prior to October 1, 1984, EPA grant assistance was limited to a maximum of 75% of the allowable costs of building the project and included an allowance for facilities planning and design. After September 30, 1984, the f ederal share was limite d to a maximum grant of 55% of these costs

, unless modified to a lower percentage rate uniform throughout the s tate by the Governor. Innovative and alternative technology projects may have

received an additional 20 % f ederal share. Before October 1, 1984, eligible projects include d collection systems, intercepting sewers, wastewater treatment facilities, outfall sewers, infiltration/inflow (I/I) rehabilitation, and the correction of combined sewer overflows. After September 30, 1984, eligible projects inc luded only intercepting sewers, wastewater treatment facilities, outfall sewers

, and I/I rehabilitation.

For the Construction Grants Program, $1,986,134,673 in funds were disbursed between 1958

and 1988 , after which a mendments to the C WA phased out the pr ogram and re placed it with the SRF Program (discussed above).



### Section 319(h) Grant Funds

FDEP’s Nonpoint Source Management Section administers grant money it receives from the EPA through Section 319(h) of the federal C WA

. These grant funds can be used t o implement projects or programs that will help to reduce nonpoint sources of pollution. Projects or programs are targeted toward the state's nonpoint source priority watersheds, which are the verified impaired waters on the 303(d) list , the state's SWIM watersheds

, and N EP waters. All projects

must include at least a 40% nonfederal match.

Examples of fundable projects include the demonstration and evaluation of BMPs , nonpoint pollution reduction in priority watersheds, ground water protection from nonp oint sources, and public education programs on nonpoint source management. Section 319 funding from fiscal year (FY) 1988 through FY 200 7 totaled $102,196,043. Approximately 70% of these funds have been used to partner with local governments and water ma nagement districts on urban stormwater retrofitting projects to reduce stormwater pollutant loadings to priority waterbodies such as the Indian River Lagoon and Tampa Bay.



### TMDL Water Quality Restoration Grants

With the passage of the 1999 F WRA , FDEP and F DACS also began receiving funds generated by documentary stamps to reduce nonpoint source polluti on discharged to impaired

water bodies. The funding amount has varied from $2.8 to $9.2 million per year with the agencies receiving a total of $29 million in the past 6 years. Additionally, S enate Bill (S B ) 444

, enacted by the 2005 legislature, created a new funding program that provides $20 million200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

37 annually to FDEP, with 7.5% going to FDACS, to be used to reduce pollutant loading from urban

stormwater dischar ges or agricultural nonpoint sources. F DEP’s grant funds typically require at least a 50% match from grant recipients.



# Special State Concerns and Recommendations

**Concerns**

Major issues of concern include the following:

**•** S ince the 1970s, scientists have d ocumented increasing levels of nutrients in

surface water

.

**•** Water quality has declined in most springs s ince the 1970s ; in particular, levels of nitrate (a nutrient) have increased.

**•** The tripling of Florida’s population between 1950 and the present, and the shift from natural landscapes to intense urban development, has caused extensive habitat loss in aquatic habitats and affected the viability of fisheries in many

estuarine areas.

**•** Freshwater harmful algal blooms ( HABs ) are increasing in frequency, duration, and magnitude and therefore may be a significant threat to surface drinking

water resources and recreational areas

. A bundant populations of blue

- green algae , some of them potentially toxigenic, have been found statewide in

num erous lakes and rivers. In addition, m easured concentrations of cyanotoxins

— a few of them of above the suggested guideline levels

— have been reported in finished water from some drinking water facilities

.

**•** Based on beach closures and shellfish bed closures, the presence of excessive

c oncentrations of bacteria in the water column sometimes limits p rimary contact and recreation use support and shellfish harvesting use support

.

**•** I n many coastal and inland waters

, excessive concentrations of mercury in the

tissue of some fish species limit the attainment of designated use.

**•** Sediments in many urban estuaries such as Tampa Bay, the St. Johns River Estuary, and Pensacola Bay contain heavy me tals and organic contaminants.

**•** Recent studies have indicated a declining trend in pH in ocean waters on a global scale. Florida has many aquatic species that are sensitive to shifts in pH, and site

- specific studies in Florida are needed.



## Recommendations

To address the s pecial s tate c oncerns listed above, FDEP, in cooperation with other agencies

and stakehold ers, has started several initiatives to improve scientific understanding of Florida’s water resources and to improve the protection, management, and restoration of surface water and ground water. These initiatives include the following:200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

38 **• Statewide**  **DO /Nutri**  **ent Monitoring Program.** To better understand the natural variability of levels of DO and nutrients in the wide variety of freshwater aquatic systems around the state, FDEP received a special legislative appropriation for a contracted monitoring program. Approximately 350 sites in

6 different waterbody types were monitored quarterly during 2005

– 06. Monitoring includes the 4

- day deployment of YSI data sondes, water chemistry samples, and bioassessments. These data will be used to help the state revise

its DO criteri on to reflect the natural variation that occurs (the current criterion is 5 mg/L for all waters at all times). The data will also be used to develop quantitative nutrient criteria to replace the current narrative criterion.

**• Nutrient Criteria De**  **velopment.** In the summer of 2001, the EPA published waterbody type

– specific guidance manuals for lakes and reservoirs , and rivers

and streams , followed in the fall of 2001 by guidance for estuarine and coastal

waters . Following a method det ailed in these manuals, the EPA undertook analyses of the available pools of data to generate Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations as summarized below for rivers and streams, and lakes and reservoirs for the 3 nutrient ecoregions that Florida par tially or wholly encompasses. These recommendations are based on an assumption that the 25th percentile of a distribution of medians for a water quality parameter represents a reference condition, and are intended to be revised to more fully represent loc alized conditions while supporting designated uses. Recognizing the limitations of EPA’s analysis and recommendations (given that Florida has identified up to 47 lake ecoregions), FDEP convened a Nutrient Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to tailor the E PA’s recommended criteria for Florida’s aquatic systems. The Nutrient TAC has met 17 times since it was established and is making significant progress in addressing the multitude of issues associated with establishing scientifically sound quantitative nut rient

criteria.

**• Pollutant**  **Trading Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)** 

**.** The Pollutant Trading

PAC was established to assist FDEP in developing a pollutant trading program

and rule in Florida. The PAC members represent different stakeholder groups

that are inv olved in the implementation of TMDLs to restore the health of impaired waters. A report to the Governor and Florida L egislature on the viability of pollutant trading was completed in November 2006 (available : http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/docs/WQ_CreditTradingReport_final_Dec ember2006.pdf ). FDEP is continuing to pursue rulemaking in this area.

**• Statewide Unified Stormwater Rule.**  The performanc e standard for the minimum level of treatment for new stormwater discharges established in the state’s Water Resource Implementation Rule is “80% average annual load reduction of the pollutants that cause or contribute to violations of state water quality standards.” However, the existing BMP design criteria in the current

stormwater t reatment rules of FDEP and the water management districts were based on an 80% average annual load reduct ion of total suspended solids. In October 2007, FDEP Secretary Mike Sole and the Executive Directors of the state's five water management districts directed F DEP and district staff to develop a conceptual rule based on a performance standard that postdevelopment stormwater nutrient loads will not exceed predevelopment

nutr ient loads, where predevelopment land use is t he natural land use

condition. A T AC has been established to provide input to DEP and WMD staff200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

39 on the conceptual rule. The rule development process will include the TAC meetings (March

– October 2008), rule de velopment workshops (Novembe r
2008

– March 2009), rule adoption (May 2009)

, and a planned effective date of July 1, 2009. Also, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and FDEP, in cooperation with t he water management districts, already ha ve comple tely revised the state’s erosion and sediment control BMPs, leadi ng to a single statewide manual , which is available at: www.stormwater.ucf.edu

.

**• Urban Stormwater BMP Research Program.**  In 2003, FDEP, in coope ration with FDOT, partnered with the University of Central Florida to establish the Stormwater Management Academy as a center of excellence on urban stormwater treatment and management. The academy has completed or is conducting research on a variety of u rban stormwater BMP issues, including the health and water quality risks associated with stormwater reuse, the design and effectiveness of green roofs in Florida, the permeability of pervious concrete, and the effectiveness of erosion and sediment control BMPs. Additionally, FDEP is funding research to determine fertilization and irrigation needs to establish and maintain turfgrasses, the impact of wet detention pond depth on the effectiveness of stormwater treatment, and the development of

BMPs to increas e nitrogen removal in stormwater. FDEP and FDACS also are working with the fertilizer industry to develop Florida

- specific formulations of

slow

- release and low

- phosphorus fertilizers. This has included the adoption by

FDACS of the "Urban Turf Rule

, " whic h specifies which types of fertilizers can

be used on urban turf in Florida and in what amounts. Th e rule is available at: https://www.flrules.org/Gateway/View_notice.asp?id=46404 00 . The 2007 Florida Legislature also established the Consumer Fertilizer Task Force to develop statewide recommendations on the use of fertilizer on urban turf and on training and certification requirements for people engaged in the commercial applicati on of fertilizer. The Task Force's report is available at: http://consensus.fsu.edu/fertilizer

- task

- force/index.html

.

**•** As part of a much larger statewide initiative to investigate global warming,

FDEP recently initiated activities to study potential impacts on the state’s aquatic resources linked to declining pH concentrations in the nation’s coastal

waters.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

40 

# CHAPTER 3 : SURFACE WATER

MONITORING AND ASSES SMENT

Florida’s Surface Wa ter Monitoring Program

**Background**

FDEP‘s approach to comprehensive surface water monitoring is designed to meet the monitoring

- related requirements of the federal CWA , as well as Florida’s statutory and regulatory monitoring requirements. 7

**•** Determine water quality standards attainment and identify impaired waters, Broadly stated, these requirements are as follows:

**•** Identify the causes and sources of water quality impairments,

**•** Establish, review, and revise water quality standards,

**•** Support the implementation of water management programs,

**•** Establish special monitoring for unique resources, and

**•** Support the evaluation of program effectiveness.

FDEP continues to carr y out extensive statewide monitoring in order to meet these federal and state requirements

. Howe ver, the state’s surface waters are so abundant that FDEP does not have the staff or budgetary resources to monitor every waterbody in the state. Numerous other governmental entities at federal, state, regional, and local levels , as well as volunteer and private organizations, carry out much of the monitoring . The bulk of the data used in this report comes from approximatel y 79 d ata providers across the state, who do ambient monitoring of water chemistry, collect biological data, and carry out benthic sam pling and sampling of

sediments in estuarine waters. In most cases, the se data are initially loaded either into the FL(orida) STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) database or F L STORET, and then annually the data are uploaded to the EPA’s national STORET databa se

. FDEP evaluates, analyzes, and reports on these data to establish their utility in determining the health of the state’s ambient

waters

. Some qualifiers are placed on these data , to address issues such as systematic errors

.

7 At the federal level , Section 305(b) of the 1972 CWA (Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U. S. Code 1251

– 1375, as amended) directs each state to (1) prepare and submit a report every two years that includes a description of water quality o f all of its navigable surface w aters to the EPA, and (2) analyze the extent to which navigable waters provide for the protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife . Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to submit to the EPA

lists of surface wa ters that are impaired (i.e., that do not meet their designated uses, such as drinking water, recreation, and shellfish harvesting, as defined by applicable water quality standards). TMDLs must be developed for each of these impaired

waters on a schedule. Also, Section 106 (e)(1) of the CWA directs the EPA to determine whether states meet the prerequisites for monitoring their aquatic resources.

Monitoring is required under Florida law through a series of rules that govern FDEP’s regulatory activities. T he 1997 Water Quality Assurance Act (Section 403.063, F.S.) directs FDEP to establish and maintain a ground water quality monitoring network design ed to detect or predict contamination of the state’s ground water resources. In addition, Section 62

- 40.540, F.A.C., Florida’s Water Policy, states that FDEP “. . . shall coordinate district, state agency, and local government water quality monitoring activi ties in order to improve data quality and reduce costs.”200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

41 For example, by law Florid a LakeWatch data can be used only for non

- regulatory proceedings

and cannot be us ed for enforcement activities. These qualifiers are discussed in greater detail later in this chapter.

Each governmental agency and volunteer or private organization h as its own monitoring objectives, strategy, design, and indicators, as well as procedures for quality assurance, data management, data analysis and assessment, and reporting. However, these are beyond the scope of this report. **Table 4**  lists the various entitie s, including FDEP, that carry out water quality monitoring statewide.

**Table 4** 

**. Federal, State, Regional, and L**  **ocal Agencies and Organizations that Carry Out Water Quality Monitoring**  **in Florida**

**Monitoring Level**  **Monitoring Agency/Organization**

Federal Apa lachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve

Avon Park Air Force Range

Charlotte Harbor National Estuarine Program

Eglin Air Force Base

Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Rookery Bay National Estuarine Reserve

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

U. S. Geological Survey

Out of State Georgia Department of Natural Resources

State Charlotte Harbor Aquatic/Buffer Preserves

Estero Bay Aq uatic Preserve

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Florida Department of Health

Florida Marine Research Institute

FDEP’s Ambient Monitoring Program

FDEP’s District offices (6)

FDEP’s Watershed Assessment Section

Florida Fi sh and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Regional Choctawhatchee Basin Alliance

Loxahatchee River District

Peace River Manasota Regional Water Authority (PBS&J)

Pensacola Bay Nutrient Study (Gulf Breeze)

Northwest Florida Water Management District

South Florida Water Management District

Southwest Florida Water Management District

Southwest Florida Water Management District (Coast Project)

St. Johns River Water Management District

Suwannee River Water Management District

Local Alachua Coun ty

Bay County

Broward County Environmental Monitoring Division

Charlotte County Storm Water200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

42 **Monitoring Level**  **Monitoring Agency/Organization**

City of Cape Coral

City of Jacksonville

City of Lakeland

City of Lynn Haven

City of Key West

City of Maitland

City of Naples

City of Orlando

City of Panama City Beach

City of Port St. Joe Project (Gulf Breeze)

City of Port St. Joe Wastewater Treatment Plant

City of Port St. Lucie

City of Punta Gorda Utilities

City of Sanibel

City of Tallahassee

City of Tampa

City of West Palm Beach

Collier County Pollution Control

Dade County Environmental Resource Management

East County Water Control District

Escambia County Utility Association

Hillsborough County

Lake County Water Resource Management

Lee County Environmental Lab oratories

Lee County Hyacinth Control District

Manatee County Environmental Management

McGlynn Laboratories and Leon County

Okaloosa County Environmental Council

Orange County Environmental Protection Division

Palm Beach County Environmental Re source Management

Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management

Polk County Natural Resources Division

Reedy Creek Improvement District Environmental Services

Sarasota County Environmental Services

Seminole County Public Works Roads/Stor mwater

Seminole Improvement District

St. Johns County

Volusia County Environmental Health Lab

Volunteer/Private Baskerville Donovan, Inc.

Baywatch

Biological Research Associates

Bream Fisherman's Association

Conservancy of Southwest Florida

Environmental Research and Design, Inc

Florida Center for Community Design + Research

Florida LakeWatch (identification of potentially impaired waters only)200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

43 **Monitoring Level**  **Monitoring Agency/Organization**

Gulf Power Company

IMCA/Agrico/Phosphates

Janicki Environmental

The Nature Conservanc y of the Florida Keys

Palm Coast Community Service Corp.

Sanibel Captiva Conservation Foundation

Southeast Environmental Research Center



## Florida’s Integrated Water Resources Monitoring Program

As discussed earlier , water resource monitoring in Flo rida is conducted by FDEP, the water management districts, local governments, and other entities. Over the past decade, FDEP has worked very closely with these monitoring entities to establish an Integrated Water Resources Monitoring (IRWM) Program that i ntegrates surface water and ground water monitoring

, a s well

as water chemistry, biological, and sediment monitoring. Since i t is fiscally and logistically prohibitive to sample every segment of river or stream, every acre of lake, or each individual

moni toring well in the state annually , the IWRM also integrates three tiers of monitoring

— statewide probabilistic monitoring that allows statistical inferences to be made about all waters in the state; more intensive basin monitoring; and site

- specific monitor ing ( **Table 5** )

. These three tiers are composed of eight core monitoring programs in FDEP’s Division of Water Resource Management.

The IWRM approach is consistent with the EPA’s 2003 guidance document, Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Pr ogram, 8

1. Monitoring objectives, and addresses the following 10 elements:

2. Monitoring strategy,

3. Monitoring design,

4. Indicators,

5. Quality assurance,

6. Data management,

7. Data analysis and assessment,

8. Reporting,

9. Programmatic evaluation, and

10. General support and infrastructure planning.

This section broadly discusses Elements 1 (monitoring objectives), 2 (monitoring strategy), 5 (quality assurance), 6 (data management), 9 (programmatic evaluation), and 10 (general support and infrastructure planning). The me thodology and assessment sections of this chapter address Elements 3 (monitoring design), 4, (indicators), 7 (data analysis and assessment), and 8 (reporting).

8 U. S. Environmental P rotection Agency, March 20 03.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

44 **Table 5** 

**. Summa**  **ry of FDEP’s Monitoring Programs**  **(Tiers I, II, and III)**

**Tier Program**  **Summary Re**  **sources Addressed**

Tier I Status Network Consists of a probabilistic monitoring design to estimate water quality across the entire state based on a representative subsample of
water resource types. Large Lakes

Small Lakes Large Rivers

Small Streams

Confine d Aquifers Unconfined Aquifers

Temporal Variability

Network Comprises a fixed station design to examine changes in water quality and flow over time throughout the state. Large Rivers

Small Streams Confined Aquifers Unconfined Aquifers

Tier I

Tier II

ble nd

Tier II Springs

Initiative Consists of a fixed station network of freshwater springs intended to enhance the understanding of Florida’s springs, stop the

degradation and loss of spring flow, and

restore springs to their former health. First

- magnitud e springs

Second

- magnitude springs Subaquatic conduits

River rises

Coastal submarine springs

Strategic Monitoring

Program Addresses questions in specific basins and stream segments that are associated with determinations of waterbody impairment for

the T MDL Program. All surface waters based

on the schedule in the watershed management cycle

Tier III Intensive Surveys for

TMDLs Provides detailed, time

- limited investigations of the conditions of specific surface water resources that are identified as impair ed. Specific surface water

resources identified as impaired

Water Quality

Standards Development Develops, evaluates, and revises new and existing surface water quality standards. Carries out monitoring to determine concentrations to protect aquatic life and

human health. Surface water

Ground water

Site

- Specific

Alternative

Criteria Develops moderating provisions unique to a waterbody that does not meet particular

water quality criteria, due to natural background conditions or human

- induced

conditions t hat cannot be controlled or

abated. Surface waterbodies to which particular ambient water quality criteria may not be applicable

Fifth

- Year Inspections Achieves and maintains compliance through sound environmental monitoring and permitting practices. Sur face waters that receive point source discharges200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

45 

### Element 1: Monitoring Objectives

The goal of FDEP’s monitoring activities is to determine the overall quality of the state’s surface water and ground water, how they are changing over time, and the effe ctiveness of wa t er resource management, protection , and restoration programs. Monitoring activities collectively address the following broad objectives:

**•** Identify and document the condition of Florida’s water resources with a known certainty;

**•** Determine th e proportion of the state’s waterbodies that meet water quality thresholds and other indicators of ecosystem health;

**•** Identify water quality changes over time in the state, in individual river basins, and in specific waterbodies;

**•** Collect data on important c hemical, physical, and biological parameters to characterize waterbodies that do not meet the applicable Florida water quality standards and criteria in the IWR (Rules 62

- 302 and 62

- 303, F.A.C.);

**•** Conduct monitoring that is consistent with the criteria set forth in the IWR;

**•** Identify waters that are currently on the 303(d) list as verified impaired, or identify waters that are no longer determined to be impaired;

**•** Collect data for waters that are suspected to be impaired that were originally not on the 303(d) list;

**•** Collect data on waterbodies that currently have few or no data for assessing their impaired status;

**•** Continue to collect data that will be useful in assessing changes over time in the status of impaired waters;

**•** Establish a scientific database that ca n be useful in determining the status of a

basin’s long

- term overall health;

**•** Provide reliable data to help refine management decision making;

**•** Establish a water database with known data quality objectives and quality assurance that can be used to help estab lish water quality standards;

**•** Help provide data to evaluate the effectiveness of clean water projects and programs; and

**•** Provide technically sound information to managers, legislators, agencies, and the public.



### Element 2: Monitoring Strategy

Under FDEP’s IWRM approach, there are three tier s of monitoring, ranging from the general to the specific , designed to fill data gaps or support specific regulatory needs. Each of FDEP’s eight core monitoring programs has a detailed monitoring design, a list of core and supplemental water quality indicators, and specific procedures for quality assurance, data management, data analysis and assessment, reporting, and programmatic evaluation. FDEP200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

46 relies on both chemical and biological sampling in all of its monitoring programs, and also conducts the bulk of the biological sampling that is carried out statewide

. **Table 5**  briefly

describes FDEP’s approach and the water resources addressed for each FDEP monitoring

program

.

Based on the goals and objectives of each individ ual core monitoring program, sample locations are selected, monitoring parameters and sampling frequencies are determined, and sample collection and analysis are coordinated among FDEP’s districts; cooperating federal, state, and county agencies; and volun teer monitoring groups. This close coordination with other monitoring entities around the state is essential to prevent duplication and to maximize the number of waterbodies that are monitored on a regular basis.

FDEP’s three tiers of monitoring are as f ollows:

**• Tier I**  consists of FDEP ’s statewide surface water and ground water Status and Trend (Temporal Variability

, or TV) N etworks. The Status N etwork uses a rotating

- basin, probabilistic monitoring design to estimate water quality across the entire stat e, based on a representative subsample of water resource types. The T V N etwork uses a fixed station design to examine changes in water quality and flow over time throughout the

state. The objective of these networks is to provide scientifically defensibl e information on the important chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of surface waters and major aquifer systems of Florida. Both networks are designed to measure condition using a variety of threshold values, including water quality standard s, water quality indices, and other appropriate ecological indicators.

**• Tier II**  includes the Strategic Monitoring Program, which is designed to address questions in specific basins and stream segments that are associated with determinations of waterbody imp airment for the TMDL Program. Monitoring in response to citizen concerns and environmental emergencies is also considered Tier II.
In addition, this tier includes t he Springs Initiative , which encompasses all of the extensive monitoring activities begun in 1999 to address the needs of Florida’s freshwater spring systems . This fragile and unique resource type is considered to be at

risk.

**• Tier III**  a ddresses questions that are regulatory in nature. Examples of Tier III monitoring activities include monitor ing to determine whether moderating provisions

such as site

- specific alternative criteria (SSACs) should apply to certain waters, all monitoring tied to regulatory permits issued by FDEP , monitoring to establish TMDLs (intensive surveys), and monitoring as sociated with evaluating the effectiveness of best management practices (BMPs). On a much more infrequent basis, when state water quality standards are under evaluation for revision or new development, Tier III also includes monitoring activities associat ed with these efforts.



### Element 5: Quality Assurance

Because water quality monitoring is carried out by many agencies and groups statewide, FDEP has a centralized quality assurance (QA) program to ensure that data are properly and consistently collected. A Quality Assurance Officer coordinates and oversees data quality activities for each program. However, QA is the responsibility of everyone associated with sampling, monitoring, and data analysis.

Training classes, which are conducted by FDEP staff, fo cus on program

- specific sampling requirements. Any updates or changes to an individual program’s monitoring protocols are200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

47 communicated through project management meetings, statewide meetings, an Internet website

, and training classes.

The accuracy of fie ld measurements is assessed through internal FDEP programs. Staff also

monitor the on

- site sampling environment, sampling equipment decontamination, sample container cleaning, the suitability of sample preservatives and analyte

- free water, and sample

tran sport and storage conditions.

For each monitoring program, field staff are instructed to follow a comprehensive set of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) set forth in Rule 62

- 160, F.A.C., and specified in the FDEP document, Standard Operating Procedures for Field Activities (DEP

- SOP

- 001/01

, February 1, 2004).

Water quality samples are sent to FDEP’s Central Laboratory for analysis for the majority of programs, and to a lesser degree to district laboratories for limited analyses, such as bacteriologica l tests and turbidity. FDEP labs have SOPs for handling and analyzing samples, reporting precision, accuracy and method detection limits that apply, and reporting data. Laboratory certification is maintained as required by Section 62

- 160.300, F.A.C. The Q uality

Assurance Rule (Rule 62

- 160, F.A.C.) , which was adopted on June 8, 2004, requires all enti ties submitting data to FDEP be certified by the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation

Conference (NELAC) through FDOH.



### Element 6: Data Managemen t

The smooth and timely flow of water quality data from sample collectors and analytical agencies to data analysts is a high priority. FDEP’s Watershed Monitoring and Watershed Data Services

Section s comprise the lead IWRM organization. Assisted by coope rating federal, state, and county agencies, sample locations are selected, monitoring parameters and frequencies determined, and sample collection and analysis coordinated. This information is communicated electronically to the sampling agencies before sa mpling commences.

Some d ata collected in the field are computerized at the sampling agency, using a customized

FDEP computer program that facilitates the flow of data from the field. Water quality samples

are tracked from the field to the lab. Files con taining analytical data are transferred to FDEP, processed and merged with corresponding field data, and linked to the corresponding site data. Computerized accuracy and completeness checks are run, in addition to a variety of other QA

checks. FDEP staff manually check each data file to identify any obvious random or systematic

errors.

All data collected are uploaded to STORET annual ly

. Periodically, data are uploaded to FDEP’s

Oracle

- based Generalized Water Information System ( O GWIS) , which is availa ble to FDEP

staff. All data collected a re uploaded to STORET annually.



### Element 9: Program Evaluation

Florida, in consultation with the EPA, reviews each monitoring program to determine how well the program serves its water quality decision needs for al l state waters. EPA and FDEP QA

audits are used in evaluating each program to determine how well each of the EPA’s

recommended elements is addressed and how to incorporate needed changes and additions into future monitoring cycles.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

48 

### Element 10: General S upport and Infrastructure Planning

The EPA’s general support and infrastructure planning element is encompassed by a number of activities. FDEP’s Central Laboratory provides laboratory support for all eight core monitoring programs. The Watershed Monito ring and Data Management (WMDM) Section provides both administrative and technical support primarily to three of the eight programs: the Status
Network, T emporal Variability Network, and the TMDL Program.



### Evolving Approaches to Monitoring

Florida continu es to develop new approaches to monitoring. FDEP has developed a number of biological indices to characterize the condition of surface waters and has adopted these indices

for use in water resource assessments at all three tier s of monitoring. The follow ing new
indicators that FDEP is currently using integrate the biological responses from land uses in a basin and can provide a measure of resource health :

**•** FDEP uses a macroinvertebrate

- based index, BioReconnaissance (BioRecon), as a rapid assessment tool. The BioRecon is a 6

- metric index ranging from 0 to 10. If a site scores less than 6 on the index, it is recommended for a further, more intensive study using the SCI method.

**•** A composite macroinvertebrate index for use in flowing streams, the SCI is

us ed as a definitive measure of impairment. Data generated on the species composition and abundance of organisms in a stream are used to calculate 10 biological metrics. Points are assigned for each metric

, based on regionally

calibrated criteria.

**•** Similarl y, the Lake Condition Index (LCI), which uses six metrics, is used to

characterize noncolored lakes statewide. However, LCIs will not be included in rules and will not be used for bioassessment as an LCI score, but will be used

as a collection method.

**•** Flo rida has also launched a lake condition characterization, the Lake Vegetation Index (LVI), employing plant community (macrophyte) composition. Using transects and a visual survey, the results can be compiled for a rapid

assessment of lake condition.

**•** A Wet land Condition Index, using vegetation, macroinvertebrates, and algae, has been developed for some freshwater wetland systems (depression marshes and forested wetlands only) . This tool is being used to refine FDEP’s rapid wetland assessment methodology fo r permitting/mitigation and to assess the effectiveness of wetland restoration projects.

**•** Florida has also developed geochemical

- and biology

- based tools to measure the quality of sediments in marine and freshwater systems. Sediments will be

collected from a statistical sampling of lake resources in the state as part of the Status Network. The resulting data will then be compared with a geochemical

tool developed to measure naturally occurring concentrations of metals, and biology

- based t hresholds will be used to estimate levels of potentially toxic

contaminants in sediments.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

49 

# Surface Water Assessment

**Statewide Probabilistic Assessment (Tier 1)** 

U pdate 2006

– 08

From 2004

– 08, the Status Network design used the TMDL rotating basins ( Figure 4 ) and sampled five to six TMDL basins each year. The design supports annual analysis and reporting on each individual basin unit. Sampling the rotating basins using the Status Network’s probabilistic design has continued through the present (see Appendix C for the methodol ogy used for the probabilistic design) . The collection of water resource samples from the entire state will be completed at the end of 2008, and a statewide summary will be prepared at the completion of the five

- year cycle. The 2010 version of the Integr ated Report will contain this full report on surface and ground waters in the state.

Data from the Status Network are summarized and reported for each basin unit and are

available on the FDEP website at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/monitoring/basins.htm

. Reports are readily accessible for the Group 1 basins, and others will be added as they become

available.

**Figure 4.**  **Five**

**- Year Rotating Basin Cycle in**  **FDEP ’s Six Districts** 200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

50 S tarting in 2009, the Tier 1 monitoring for the Status Network will change. There will be a new emphasis on producing an annual report on statewide condition, and FDEP will move away from the TMDL basin design, which allows a statewide estimate after 5 yea rs of data collection. As in the previous cycle of sampling, four surface water resources (rivers, streams, large lakes, and small lakes) will be used, as well as two ground water resources (confined and unconfined aquifers). Instead of 30 samples per TM DL basin (29 basins) per resource, 120 results for each of the 4 surface water and 2 ground water resources will be used to represent statewide condition. Overall, fewer samples will be collected to make the annual statewide estimate.

Surface water samp les will be collected two times per year per site. Questions have been raised about variance in surface water quality in response to seasonality and changes in condition due to rainfall/drought events. This will be evaluated by collecting waters in oppos ite

seasons statewide. The results from these two events will be evaluated to determine if the response in comparison to thresholds is significant enough to warrant the duplicate sample.

A long

- term benefit to the annual approach for both surface and gr ound waters is the ability to examine trends in water quality over time. The annual approach coupled with the existing trend monitoring network will provide a more comprehensive picture of changes to water quality. This will consist of the two components : annual (probabilistic) and monthly (Trend Network).



### Analytes

The candidate lists of indicators measured as part of the IWRM Status Network were derived from multiple discussions with the participating agencies and consist of core and supplemental

indic ators used to evaluate water quality. It is cost

- prohibitive to fully analyze all water resources for every potential contaminant, including emerging contaminants. Therefore, specific analytes were selected for monitoring surface and ground water resourc es for Tier I. These were carefully chosen to capture the most common water quality and biological

measures of condition.

Physical/chemical/biological indicators ( **Tables 6** and **7** ) were selected in the past for the status and trend monitoring networks , and are discussed in greater detail in Appendix B . These have been reviewed for adequacy for the next monitoring initiative and comprise the predominant list of analytes that will be incorporated in future monitoring initiatives. Discussion is under way to include additional biological measurements as new biocriteria are developed. Indicator lists for surface water resources are designed to detect the major threats to surface water quality, such as eutrophication and habitat loss.

The interpretation of da ta is based on standards or thresholds to determine if the water meets the appropriate designated use (i.e., recreational, aquatic life use, potable). When reporting results, these thresholds for the selected indicator are used to make statements of water quality. Not all analytes of interest have standards or guidance values; those reported in this document are those that do. Investigation of more specific water conditions can be conducted in Tier II

and III assessments to characterize individual waterb odies, or areas where contamination might be suspected.

Sample results are used to estimate the conditions of the grouping of a resource (lakes, for example). The percentage of lakes meeting or not meeting the threshold is reported for the entire group o f basins, based on the statistical estimate of 30 samples, with a known error. The Tier I efforts are not designed for the individual analysis of any resource but can be used to help200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

51 determine what constituents of concern might be present in the basin for that particular water

resource.

For ground water resources, Florida’s chief source of drinking water, key indicator contaminants (e.g., chloride, nitrate, and bacteria) serve to assess the general suitability of this resource for drinking water purposes . In Cycle 1 of the Status Network, aquifer samples were filtered to mitigate well construction factors, and the analytes were measured as dissolved constituents. This was changed in Cycle 2 to total constituents, in order to reflect more closely the act ual conditions for drinking water and to be consistent with standards.

**Table 8** lists the surface and ground water quality criteria used for the analysis of data collected in the status and trend monitoring networks.



### Monitoring Program Strategy for All Tiers of Monitoring

The monitoring program strategy was submitted to and approved by the EPA for all tiers of the IWRM Program. The document describing the strategy is available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/monitoring/docs/MonitoringStrategy_106.pdf . Its format follows the guidance provided in the EPA document, Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program (March 2003); 9



### Trend Monitoring the components of the se elements are discussed for all tiers of FDEP monitoring.

Surface and ground water trend monitoring will continue, and reports on these trends will be available on FDEP’s Watershed Monitoring website at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/monitoring/ as they are completed.

9 Available: http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/elements/

.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

52 **Table 6**  **. Indicators U**  **sed for the**  **Status and Trend M**  **onitoring N**  **etworks**

T = Total sample ; X = Other sample or measurement **Indicator Lakes**  **(large) Lakes**  **(small) Streams**  **Rivers Aquifers** 

Calcium T

Magnesium T

Sodium T

Chloride T

Sulfate T

Fluoride T

Alkalinity T

Nitrate + Nitrite T T T T T

Ammonia T T T T T

Kjeldahl Nitrogen T T T T T

Total Phosphate T T T T T

Aluminum, Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Iron, Lead, Manganese, Zinc T

Dissolved Solids T

Sediments: Organics and Met als X X

Turbidity T T T T T

Color T T T T T

Fecal Coliform T T T T T

Total Coliform T

Enterococci T T T T

Chlorophyll a T T T T

Algal Growth Potential* X

Phytoplankton X X

Water Temperature X X X X X

pH X X X X X

Specific Conduct ance/Salinity X X X X X

Dissolved Oxygen X X X X X

Turbidity X

Secchi Depth X X X X

Total Depth X X X X

Sample Depth X X X X

Depth to Water (from L and Surface Elevation [L SE ] ) X

LSE X

Micro

- landuse X

Floristic Quality Index X

Biological Community ( S tream Condition Index [S CI ] ) X X

Habitat Assessment and Flow X X200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

53 **Table 7** 

**. Temporal Variability N**  **etwork Core and Supplemental Indicators**

**Indicator Surface Water**  **Ground Water**

Calcium T D

Magnesium T D

Sodium T D

Potassium T D

Chloride T D

Sulfate T D

Fluoride T D

Alkalinity T D

Nitrate + Nitrite T D

Ammonia T D

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen T D

A luminum, Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Iron, Lead, Manganese, Zinc* T

Phosphorus T D

Specific Conductance D D

Orthophosphate D D

Total Organic Carbon T T

Total Dissolved Solids T T

Total Suspended Solids T T

Turbidity T T

Color T T

Total Co liform T

Fecal Coliform T T

Enterococci T

Chlorophyll a T

Water Temperature X X

pH X X

Specific Conductance/Salinity X X

Dissolved Oxygen X X

Turbidity X

Secchi Depth X

Total Depth X

Sample Depth X

Depth to Water (from LSE) X

Land Surf ace Elevation (LSE) X

Biological Community (S tream Condition Index [S CI ] )* X

Habitat Assessment and Flow* X

T = Total sample ; D = Filtered sample ; X = Other sample or measurement * = Collected once a year per site beginning in October 2004.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

54 **Table 8**  **. Water Quality Standards**

**Analyte Criterion**  **Use**

Chloride

Fluorides

Total Dissolved Solids 250 mg/L 1.5 mg/L

1

, 000 mg/L (max imum ) Potable Water Supply

Fecal Coliform Bacteria 400 ( single

- sample max imum ) Recreation

Alkalinity Dissolved Oxygen

Fluorides pH Specific Conductance Turbidity

Unionized Ammonia (Calculated from temperature, pH, salinity, ammonia) 20 mg/L > 5 mg/L 10 mg/L
>6, <8.5 su

1

, 275 or 50% above background

29 NTU s above background 0.02 mg/L Aquatic Life

su

– Standard unit; NTUs

– Nephe lometric turbidity units



## Statewide Basin Assessment **(Tier II)**

Approach to the Comprehensive Assessment: Sections 305(b) and 303(d)

The EPA has requested that the states merge their reporting requirements under the CWA for Section 305(b) surface water qu ality reports and Section 303(d) lists of impaired waters into an Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (Wayland, 2001). As part of its
TMDL assessment, FDEP prepares W ater Quality Status Reports and Assessment Report s that integrate t he 303(d) list and the 305(b) report for each of the state’s 29 river basins

. These reports are available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/basin411/default.htm

. ( At the bottom of

t he screen, select the basin group that you want to access [ Groups 1

– 5 ]

, click on the name of an individual river basin on the map, and when that basin map appears, click above it to access the Status and Assessment Reports. )

Following the EPA’s guidance, FDEP delineated waterbodies or waterbody segments in each basin, assessed them for impairment based on individual parameters, and then placed them into one of five major assessment categories and subcategories. These categories provide

information on a wa terbody’s status based on water quality, sufficiency of data, and the need for TMDL development ( **Table 9**  ). The EP A allows states to develop individual subcategories to fit a unique or specialized set of circumstances. These subcategories must be consiste nt with the purpose of the more general category and be approved by the EPA during its review of each state’s methodology for developing lists of impaired waters. In addition, as part of making known to the public its assessment procedures, the state shou ld describe the categories and subcategories it applies. In Florida, these procedures are clearly presented during the development of each year’s set of impaired waters lists. New subcategories developed since the submittal of the 2006 impaired waters li sts includes S ubcategor ies 4d and 4e, which were described at a series of eight public meetings held around the state in support of the Group 5 lists and at six other public meetings for the Group 1 lists , respectively.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

55 **Table 9** 

**. Categories for Waterbod**  **ies or Waterbody Segments in the 200**  **8 Integrated Report** 
**Category Description**  **Comments**

1 Attaining all designated uses If use attainment is verified for a waterbody or segment that was previously listed as impaired, FDEP will propose that it

be delisted.

2 Attaining some designated uses and

insufficient or no information or data are present to determine if remaining uses are

attained If attainment is verified for some designated uses of a waterbody or segment, FDEP will propose partial delisting for

the us es attained. Future monitoring will be recommended to determine if remaining uses are attained.

3a No data and information are present to determine if any designated use is attained Future monitoring will be recommended to determine if designated uses ar e attained.

3b Some data and information are present but not enough to determine if any designated

use is attained Future monitoring will be recommended to gather sufficient information and data to determine if designated uses are

attained.

3c Enough dat a and information are present to

determine that one or more designated use s may not be attained according to the Planning List methodology A waterbody or segment is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses. These waters will be prioritized fo r future monitoring to verify use attainment or impaired status.

3d Enough data and information are present to determine that one or more designated uses are not attained according to the Verified List methodology A waterbody or segment exceeds Verified List evaluation criteria and may be listed as impaired at the end of Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle. However, the data have not yet been fully evaluated and the waters have not been formally verified as impaired. Further monitoring and analysi s may be necessary.

NOTE: This category is applicable only to the Status Report. Waters presented in Phase 1 of the watershed management cycle that appear to meet the Verified List criteria.

4a Impaired for one or more designated uses but does not requi re TMDL development because a TMDL has already been completed After the EPA approves a TMDL for the impaired waterbody or segment, it will be included in a Basin Management Action Plan to reduce pollutant loading toward attainment of designated use(s).

4b Impaired for one or more designated uses but does not require TMDL development because the water will attain water quality standards due to existing or proposed

measures Pollutant control mechanisms designed to attain applicable water quality standards wi thin a reasonable time frame are either proposed or in place.

4c Impaired for one or more criteria or designated uses but does not require TMDL development because impairment is not caused by a pollutant This category includes waterbodies or segments that are impaired because of naturally occurring conditions or pollution. This typically applies to impairments tied to low dissolved oxygen (DO) or elevated iron concentrations. The impairment is not caused by specific pollutants, but is

believed to be natu ral or caused by pollution. 1

4d No causative pollutant has been identified The waterbody does not meet its applicable criteria, but no causative pollutant has been identified. This typically applies

to low DO or failed biological assessments. All availa ble biological data, total nitrogen ( TN )

, total phosphorus ( TP )

, and biological oxygen demand ( BOD ) data

, and land use

have been assessed.

. Waterbody impairments identified in this category will be submitted to EPA for inclusion on the 303(d) list.

4e I mpaired, but recently completed or ongoing

restoration activities are underway to restore the designated uses of the waterbody Restoration activities for this waterbody are underway to restore the waterbody. All requirements for placing the waterbody into category 4b have not been finalized or approved by the Department. Because the Department recognizes the implementation of restoration activities with the goal of restoring water quality, a TMDL will not be scheduled at this time. Waterbody impairments identified in this category will be submitted to EPA for inclusion on the 303(d) list.

5 One or more designated uses is not attained Waterbodies or segments in this category are impaired for200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

56 and a TMDL is required one or more designated uses by a pollut ant or pollutants. Waters in this category are included on the basin

- specific Verified List adopted by FDEP’s Secretary as Florida’s impaired waters list and submitted to the EPA as Florida’s 303(d) list of impaired waters at the end of Phase 2.

Note: The descriptions in **Table 9**  are consistent with the EPA’s integrated assessment categories. In the Water Quality Status Reports for Groups 1 through 3 and in the Water Quality Assessment Reports for Groups 1 through 2 that were previously produced, Catego ries 4b and 4c were reversed. That is, the description of Category 4b was previously listed as Category 4c, and the description of Category 4c was listed as Category 4b.

1 For purposes of the TMDL Program, pollutants are chemical and biological constitue nts, introduced by humans into a waterbody, that may result in pollution (water quality impairment). There are other causes of pollution, such as the physical alteratio n of a waterbody (for example, canals, dams, and ditches). However, TMDLs are establis hed only for impairments caused by pollutants (a TMDL quantifies how much of a given pollutant a waterbody can receive and still meet its designated uses).

Waterbodies that are verified impaired due to specified pollutants are listed under Category 5 in t he Integrated Assessment Report; waterbodies with water quality impairments due to other causes, are listed under Category 4c. Although TMDLs are not establi shed for Category 4c waterbodies, these waterbodies still may be addressed through a watershed man agement program (for example, the Kissimmee River restoration).

_________________________________

The primary purpose of the assessments for the TMDL Program is to determine if waterbodies or waterbody segments are to be placed on the Verified List of im paired waterbodies. The listings are made in accordance with evaluation thresholds and data sufficiency and data quality requirements in the IWR (Rule 62

- 303, F.A.C.). The results of the assessment are used to identify waters in each basin for which TMDL s will be developed.

Determining impairment in individual waterbodies for the TMDL Program takes place in two phases. First, in each river basin FDEP evaluates the existing water quality data, using the methodology prescribed in the IWR, to determine whe ther waters are potentially impaired. Waters found to be potentially impaired are included on a Planning List for further assessment under Subsections 403.067(2) and (3), F.S. As required by Subsection 403.067(2), F.S., the Planning List is not used to a dminister or implement any regulatory program ; i t is submitted to the EPA for informational purposes only.

The second step is to assess waters on the Planning List under Subsection 403.067(3), F.S., as part of FDEP’s watershed management approach (describ ed earlier). FDEP carries out additional data gathering and strategic monitoring, focusing on these potentially impaired
waters, and determines

— using the methodology in the IWR

— if a waterbody is, in fact, impaired and if the impairment is caused by pollut ant discharges.

A Water Quality Assessment Report is produced containing the results of this updated

evaluation and a Verified List of impa ired waters. (Group 5 reports are included on a CD.) The criteria for the Verified List are more stringent than th ose for the Planning List. FDEP is required to develop TMDLs for waters on the Verified List under Subsection 403.067(4), F.S. A

w atershed management plan (called a Basin Management Action Plan, or BMAP) to reduce the amount of pollutants that cause impa irments may also be produced and implemented

.

The Verified List is adopted by Secretarial Order in accordance with the FWRA. Once adopted, the list is submitted to the EPA for approval as the state’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters

for the basin.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

57 To implement the watershed cycle, the state’s river basins have been divided into five groups within each of FDEP’s six districts statewide, and each district will assess one basin each year.

**Table 10**  shows the basin groups for implementing the cycle in FDEP’s districts. **Table 1 1** 

**,** which lists the basin rotation schedule for TMDL development and implementation, shows that it will take nine years to complete one full cycle of the state. Over time, the 1998 303(d) listing, as well as the listings for prece ding cycles (Cycle 1, Cycle 2, etc.), are all taken into account in the subsequent cycle. This results in a conservative approach to keeping problem waters on the

list.

The watershed management cycle is an iterative, or repeated, process. One of its key components is that the effectiveness of management activities (TMDL implementation) will be monitored in successive cycles. Monitoring conducted in Phase 2 of subsequent cycles will be targeted at evaluating whether water quality objectives are being met and whether individual waters are no longer impaired. FDEP also will track the implementation of scheduled restoration activities, whether required or voluntary, to ensure continued progress towards meeting the TMDLs.

**Table 10** 

**. Basin Groups for Imple**  **menting the Watershed Management Cycle,**  **by FDEP**  **District Office**

**District Group 1** 

**Basins Group 2** 

**Basins Group 3** 

**Basins Group 4** 

**Basins Group 5** 

**Basins**

Northwest Ochlockonee

– St. Marks Rivers Apalachicola

– Chipola Rivers Choctawhatchee River and Bay

– St. Andre w Bay Pensacola Bay Perdido River and Bay

Northeast Suwannee River Lower St. Johns

River – St. Marys

– Nassau Rivers Northeast Coast Lagoons

Central Ocklawaha River Middle St. Johns

River Upper St. Johns

River Kissimmee River Indian River Lagoon

Southwes t Tampa Bay Tampa Bay

Tributaries Sarasota Bay

– Peace and Myakka

Rivers Withlacoochee

River Springs Coast

South Everglades West

Coast Charlotte Harbor Caloosahatchee

River Fisheating Creek Florida Keys

Southeast Lake Okeechobee St. Lucie

– Loxahatchee

River s Lake Worth Lagoon

– Palm Beach Coast Biscayne Bay

– Southeast Coast Everglades

**Table 1**  **1**

**. Basin Rotation Schedule for TMDL Development and Implementation** 

**Year 00**  **01 01**  **02 02**  **03 03**  **04 04**  **05 05**  **06 06**  **07 07**  **08 08**  **09 09**  **10**

Group 1 PHASE

1 PHASE

2 PHASE

3 P HASE

4 PHASE

5 PHASE

1 PHASE

2 PHASE

3 PHASE

4 PHASE

5

Group 2 PHASE

1 PHASE

2 PHASE

3 PHASE

4 PHASE

5 PHASE

1 PHASE

2 PHASE

3 PHASE

4

Group 3 PHASE

1 PHASE

2 PHASE

3 PHASE

4 PHASE

5 PHASE

1 PHASE

2 PHASE

3

Group 4 PHASE

1 PHASE

2 PHASE

3 PHASE

4 PHASE

5 PHASE

1 PHASE

2

Group 5 PHASE

1 PHASE

2 PHASE

3 PHASE

4 PHASE

5 PHASE

1

1 st Five

- Year Cycle

– High

- Priority Waters 2 nd Five

- Year Cycle

– Medium

- Priority Waters

Note: Projected years for Phases 3, 4, and 5 may change due to accelerated loc al activities, length of plan development, legal challenges, etc.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

58 

### Determining Attainment of Designated Use(s)

T he designated uses of a given waterbody are established using the surface water quality classification system described in the section on Florid a’s Water Quality Standards Program in Chapter 1. Specific w ater quality criteria, expressed as numeric or narrative limits for specific parameters, describe the water quality necessary to maintain each of these uses for s urface water and ground water.

I t is important to note , however, that the EPA uses slightly different terminology in its description of designated uses. Because FDEP is required to provide use attainment status for both the state’s 305(b) report and the state’s 303(d) list of impaired w aters, FDEP uses EPA terminology when assessing waters for use attainment. The water quality evaluations and decision processes for listing impaired waters that are defined in Florida’s IWR are based on the following designated use attainment categories:

Aquatic Life Use Support

- Based Attainment Primary Contact and Recreation Attainment Fish and Shellfish Consumption Attainment Drinking Water Use Attainment

Protection of Human Health

**Table 1**  **2** summarizes the designated uses assigned to Florida’s various s urface water

classifications.

**Table 1**  **2**

**. Designated Use Attainment Categories for Surface Waters in Florida** 
**Designated Use Attainment Category Used in**

**IWR Evaluation Applicable Florida Surface Water Classification** 

Aquatic Life Use Support

- Based Attainme nt Class I, II, and III Primary Contact and Recreation Attainment Class I, II, and III Fish and Shellfish Consumption Attainment Class II Drinking Water Use Attainment Class I

Protection of Human Health Class I, II, and III



### How Data Are Identified and Evaluated

**The Impaired Surface Waters Rule** 

**.** To identify impaired waters in each of the state’s river
basins, FDEP evaluates water quality data using the science

- based me thodology in the IWR (Rule 62

- 303, F.A.C.) , which went into effect in 2002 . The r ule establishes specific criteria and thresholds for impairment, in addition to data sufficiency and data quality requirements. The methodology described in the rule is based on a statistical approach (called the binomial method) designed to provide great er confidence that the outcome of the water quality

assessment is correct.

As part of the watershed management approach, for each river basin in the state FDEP follows the methodology in Section 62

- 303.300, F.A.C., to develop a Planning List of potentia lly impaired waters to be assessed under Subsections 403.067(2) and (3), F.S . The methodology for developing the Planning List includes an evaluation of aquatic life use support, primary contact and recreational use support, fish and shellfish consumption use support, drinking water use support, and protection of human health. Only in limited circumstances can d ata older than200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

59 10 years be used to evaluate water quality criteria exceedances for the Planning List. 10

**Revisions to the I mpaired Surface Waters Rule** 

**.** In 2006, and again in 2007, the IWR was amended to address legal challenges that arose following its original adoption in 2001. After the state rulemaking pr ocess was completed, the revised IWR was submitted to the EPA on September 14, 2007, as a change to Florida Water Quality Standards. On February 19, 2008, the EPA sent a letter of approval to FDEP acknowledging that the IWR was an approved change to the W ater Quality Standards. The revisions are available at As required by Subsection 403.067(2), F.S. , the Planning List will not be used to administer or implement any regulatory program, and is submitted to the EPA for informational purposes only.

After further assessment, using the methodology in Part III, Section 62

- 303.400, F.A.C., FDEP

determine s i f waters on the Planning List are, in fact, impaired and if the impairment is caused by pollutant discharges. These waters are placed on a Verified List. The criteria for the Verified List are more stringent than those for the Planning List. Other than those instances identified in
the IWR, d ata older than 7.5 years are generally not used to verify impairment. 1 0 The Verified

List is adopted by Secretarial Order and forwarded to the EPA for approval as part of the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters for the State of Florida

. FDEP develop s TMDLs for these waters under Subsection 403.067(4), F.S. FDEP also submits the impairments contained in categories 4d and 4e to EPA for approval as part of the 303(d) list for the State of Florida.
However, TMDLs are not scheduled for these waters at this time.

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/docs/RevisionsIWR.pdf

. The substantive changes to the

IWR include the following :

**• Sc**  **ope and Intent (Section**  **62**

**- 303.100**  **)**

— Portions of the IWR are changes to standards, but their use is limited to ambient assessments done under Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the federal Clean Water Act. This change does not apply to permitting or other agenc y actions.

**• Total Coliform** 

**—** Total coliform will no longer be listed as a parameter causing impairment.

**• Whole Effluent Toxicity**  **(Sections 62** 

**- 303.340**  **and .440**  **)**

— The section on toxicity was deleted, and a short reference was added to toxicity test results under biological assessment.

**• Daily Average Marine DO Criterion (Subsection**  **62**

**- 303.320**  **[ 5** 

**] )** 

— The use of the binomial

method will be allowed to evaluate daily average marine DO. To calculate the daily average, at least 4 samples must be collected within a day, at l east 4 hours apart.

**• Evaluation of Water Quality Data for Exceedan**  **c es**  **(Sections 62** 

**- 303.320**  **and .420**  **)**

— FDEP

will continue to use the binomial method for assessing exceedances of conventional pollutants
and metals. However, for synthetic pesticides and organi c compounds the EPA

- recommended

method will be used (i.e., waters will be listed if there is mor e than 1 exceedance in 3 years)

.

**• Age of Data**  **(Subsections 62** 

**- 303.320**  **[ 3** 

**] and**  **.400 [**  **3**

**] )** 

— Older data can be used if they are representative of current conditions. F DEP must demonstrate why the data are representative and document this finding in the administrative record.

**• Sample Representativeness**  **(Subsection 62** 

**- 303.320**  **[ 4** 

**] )** 

— The requirement for data from at least 3 different seasons/quarters (not necessarily within th e same year) has been removed. However, there must be at least 5 temporally independent sampling events.

10 To evaluate water quality exceedances, the EPA requests that FDEP use older data, when available. If a decision can be made

usi ng available, recent data, then FDEP uses those data. However, when a decision cannot be made, then FDEP uses older data if it is available. Considerations include whether the data come from FDEP’s own lab, what quality assurance procedures were us ed

in collecting the data, and whether metadata are available.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

60 **• Quality Assurance Evaluation (**  **Subsection 62** 

**- 303.320**  **[ 8** 

**] )** 

— To track Rule 62

- 160, F.A.C., metadata will be requested if FDEP suspects quality assurance pr oblems, or if it is considering listing a water as impaired based on a small sample size.

**• Assessment of Chlorophyll a and TSI**  **D ata (Section 62** 

**- 303.350)** 

— The annual average will be calculated as the average of each season/quarter, and then average seasons. For new data, TN, TP, and chlorophyll a must be collected at the same time and location to calculate the TSI. The use of data from four consecutive seasons is permitted, if no years in the assessment period have sufficient data. There is a new requiremen t for “corrected” chlorophyll a (for new data only).

**• Fecal Coliform Criteria (Rule 62** 

**- 302)** 

— FDEP is currently still negotiating these rule changes

with the EPA. Potential revisions include using the binomial method and assessing each fecal coliform sample independently even if samples are taken within 4 days of each other, changing the listing threshold to 1 exceedance for the monthly average and requiring 10 samples per month for Class III waters, and directing FDEP to assess whether s amples are representa tive of

in

- situ conditions.

**• Use of Shellfish Harvesting Classification Information (Subsections 62** 

**- 303.370[3] and**  **.470[5])**

— A water will be listed as impaired if the harvesting classification is downgraded from the initial classification (or if coliform dat a indicate impairment). Class II waters will be listed if they

are not approved for shellfish harvesting, except for (1) conditionally approved waters where wildlife is the only source as identified by FDEP’s Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section (SE AS) and (2) prohibited waters established for administrative, precautionary reasons.

**• Minimum Sample Size (Subsection 62** 

**- 303.420[7])** 

— The minimum will be waived if there are 5

exceedances and fewer than 20 samples, or if there is “other scientifically credib le and compelling information... that provides overwhelming evidence of impairment

. ” The rationale

must be documented in the administrative record. Th is change is similar to previous clauses that allow listing for “other information” indicating impairment.

**Public Participation Process**

**.** FDEP works with a variety of stakeholders in the TMDL process. It also solicits and encourages public participation in a number of ways. It maintains an extensive distribution list; hosts a TMDL Program w ebsite ( available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/index.htm ) ; publishes notices of meetings, workshops, and public hearings in the Florida Administrative Weekly

, on the w ebsite , and in local newspape rs ; mak es available to the public (via the w ebsite, mail, or e

- mail) the b asin

- specific draft Verified

Lists of waters that me e t the requirements of the IWR ; h old s public meetings on developing and adopting the Verified Lists of impaired waters for the sta te’s 29 river basins ; and requests and respond s to public comments.

Citizens are given the opportunity to comment on the draft lists in person and/or in writing. As part of the review process, public workshops are advertised and held in each basin to hel p explain the process for developing the Verified List, exchange information, and encourage public involvement. If additional information or data is provided prior to or during the public comment period, FDEP considers it before submitting the proposed li st to the Secretary and

EPA.

**Sources of Data.** FDEP ’s assessment of water quality for each basin statewide includes an analysis of quantitative data from a variety of sources, many of which are readily available to the public. These sources include the E PA’s Legacy and modernized STORET databases, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), FDEP

, FD o H , the water management districts, local governments, and volunteer monitoring groups.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

61 Historically, FDEP carried out statewide water quality assessments using data available in the EPA’s Legacy STORET Database; Legacy STORET makes up approximately 4 0 % of the statewide data used in the IWR assessment. The Legacy STORET dataset is a repository of data collected and uploaded by numerous organizations through 1999. The Legacy STORET

Database can be accessed at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/storet/index.htm

.

In 2000, the EPA created a modernized version of STORET that included new features designed to address data quality assurance/quality control concerns (the new STORET website

is available at http://www.epa.gov/storet/ . However, because of software difficulties associated with batch uploading of data to m odernized STORET, FDEP has decided to rebuild a local

version of STORET with much easier data

- loading capa b ilities (referred to as the Water Integrated Database [ WID ] project). Modernized STORET currently houses only about 30% of

the statewide IWR Databas e.

Approximately 3 0 % of the data used in the IWR assessment is provided by individual organizations that for various reasons, such as time constraints or resource limitations, a re not able to enter their data into the national database. The organizations providing the largest datasets include the South Florida, Southwest Florida, and St. Johns River Water Management Districts; the USGS; and the University of Florida LakeWatch volunteer monitoring group. Several of these databases are readily available to the public via the Internet: the South Florida Water Management District at http://www.envirobase.usgs.gov/ , the USGS at http://water.usgs.gov/ , and LakeWatch at http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/

.

An added source of information is available from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute ( http:/ /research.myfwc.com/ ), which provides weekly updates on the occurrence of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs). While some HABs may adversely affect humans and wildlife, not all species produce toxins that cause illness or death in humans or marine organisms. (A more detailed disc ussion of HABs begins on page 80 of this report.) While outbreaks of HABs have been suspected or documented in Florida’s waters since 1844, not all outbreaks are severe or extensive, nor is there a clear correlation between outbreaks an d the influence of human

activities. However, many of Florida’s fresh water waterbodies affected by HABs have been identified as impaired through our IWR metrics measuring Chlorophyll a or through FDEP’s

evaluation of information related to imbalance of f lora and fauna. Examples include Lake Okeechobee, the St. Johns River, and Lake Munson.

The FWRI staff have indicated that red tide ( Karenia brevis) outbreaks are an offshore phenomenon, but may migrate toward shore. However, K. brevis is a marine speci es and does not survive in lower salinity (<20 ppt) envir onments, such as nearshore or estuarine waters. Based on these factors, the FWRI staff maintain that the effects of added nutrient loads coming

from man’s activities on the land and delivered to est uaries and coastal waters are not responsible for initiating the offshore blooms or exacerbating blooms in Florida’s waters. Preliminary studies by FWRI scientists indicate that the major nutrient source for K. brevis is from species mortality , linked wit h a red tide event. Therefore, based on current information, waters will not be placed on Florida’s list of impaired waters based on the outbreak of red tide. In summary, when it is determined that a specific, reoccurring HAB adversely affects the design ated use of a particular waterbody and is caused by pollutant, that waterbody will be added to FDEP’s verified list of impaired waters.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

62 FDEP created the IWR Database in 2002 to evaluate data simultaneously in accordance with the IWR methodology for eve ry basin in the state, based on the appropriate data “window.”

**Table s**  **1 3**  **a** and **1 3**  **b** show the periods of record for the Verified and Planning Lists for the five basin groups for the first and second basin rotation cycles

.

**Table 1**  **3 a** 

**. Data Used in Developin**  **g t he Planning and Verified Lists,** 

**First Basin Rotation Cycle** 

**Basin Group Reporting**  **Period of Data Record Used in IWR**

**Evaluation**

Group 1 Planning List January 1, 1989

– December 31, 1998

Verified List January 1, 1995

– June 30, 2002

Group 2 Planning Li st January 1, 1991

– December 31, 2000

Verified List January 1, 1996

– June 30, 2003

Group 3 Planning List January 1, 1992

– December 31, 2001

Verified List January 1, 1997

– June 30, 2004

Group 4 Planning List January 1, 1993

– December 31, 2002

V erified List January 1, 1998

– June 30, 2005

Group 5 Planning List January 1, 1994

– December 31, 2003

Verified List January 1, 1999

– June 30, 2006

Note: Typically, a 10

- year data record is used for the development of the Planning Lists, and a 7.5

- y ear record is

used for the Verified Lists.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

63 **Table 1**  **3 b** 

**. Data Used in Developing t**  **he Planning and Verified Lists, Second Basin Rotation Cycle** 

**Basin Group Reporting**  **Period of Data Record Used in IWR**

**Evaluation**

Group 1 Planning List January 1, 1995

– Decemb er 31, 2004

Verified List January 1, 2000

– June 30, 2007

Group 2 Planning List January 1, 1996

– December 31, 2005

Verified List January 1, 2001

– June 30, 2008

Group 3 Planning List January 1, 1997

– December 31, 2006

Verified List January 1, 200 2

– June 30, 2009

Group 4 Planning List January 1, 1998

– December 31, 2007

Verified List January 1, 2003

– June 30, 2010

Group 5 Planning List January 1, 1999

– December 31, 2008

Verified List January 1, 2004

– June 30, 2011

Note: Typically, a 10

- year data record is used for the development of the Planning Lists, and a 7.5

- year record is

used for the Verified Lists.

**Quality Assurance/Quality Control Criteria.** The IWR addresses quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) concerns by requiring all data to meet QA rule requirements ( Rule 62

- 160, F.A.C.), including NELAC certification and the use of established SOPs. Starting one year after the effective date of the rule, on June 8, 2004, the IWR also requires that data providers make available upon request a list of QA/QC metadata 11

**Rationales for Not Using Existing Data**

**.** FDEP uses all water quality data that are provided through STORET, as long as it is ambient in nature ( e.g., it does not use data for water coming out of a discharge pipe or within approved mixing zones ). It may restrict the use of an agenc y’s

data if consistent er rors have been found ( only the water quality parameters that have problems

are restricted )

. FDEP also may restrict an agenc y’s data if it has failed QA/QC inspections

. elements with their data. The metadata requirements are designed to allow FDEP to conduct a number of electronic checks o n the quality of data.

**Criteria for Evaluating Outside Data.**  Occasionally, in closely evaluat ing d ata for a particular waterbody, FDEP may find systematic errors from a data provider . These errors may include

the blatant shifting of decimals for a parameter such as iron (e.g.

, reporting 1

, 000 mg/ L, rather than 1 mg/ L ). When systematic errors are foun d, those data are censored from the analysis,

and FDEP works with the provider to correct the errors. Upon correction

, the data are used in

the assessment

.

The Florida legislature has specifically prohibit ed the use of d ata from the v olunteer monitoring

group LakeWatch in a ny regulatory proceeding. However, LakeWatch data can be used in develop ing the Planning List of potentially impaired waters, evaluat ing pollutant loading to lakes,

and model ing lake function for FDEP’s TMDL Program

. The data can also be used to document long

- term water quality trends and provide general background information . However, the y cannot be used to verify impairment, nor can they be used in support of enforcement actions.

11 Metadata consist of information about other data, including when and how the data were collected, by whom, and how they were

formatted.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

64 Data gathered during periods that are not representative of the general health of the waterbody (e.g., during or immediately after a hurricane that can be tied to a short

- term event, such as a spill) are flagged for further evaluation before being added to the IWR database.



### How Data Are Used To Make Attainment Determinations

Once the dat a have been screened and validated, they are evaluated to determine whether individual segments with waterbody identification numbers (WBIDs) are attaining their designated uses. Different analytical approaches, such as statistical analyses, are used to i nfer

conditions from all valid data. Appendix B provides a detailed description of the IWR methodology.



### Results of Statewide Basin Assessments

For the purposes of this assessment, there are two different types of total waters: total waters

in the state and total waters assessed. FDEP keeps track of total waters in the state with a waterbody identification system, which includes 6,2 43 waterbodies that are characterized by waterbody type ( rivers/ stream s , lake s , estuar ies , or coastal waters ). These compri se hydrologically unique pieces of rivers and streams, lakes, and estuaries with homogeneous water quality. Typically

, the river and stream segments are about 5 miles long ( generally bounded by headwaters, river mouths, or major intersecting streams ) ; the estuary segments are about 5 square miles in size ( often bounded by bridges ) ; and lake segments comprise approximately 60 acres each ( u sually entire lakes, but if a lake is very large or has distinct areas

of water quality, it may be subdivided).

The ass essed waters include those waters for which enough information is available to determine whether they attain their designated use (Category 2 under the EPA’s integrated assessment) or do not attain their designated use (EPA Categories 3c, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, 4 e, and 5). **Table 1**  **4** lists the number and size of waters assessed for each waterbody type, and **Table**

**1 5**  lists the size of the surface waters assigned to each of the EPA reporting categor ies

.

For the determination of use support in this report, FDEP assess ed 20, 285 miles of rivers and

streams, 1, 495,972 acres of lakes, 3,726 square miles of estuaries , and 6,700 square miles of

coastal waters using the I WR methodology for the Verified List of impaired waters. It should be

noted that the assessment results f or lakes are highly affe cted by the assessment results for one impaired lake, Lake Okeechobee, which is by far the largest lake in the state. All estuaries

and coastal waters have been assesse d for mercury, and consumption advisor ies have been

issued for a number of fish species because of excessive concentrations of mercury in fish

tissue.

**Table 1**  **4 . Waters Assessed**  **for the Statewide Basin Assessments**

**, by Waterbody Type** 

**Waterbody Type Number of** 

**Waterbod y**  **Segments Assessed** 

Rivers/streams 3, 969 20, 285 mil es

Lakes 1, 303 1, 495,972 acres

Estuaries 559 3,726 square miles

Coastal Waters 155 6,700 square miles

Note: Scale is 1:24,000.

Source: National Hydrologic Dataset (NHD).200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

65 **Table 1**  **5**

**. Size of Surface Waters Assigned to**  **Each EPA Integrated Report Cat**  **egor y** 

**Waterbody Type Category** 

**2*** **Categories**

**3c and 3d (Planning** 

**List)*** **Category**

**4*** **Category**

**5*** **No Data Insufficient** 

**Data Total** 

**Waters**

**Assessed Total in** 

**State**

Rivers/streams (miles) 1, 538 2,8 28 1 20 6,365 7,656 1, 779 20, 285 20, 285

Lakes (acres) 51,273 197, 185 684 960,942 203,856 82,033 1,495,972 1,495,972

Estuaries (square miles) 48 0 0 3,659 18 0 3,726 3,726

Coastal Waters (square miles) 57 5 0 6,700 0 0 6,700 6,700

Note: There are no waters in EPA Category 1 (attaining all designated uses) because FD EP does not sample for all uses. Category 2 co mprises waters attain ing all the uses that are sampled for.

– Not applicable.

* The EPA’s Integrated Report categories are as follows:

1

— Attains all designated uses;

2

— Attains some designated uses;

3a

— No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained;

3b

— Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained;

3c

— Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impai red for one or more designated uses;

3d

— Meets Verified List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses;

4

— Impaired for one or more designated uses , but a TMDL will not be developed at this time for various reasons (See Table 9);

and

5

— Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required.



### Summaries of Designated Use Support for Rivers/Streams, Lakes, Estuaries, and

Coastal Waters

**Table 1**  **6** summarizes support for designated use (class) for the rivers/streams, lakes, est uaries,

and coastal waters assessed in the Florida basins , as follows:

**•** Class 1 waters (potable water supplies): 16 % of river/stream miles assessed supported their designated use, compared with 0% of lake acre s.

**•** Class II waters (shellfish propagation or h arvesting): 0 % of river/stream miles

and 0 % of estuarine square miles assessed supported their designated uses.

**•** Class III fresh waters (recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy,

well

- balanced population of fish and wildlife): 7 % of river/str eam miles and 5 %

of lake acres assessed supported their designated use.

**•** Class III marine waters (recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy,

well

- balanced population of fish and wildlife): 2 % of estuarine square miles and

0 % of coastal square m iles assessed supported their designated use.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

66 **Table 1**  **6**

**. Individual Designated Use Support Summary** 

**Designated**

**Use (Class)**  **1, 2 Waterbody**  **Type Total in** 

**State Total** 

**Assessed Supports**  **Designated**

**Use (Category**  **2) %**  **Supporting Designated** 

**Use Insufficient** 

**Data (Categories**  **3a, 3b, and 3c)**  **Does Not Support**  **Designated**

**Use (Categories** 

**4 and 5) % Not**  **Supporting Designated** 

**Use**

I Rivers/streams (miles) 470 470 77 16 % 186 207 44 %

Lakes (acres) 502,579 502,579 0 0 % 11, 726 490,853 97 %

II Rivers/streams (miles) 357 35 7 3 0 % 205 149 41 %

Estuaries (square miles) 1,516 1,516 0 0 % 0 1, 516 100 %

IIIF Rivers/streams (miles) 19, 364 19, 364 1, 457 7 % 11,849 6,057 31 %

IIIF Lakes (acres) 993,362 993,362 51,273 5 % 471,348 470, 762 47 %

IIIM Estuaries (square miles) 2, 155 2, 155 48 2 % 19 2,088 96 %

IIIM Coastal waters ( square miles) 6,700 6,700 0 0 % 0 6,700 100 %

1 Class I Potable water supplies

Class II Shellfish propagation or harvesting

Class III Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well

- balanced population of fish and wildlife

Class IV Agricultural water supplies (large agricultural lands, located mainly around Lake Okeechobee)

Class V Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)

2 F = Fresh water ; M = Mar ine

3 Lake Okeechobee, a Class 1 waterbody, was designated as impaired by the Florida legislature in 1999, and F DEP completed and adopted by rule a TMDL for total phosphorus for the lake in 2001. The entire TMDL (140 metric tons/year) is

allocated to non point sources. This is based on an in

- lake target restoration goal of 40 parts per billion (ppb). Lake Okeechobee has subsequently been verified as impaired for coliform bacteria, DO, and un

- ionized ammonia.

**Table 1 7**  summarizes the size of waters impa ired by various causes for each waterbody type; the principal causes of impairment are as follows:

**•** Out of 1, 294 river/stream segments assessed: fish advisories for mercury, DO,
fecal coliform, iron, and chlorophyll

.

**•** Out of 654 lake segments assessed: fi sh advisories for mercury, TSI, DO, iron,

and historical TSI.

**•** Out of 549 estuarine segments assessed: fish advisories for mercury, fecal

coliform , DO, and chlorophyll.

**•** Out of 155 coastal segments assessed: fish advisories for mercury , and fecal

coliform

.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

67 **Table 1**  **7**

**. Si**  **ze of Waters Impaired by Causes (Rivers/Streams, Lakes, Estuaries,**  **and Coastal Waters)** 

Rivers/Streams

**Parameter Number of** 

**Waterbodies Miles**  **Impaired**
Dissolved Oxygen 248 2

, 328
Hg in Fish 243 2

, 935

Fecal Coliform 231 1

, 673

Nutrients 128 1049

Iron 35 668

Lead 14 131

Un

- ionized

Ammonia 11 75

Turbidity 7 81
Biology 4 29

Dissolved Solids 3 52
BOD 5Day 2 17

Copper 2 18

Cadmium 1 24

Malathion 1 8

Selenium 1 24

Lakes

**Parameter Number of** 

**Waterbodies Acres**  **Impaired**

Nutrients 15 7 349,248
Hg in Fish 113 853

, 621
Dissolved Oxygen 41 116

, 324

Lead 9 9

, 388

Un

- ionized

Ammonia 8 11

, 640

Fecal Coliform 6 6

, 079

Iron 5 54

, 990
Turbidity 3 496
Copper 2 481

Cadmium 1 3761

Silver 1 7

, 428 Estuar ies

**Parameter Number of** 

**Waterbodies Square** 

**Miles Impaired** 

Hg in Fish 539 3

, 635

Nutrients 94 902

Dissolved Oxygen 83 620

Fecal Coliform 66 761

Copper 20 235

Iron 15 140

Fish Advisories 14 328

Lead 5 36

Nickel 5 88

Arsenic 3 20

BOD 5Day 1 38

Biology 1 4

Turbidity 1 1

Coastal Waters

**Parameter Number of** 

**Waterbodies Square** 

**Miles Impaired** 

Hg in Fish 155 6

, 700

Copper 9 93

Fish Advisories 3 107

Fecal Coliform 3 423

Chlorophyll 1 102200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

68 

### 303(d) List of Verified Impaired Waters

The 1998 303(d) list and the adopted 303(d) lists (Verified Lists) for 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 (Basin Groups 1

– 5, respectively) are available on FDEP’s TMDL Program

w ebsite at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/wat er/tmdl/index.htm

.

The website also contains information on the adopted lists of waters to be delisted (i.e., removed) from the 1998 303(d) list for the Group 1

– 5 basins. If use attainment is verified for a waterbody or segment that was previously lis ted as impaired, FDEP can propose that it be delisted. If attainment is verified for some designated uses of a waterbody or segment, FDEP will propose partial delisting for the uses attained. Future monitoring will be recommended to

determine if remainin g uses are attained.

Waters may also be delisted for other reasons, such as sufficient data to assess potential impairment, flaws in the original analysis, or impairment due to natural causes (such as low DO). The Comments column in each table explains t he reason for proposing a segment for delisting.

During the first cycle of the basin rotation, and continuing in the second cycle, those waters that had originally appeared on the 1998 303(d) list submitted to the EPA were assessed using the methodology o f the I WR

.

As a result of the assessments performed during the first cycle of the basin rotation, 1998 303(d) listed waters were either verified as impaired (which then required that TMDLs be developed); or verified as not impaired, in which case they wer e proposed for delisting (those

waters without sufficient data with which to perform an assessment during the first cycle remain

on the 1998 303 [ d ] list maintained by the EPA). Those 1998 303(d) listed waters that the Department was unable to assess due t o various circumstances related to data collection remain as part of the 303(d) list of impaired waters for the State

The 1998 303(d) list and the adopted State of Florida List of Verified Waters for 2002, 2003,
2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 (corresponding t o Basin Groups 1

– 5 for Cycle 1 of the Basin Rotation and Basin Group 1 for Cycle 2) are available on the FDEP TMDL Program website ( http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/index.htm ).



### Delist ing

In addition to the group

- specific Verified Lists of Impaired Waters, the FDEP’s TMDL website also includes information on the group

- specific lists of waters to be delisted.

There are a variety of reasons for which FDEP may propose that a previously listed water segment be delisted (e.g., waters may be delisted if it is determined that the original listing was in error; or if it can be demonstrated that water quality criteria are currently being met for a waterbody or segment/analyte combination that was previously included on either the 1998

303 [ d ] list, or on the State of Florida ’s Verified List of Impaired Waters).

The EPA’s Office of Research and Development released the “National Coastal Condition Report II” in December 2004 (EPA

- 620/R

- 03/002). This report uses the readily available data to

assess the ecological condition of the nation’s estuaries and coastal waters. EPA applied five indicators (dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a, nitrogen, phosphorus, and water clarity) separately200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

69 and also in co mbination (to create a Water Quality Index). The FDEP will use these tools to

assess the health of its’ coastal and estuarine wat ers. For example, in the Gulf C oast waters (excluding Florida Bay) the EPA has set a threshold of <5 ug/L for Chlorophyll a a s indicating “Good” conditions. Waters with Chlorophyll a concentrations from 5

- 20 ug/L are considered to be in “Fair” condition. In addition, the report’s composite Water Quality Index allows any one of the five indicators to fall into the Fair range an d still have an overall call of “ Good ” for that waterbody if the remaining four me trics are all in the “Good” part of their respective range s

.

The flow chart below shows another part of the decision process for delisting waters listed for

nutrient

- rel ated problems

. For those analytes where the assessment decisions are based on

the number of exceedances of numeric water quality criteria, the decision to list (or delist) is specified in the IWR; however, listing (and delisting) decisions for n utrient s a re not based on such numeric criteria and, consequently, the EPA has requested that those decision s include

site

- specific analyses. The site

- specific approach to make delisting decisio ns for n utrient

assessments rel ies on the use of the period of record d ata ava ilable for the listed waterbody.

For waterbodies that were in cluded on the 1998 303(d) list [ included using data from the 1996

305 ( b )] report, available data are reviewed for the period prior to 1996. When data from the period of record used to s upport current IWR assessments sho w no evidence of increased

c hlorophyll a concentrations over the historic period, that waterbody is proposed for delisting.

However , when historic al data may show evidence to support the original listing, the period of

r ecord is further examined to determine a baseline threshold for chlorophyll values. When current assessment data for a waterbody previously listed for “N utrients, ” either on the 1998 303(d) or from the Verified List developed during the first cycle of the basin rotation, show no

increase over these historic al threshold values, these waters are also proposed for delisting.

Any waters that do not have sufficient data to be analyzed in accordance with the requirements of the IWR will remain on the 1998 303(d ) list of impaired waters maintained by the EPA. These waters are not delisted, and they will be sampled during the next phases of the watershed management cycle so that their impairment status can be verified.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

70 

### Status of T otal Maximu m Daily Load Development

There are two different schedules for TMDL development. The initial listing of impaired waters in 1998 was incorporated into a 1999 Consent Decree between the EPA and Earthjustice

— to which Florida was not a party

— that imposed a 13

- year schedule for the development of more than 2,000 specific TMDLs in Florida. These “ consent decree waters ” were assigned either a high or low priority, and t he judge established a schedule for completing TMDLs for these waters or delisting them. If t he s tate does not meet th e deadline, then the EPA is responsible

for developing the TMDL to meet the deadlin e. For the upcoming 2

- year period, as part of the rotating basin approach, FDEP will evaluate all available data, with particular emphasis on the

c onsent decree listed waters, contained in its Group 1 and Group 2 basins. TMDLs will be developed for those verified impaired waters, as scheduled under the terms of the consent

decree.

For waters verified as impaired through the TMDL process, adopted by Secretarial Order, and approved by the EPA , the state must develop TMDLs or list the impairment as a natural

condition . T here is no court

- mandated completion date . Instead, these impaired waters are

ranked as low, medium, and high priority , with no sche duled year for completion. Under Section

62

- 303.500 , F.A.C., the prioritization is carried out according to the severity of the impairment and each segment’s designated uses, taking into account the most serious water quality problems; most valuable and t hreatened resources; and risk to human health and aquatic life.

High

- priority waters are those where the impairment poses a threat to potable water supplies or to human health, or where it is due to a pollutant regulated by the Clean Water Act and the pol lutant has contributed to the decline or extirpation of a federally listed threatened or endangered species. Low priority waters are those listed due to fish consumption advisories for mercury (due to the current insufficient understanding of mercury cycl ing in the environment);

man

- made canals, urban drainage ditches, and other artificial segments that are listed only because they exceed the DO criterion; and segments that were not on the Planning List

, but

were subsequently identified as impaired and pla ced on the Verified List.

All “nonconsent decree waters” not designated high or low priority ar e medium priority and ar e prioritized based on a number of factors, including t he presence of O FWs ; t he presence of segments that fail to meet more than one des ignated use ; t he presence of segments that exceed an applicable water quality criterion or alternative threshold with more than 25% percent of the samples not meeting an applicable water quality criterion or alternative threshold exceedance frequency with a minimum of a 90 % confidence level ; the presence of segments that exceed more than one applicable water quality criteri on; and the a d ministrative needs of the

TMDL P rogram, including the TMDL development schedule agreed to with the EPA, basin priorities r elated to following FDEP ’s watershed management approach, and the number of administratively continued permits in the basin. TMDLs for nonconsent decree TMDLs will be developed in association with those on the consent decree, when feasible. Other noncons ent decree TMDLs will be complete within the suggested time frames in the EPA’s policy

documents.

W ith 100 % of the state evaluated, approximately 2,565 TMDLs will be required for 1,688 F lorida waters. Because TMDLs are developed for individual pollutants , a wate rbody may have multiple TMDLs. To date, FDEP has developed , proposed, or adopted 322 TMDLs for 166

waterbodies , and 3 BMAPs have been completed and adopted (for the Upper Ocklawaha River Basin, Orange Creek, and Long Branch).200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

71 **Figure 5**  illustrates the statewide assessment results for all parameters, excluding mercury

. The figure illustrates the fact that most surface water quality problems are found in highly urbanized central and south Florida. Problems are evident around the densely populated, major urban centers, including Jacksonville, Orlando, Tampa, Pensacola, Cape Kennedy, and the southeastern Florida coast. Basins with intense agricultural and industrial use are also associated with poor water quality. Water quality in the northwest and west

- central sections of the state is generally better than in other areas.

**Figure 6**  summarizes the assessment results for mercury. As noted earlier, in many Florida waters consumption advisories have been issued for a number of fish species. Mercury a s a human health issue is considered to be a lower priority for TMDL development

, and mercury has been removed from the priority section of the IWR. FDEP will develop statewide TMD L s for

both fresh waters and marine waters that are impaired for mercury ; th e TMDL s are due by September 2012

.

**Figure 5**  **. Results of Florida’s Surface Water Quality Assessment for all Parameters (Excluding Mercury)** 

Biology. The IWR relies heavily on stream biological data for impairment status. Since 1992,

FDEP has taken ab out 700 BioReconnaissance (BioRecon) and about 1,6 00 SCI200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

72 measurements. Over this period, BioR e cons statewide show ed a 27 % stream failure rate

, and

1 3 % of the SCIs failed. **Table 18**  shows the numbers of measurements and impairment status

for the BioRecon a nd SCI from 1992 to June

, 2004

.



### Use of Historical Data

For data older than 10 years prior to the time of the assessment, the FDEP considers all readily available data. As part of the I WR programming, all assessment units (WBIDs) are flagged to

note whet her or not older data exist for that WBID. (If an assessment call can be made using the data from the Planning or Verified Periods, these older data are not evaluated, as newer data supersedes older data.) In cases where an assessment call cannot be made using the data from the Planning or the Verified Periods, FDEP staff review all data and information in our databases that relate to the po llutant of concern . Making quality assurance (QA) checks for data provided by sources other than the FDEP has prove n difficult, as metadata from these

sources are often not maintained for older data. FDEP generated data are also subject to QA reviews and are not used for assessment purposes if they fail the requisite QA tests. Based upon our review of older data prov ided by agencies outside the agency, FDEP has determined that only those data generated by the FDEP’s laboratories and those data from outside agencies that have accompanying metadata will be used to supplement data from the Planning

and Verified Periods.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

73 **Figure 6**  **. Results of Florida’s Surface Water Quality Assessment for Mercury**

**Table 18**  **. Numbers of Mea surements and Impairment Status**  **for the BioRecon and SCI, 1992**

**– June 2004** 

**Biological Test Call**  **Impairment Number of** 

**Measurements**

BioRecon Healthy Not impaired 280

BioRecon Pass Not impaired 1

BioRecon Suspect Not impaired 245

BioRecon Impaired Impaired 188

BioRecon Fail Impaired 3

SCI Excellent Not impaired 1,041

SCI Good Not impaired 383

SCI Poor Impaired 172

SCI Very Poor Impaired 39200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

74 

### Tr end Analysis for Rivers/Streams, Lakes, Estuaries, and Coastal Waters

Changes in water quality over time are an important indicator of the health of surface waters.

Table 19 shows trends in water quality for chlorophyll a , nitrogen, and phosphorus in

rive rs/streams, lakes, estuaries, and coastal waters from 1997 to 2007 . Enough data were available to evaluate long

- term trends in water quality for 823 rivers/streams, lakes, estuaries, and coastal waters. Overall, most (about 54 %) showed no significant tre nds, while 22 % improved and 24 % worsened.

**Table 19** 

**. Trends in Water Quality**  **for**

**R ivers/Streams,**  **Lakes, Estuaries, and** 

**Coastal Waters**

**, 1997** 

**–**

**2007**

**Description Number of** 

**Waterbodies Miles or**  **Area**

Rivers/Streams Assessed for Trends (miles)

Improving 44 44 7

Stable 221 2, 531

D egrading 75 894

Fluctuating 0 0

Trend

Unknown 3, 629 16, 413

Lakes Assessed for Trends (acres)

Improving 92 129,659

Stable 141 401,210

D egrading 116 391,907

Fluctuating 0 0

Trend

Unknown 954 573,196

Estuaries Assessed for Tren ds (square miles)

Improving 41 752

Stable 76 796

D egrading 9 135

Fluctuating 0 0

Trend

Unknown 433 2,042

Coastal Waters Assessed for Trends (square miles)

Improving 1 32

Stable 1 102

Degrading 0 0

Fluctuating 0 0

Trend

Unknown 155 6,567200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

75 

### Spec ial Focus: Lake Issue s

Lakes are a particular focus of the EPA’s 2008 Integrated Report guidance

. This section provides information on lake trends, lake trophic status, a pproaches to c ontrolling lake pollution and lake water quality , approaches to mitiga ting high acidity in lakes, and publicly owned lakes with impaired uses. **Table 1**  **6** summarizes support for designated use (class) for lakes, and

**Table 1**  **7** provides information on the acres of lakes impaired by various causes.

Lake Trends. Trends in Flori da lakes between 1997 and 2007 were analyzed, and there were sufficient data for trend analysis for 349 lakes. Of these 349 lakes, 92 were improving, 141

were stable, and 116 were degrading **(Table 19**  **).** For 954 lakes , trends were unknown.

Trend analysis was accomplished using quarterly waterbody medians of nitrogen, phosphorus and chlorophyll for the 199 7

– 200 7 period. Only waterbodies with at least 10 or 11 years of data were used in the Spearman rank

- order nonparametric correlation (correlations had to be significant at the 95% confidence level).

Lake Trophic Status. **Table 20**  lists the trophic status of significant publicly owned lakes in the

state. The table shows that of 1

, 137,729 acres of lakes assessed ( or about 76 % of the lake acres in Florida)

, 87 % are eutrophic and another 4 % are hypereutrophic.

**Table 20.**  **Trophic Status of Significant Publicly Owned Lakes** 

**Description Number of** 

**Lakes Acres of Lakes** 

Total in State 1, 303 1, 495,972

Assessed 669 1, 137,729

Eutrophic 434 988,346

Hypereutrophic 13 46,474

Mesotrophic 209 97,904

Oligotrophic 13 5,005

Dystrophic 0 0

Unknown 634 358.243

Note: Results are based on the T SI for 1996

– 2007

. TSI values for lakes are as follows :

Oligotrophic

– < 20

M esotrophic

– 20 to < 40

E utrophic

– 40 to < 80

H ype reutrophic

– ≥ 80

Approaches to Controlling Lake Pollution and Lake Water Quality

. The TMDL assessment

process described earlier in this chapter provides an approach to controlling the point and nonpoint source pollution entering Florida’s lakes and res toring lake water quality

. In particular, the Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs) developed for impaired waterbodies contain specific management activities and BMPs for reducing pollution. Each BMAP also provide s interim and final targets for evaluatin g water quality improvements, a mechanism for tracking the implementation of management actions, procedures for monitoring and reporting on progress, data management and QA/QC procedures

, a description of methods used to evaluate progress towards goals, a strategy and schedule for periodically reporting results to the public , and200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

76 procedures to determine whether additional corrective actions are needed and whether plan components need to be revised.

Approaches to Mitigating High Acidity in Lakes

. High acid ity in lakes is not generally

considered to be a problem in Florida, because of naturally low pH due to swamp drainage and the low buffering capacity of swampy rainwater.

Publicly Owned Lakes with Impaired Uses

. Florida has a number of publicly owned lak es
that are known to be impaired . These include lakes that do not meet applicable WQSs or that require the implementation of control programs to maintain compliance with applicable

standards

. Appendix D lists alphabetically the impaired lakes in the stat e, the parameter causing impairment, the basin group, and the river basin with in which each lake is located.



### Drinking Water

Surface waters supply only about 13 % of Florida's drinking water. Of 7,200 public drinking
water systems statewide , 19 obtain thei r water from surface water. An additional 26 systems wholly or partially purchase water from these 19 systems. Because it is expensive to operate a surface water system (given that filtration and advanced disinfection are costly), most are large.

While earlier sections o f this chapter discussed impaired waters by waterbody type , t his section provides assessment results specifically for drinking water use attainment. To determine attainment for drinking water use, the data for all Class I rivers/streams and lakes in the state were assessed. Class I waters must also protect general human health, aquatic life, and allow for the protection of fish and wildlife, as well as recreational uses.

**Table 2**  **1** lists the total miles of rivers/streams and acres of lake s/reservoirs designated for drinking water use in Florida ( 470 miles and 433,280 acres, respectively)

. For waters designated for drinking water use, **Table 2**  **2** lists the miles of rivers/streams and acres of

lakes/reservoirs designated for drinking water use that are assigned to each of the EPA’s five reporting categories. **Table 1**  **7**

**,** which summarizes the causes and acreages of waterbodies not attaining drinking water use for rivers/streams and lakes (i.e., Class I waters)

, shows that 16 %

of rivers and streams , and 1 % of lakes, supported drinking water use.

**Table 21**  **. Total Miles of Rivers/Streams**

**and Acres of Lakes/Reservoirs Designated for Drinking Water Use** 
**Waterbody Type**  **Number Total in State** 

Streams 81 470 miles

Lakes 22 433,280 acres200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

77 **Table 22**  **. Mi les of Rivers/Streams and Acres of Lakes/Reservoirs**  **Designated for Drinking Water Use that Are**  **Assigned to Each of the EPA’s Five Reporting Categories** 

**Waterbody Type Number of** 

**Waterbodies Stream Miles** 

**and Lake Acres EPA Category** * **Assessment**

**Status**

Rive rs/Streams 9 77 2 Meets use

Rivers/Streams 28 111 3a No data

Rivers/Streams 10 33 3b Insufficient data

Rivers/Streams 8 42 3c Planning List

Rivers/Streams 25 207 5 Verified List

Lake s 0 0 2 Meets use

Lake s 2 10,174 3a No data

Lake s 2 1,551 3c Planni ng List

Lake s 19 490,852 5 Verified List

* The EPA’s Integrated Report categories are as follows:

1

— Attains all designated uses;

2

— Attains some designated uses;

3a

— No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained;

3b

— S ome data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained;

3c

— Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses;

3d

— Meets Verified List criteria and is potenti ally impaired for one or more designated uses;

4

— Impaired for one or more designated uses , but a TMDL will not be developed at this time for various reasons (See Table 9); and

5

— Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required.

Overlap of Source Water Areas and Impaired Surface Waters. Verified Lists of impaired

surface waters have b een adopted for the Group 1

– 5 basins. Several waters were listed based on parameter concentrations that may pose a public health concern to public water syst ems, and in several instances these coincide with source water assessment and protection areas for community water system surface water intakes. Source water areas were modeled based on a

3

- day travel time to the intake within surface waters and their 100

- year floodplains. Streams were added to the source water coverage from USGS quadrangles, with a 3

- meter buffer around each one. The overlap of impaired surface waters and these source water areas were determined using the source water coverage, the list s of impaired surface waters, the areas of
Florida’s lakes and reservoirs, and the 1:24,000

- scale N HD for streams.

**Table 2**  **3** summarizes the findings for the Group 1

– 5 basins . The table shows the aggregate

miles of rivers/streams and acres of lakes/reserv oirs representing an overlap between source

water areas and surface waters that are listed for primary drinking water parameters. This summary includes segments of 1 5 waterbodies that were listed for fecal coliform. P ublic water systems in Florida are re quired to perform chlorination treatment to address bacteria.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

78 **Table 2**  **3 . Summary of Impaired River/Stream Miles and**  **Lake/Reservoir Areas Overlapping Source Water Areas of Community Water Systems** 

**Surface Water Type Length or Area of Impaired Surface** 

**Wat ers Overlapping Source Water**  **Areas in Groups 1**

**- 5**  **Percent of Total Length or Area in Groups 1** 

**- 5** 

Streams and Rivers 584 miles 1. 15 %

Lakes/Reservoirs 1

, 478 acres 0. 094 %

Note: The analysis is based on adopted lists of impaired surface waters for the Group 1

– 5 basins.

Parameter of interest was fecal coliform.



### Freshwater, Estuarine, and Marine Sediment Contamination

**Freshwater Sediments.** In healthy aquatic environments, sediments provide critical habitat for many organisms. However, sediments can also accumulate contaminants. Knowledge of existing sediment quality is important for environmental managers, especially in restoration and dredging projects , but periodic water quality monitoring cannot fully assess aquatic ecosystems, as it is not usually de signed to assess the cumulative impact of contaminants.

Unlike water, there are no sediment standards. Tools have been designed to evaluate sediment quality. In 2002, FDEP released a W eb

- assisted statistical tool that evaluates metals

enrichment in fres hwater sediments. The tool estimates anthropogenic impacts by comparing

sediment metal contaminants with both aluminum and iron in the sediment. Furthermore, in
2003, FDEP released the document, Development and Evaluation of Numerical Sediment Quality As sessment Guidelines for Florida Inland Waters

, which provides guidance in the interpretation of freshwater sediment contaminant data as it relates to biological impacts at a

site. The report contains freshwater sediment guidelines that are based on the sa me weight

- of

evidence statistical approach used to develop the 1994 coastal sediment quality guidelines (discussed in the following estuarine assessment section). Each metal and organic contaminant has two guidelines, a lower guideline that informs manage rs that contaminant

- induced harm may occur, and a higher guideline that informs managers that biological harm will most likely

occur due to elevated contaminant concentrations. These interpretive documents are available

at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/monitoring/index.htm#seds

.

In 2004, FDEP, in conjunction with two water management districts (North Florida and St. Johns River) , conducted a survey of sediments from both large and small lakes in the 6 Group 1 basins. A total of 284 lake sediment samples was collected after the collection of the water samples. FDEP ’s Central Laboratory analyzed the se samples for metals, nutrients

, and organic

contaminants. M etals analyze d included arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, mercury, silver

, and zinc; organic contaminants include d polynuclear hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

, and organochlorine pesticides (for example

, DDT and its breakdown produ cts). FDEP ’s Monitoring Section then applied the sediment quality assessment tools to the resulting dataset.

Using the two guidelines in the 2003 guidelines document, it is apparent that the metals copper,

lead

, and zinc produce the most exceedances of both the lower and higher guidelines. Arsenic, cadmium, chromium

, and mercury rarely exceed the higher guideline, but do commonly exceed the lower guideline. Not surprisingly, sediment metals were highest in lakes in urbanized areas,200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

79 with the highest nu mber of samples that show elevated metals collected in the Tampa Bay region.

In the 284 samples, there were 41 detections of an organic contaminant ; however

, some
sediment samples had detections of more than 1 individual organic contaminant. No PCB

compo unds were detected, and only 7 samples had detectable amounts of PAHs. However, the persistent organochlorine pes ticide s DDT (along with its breakdown products, DDD and DDE )

and chlordane were detected at 20 stations. The two Group 1 basins with the most exceedances of the higher organic contaminant guideline were the Ocklawaha River Basin

, which is heavily agricultural, an d the urban Tampa Bay Basin . C hlordane, a now

- banned but formerly widely used termiticide, was detected in 7 lake sediment samples , a ll in the Tampa Bay

Basin.

**Estuarine and Marine Sediments.** Florida’s unique geologic and hydrologic features make its surface water and ground water relatively vulnerable to contamination. Sediment and soil contamination is particularly important to wat er quality, because surface and subsurface sediments, ground water, and surface water interact extensively. Sediment contamination is

also crucial because of the state’s extensive estuaries and their use as commercial and

recreational fisheries.

Although Florida currently has no criteria for heavy metals or toxic organics in sediments, FDEP studied estuarine sediments to assess current conditions, develop tools to identify contaminated areas, and provide background information to develop future sediment c riteria.

The initial study collected and interpreted data on natural background concentrations of selected metals, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, lead, zinc, cadmium, barium, iron, lithium, manganese, silver, titanium, and vanadium

. l The study was later expanded to include five classes of organic contaminants: chlorinated hydrocarbons (pesticides), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls, phenolic hydrocarbons, and aliphatic hydrocarbons. m

Once the data were collected, the group developed tools using metal

- to

- aluminum ratios to identify estuarine and marine sites contaminated with cadmium, lead, arsenic, zinc, lead, nickel, chromium, and copper. Ratios greater than 1 indicate potential contamination. Mercury was evaluated against a maximum conc entration associated with uncontaminated estuarine sediments. Metal contamination above background levels was most often seen for cadmium, mercury, lead, and zinc. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were found in about 70% of the samples tested for organic chemicals. Of this group, fluoranthene and pyrene were found in The sediment databas e contains information collected from 700 sites by FDEP, 42 sites by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Status and Trends Program, and 33 sites in the St. Johns River by Mote Marine Laboratory (a private marine research facility in Sarasota). The data came from 3 different surveys. From 1983 to 1984, sediments were collected as part of the Deepwater Ports Project from sites near dense population centers and close to commercial channels and ship berths. A second survey, from 19 85 to 1991, assessed sites where contamination was expected because of flows from tributaries and local land use practices. The third survey examined sites in relatively remote or unimpacted areas.

l This effort culminated in the release of the document

, A Gu ide to Interpretation of Metal Concentrations in Estuarine Sediments ( F DEP , April 1988 )

. m The expanded database is summarized in Florida Coastal Sediment Contaminants Atlas ( F DEP , 1994 )

.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

80 more than 50% of the samples. Not surprisingly, more contaminants were found in urban watersheds than in rural or undeveloped watersheds.

While contaminant levels in estuarine and marine s ediments can be measured, the effects of specific concentrations of metals or organic chemicals on aquatic life are not completely understood. Because of the difficulty of interpreting the data, FDEP developed guidelines for assessing sediment quality rat her than sediment criteria. The guidelines provide ranges of concentrations that could cause a specific level or intensity of biological effects.

Using data from 20 different areas of Florida, FDEP developed preliminary guidelines for 34 priority contami nants in coastal and marine sediments. n Data from acute toxicity tests were used mainly because little information exists on chronic effects. Three ranges of effects were defined for each contaminant: probable, possible, and minimal. These are interpre ted, respectively, as concentrations that always have an effect, frequently have an effect, and rarely or never have an effect. The guidelines for 28 substances have a high or moderate degree of reliability. The guidelines for all 34 substances, used col lectively, predict the potential effects of contaminated marine and estuarine sediments on biological communities. o



# Public Health Concerns and Progr ams Although the guidelines are a valuable tool, it is recommended that they be used with other tools and assessment procedures. Direct cause and effect should not be inferred. They also do not replace dredging disposal criteria or formal procedures, nor are they meant to be sediment quality criteria or numeric attainment levels for cleaning up Superfund sites.



## Drinking Water

FDEP has the primary role of regulating public water systems in Florida , under Chapter 403,
Part IV, F . S., and by delegation of the federal program from the EPA

. To this end, FDEP has

p romulgated a number of rules in t he Florida Admini strative Code. The section entitled Overview of Ground Water Protection Programs in Chapter 2 describes FDEP’s ongoing efforts to protect drinking water supplies.

A public water system is one that provides water to 25 or more people for at least 60 days each year or serves 15 or more service connections. These public water systems may be publicly or privately owned and operated. Additional information is available at FDEP’s Drinking Water Program website at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/drinkingwater/index.htm

.

FDOH and the c ounty health departments regulate v ery small water systems that provide water for public consumption, but that do not fall under the definition of public w ater systems.

Additional information is available on FDOH’s website at http://www.doh.state.fl.us/environment/water/index.html . The water management districts regulate the d igging o f water wells, both public and private, and the quantities of water that may

be extracted.

n This approach was adapted from recommendations by Long and Morgan, 1990.

o For a complete discussion of methodology, see MacDonald, 1994.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

81 

## Bacterial and Mercury Contamination

Assessment results indicate that several human health

- related designated uses are not always

maintained in Florida’s surface wat ers. Specifically, primary contact and recreation use support and shellfish harvesting use support are sometimes limited by the presence of bacteria in the
water column, and for a number of species in many waters across the state, fish consumption

use sup port is commonly limited by the pres ence of mercury in fish tissue.

It is important to note, however, that the se impairment s are not based on documented impacts on public health. Florida has extensive monitoring programs that issue beach advisories,

shel lfish bed closures, and fish consumption advisories when ambient samples reach predetermined thresholds. These thresholds are conservatively designed to protect public health against the potential effects of exposure to bacteria (in water and shellfish) a nd mercury (in fish tissue).

F DEP ’s mercury website at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/labs/mercury/index.htm provides information on the mercury issue and links t o other useful website s dealin g with mercury. Information on the latest fish consumption advisories is available on FDOH’s website at http://www.doh.state.fl.us/environment/community/f ishconsumptionadvisories/index.html

. Information on beach closures is available on FDOH’s website at http://esetappsdoh.doh.state.fl.us/irm00beachwater/default.aspx . Inform ation on shellfish bed

closures is available on FDAC S website at http://www.floridaaquaculture.com/SEAS/SEAS_intro.htm

.



## Harmful Algal Blooms

Over the last several years, concern has gr own in Florida about the potential public health threat from harmful algal blooms (HABs). In general, researchers believe that freshwater algal blooms are increasing in frequency, duration, and magnitude and therefore may be a significant threat

to surfac e drinking water resources and recreational sites (Williams, April 14, 2004). Typically caused by excess nutrients, these blooms may produce toxins that can harm humans through exposure to contaminated fish, dermal contact, and even the inhalation of aero sols.



### Blue

- green Algae

A relatively new issue of concern in Florida is the presence of the toxigenic blue

- green algae called cyanobacteria and their production of cyanotoxins. Blooms of cyanobacteria are due, in most part, to high nutrient loads ; slow

- moving waters ; and hot, humid, and stagnant conditions. Cyanotoxins are naturally produced chemicals that can cause liver, brain, and skin toxicity. Several cyanotoxins, namely microcystins and the lyngbyiatoxins, have been implicated as
tumor promoters (Williams, April 14, 2004). Cyanobacteria were on the EPA’s1998

Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) , which is used to prioritize research and make regulatory

determinations. Since the CCL was developed, the EPA has placed a number of the microcystin toxins on its “Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule

– List 3” for a more detailed investigation into these toxins ’ occurrence and health impacts. Although no formal decision has been made to date, this nationwide monitoring would take place after 2005.

Poten tially toxigenic cyanobacteria have been found statewide, including river and stream systems such as the St. Johns, Caloosahatchee, Peace, and Kissimmee Rivers. The Cyanobacteria Survey Project (1999

– 2001), managed by the Harmful Algal Bloom Task Force200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

82 at FMRI (now the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute) , indicated that the species of Microcystis, Anabaena, and Cylindrospermopsis were dominant, while Aphanizomenon, Planktothrix, Oscillatoria, and Lyngbya were also observed statewide but not as fr equently. Cyanotoxins (microcystins, cylindrospermopsin, and anatoxin

- a) were also found statewide. A quota of 25 samples was collected in each water management district.

A number of waterbodies in Florida have abundant populations of blue

- green algae. These include Lakes Seminole and Tarpon in Pinellas County, Lakes Beauclair and Dora in Lake County, Newnans Lake in Alachua County, Lake Jesup in Seminole County, Lake Okeechobee in Okeechobee, Palm Beach, Hendry, and Glades Counties, and numerous others (Williams, April 14, 2004). The first demonstrated case in Florida of human dermatitis related to a freshwater cyanobacteria species, C. raciborskii, occurred in Winter Haven on Lake Cannon during the 1990s ( J. King, FDEP, April 14, 2004 , personal commun ication ).

Frequently, measured concentrations of cyanotoxins have been reported in some post

processed finished water of drinking water facilities in Florida. A few of these concentrations were above the suggested guideline levels. The Cyanobacteria Sur vey Project of 2000 focused on water treatment plants that produced drinking water from surface waters. Samples (raw and finished water) were collected once a month for approximately 9 months. On 6 occasions, microcystin levels (hepatotoxins) in finished water samples were reported above the 1 microgram per liter ( **μ** g/L) World Health Organization (WHO) guideline level (a range of 1 to 10 micrograms per liter [ **μ** g/L ] ). However, these guideline levels have a 1000x safety factor and are

based on a lifetime ex posure. Further, the sample deviation at these low concentrations raised the issue of quality assurance, particularly considering the use of new analytical procedures and

lack of lab certification.

There are no WHO guidelines for cylindrospermopsin (wh ich is classified as a hepatotoxin

, but is a more general tissue toxin) or anatoxin

- a (a neurotoxin). However, Australia determined that

1 **μ** g/L for cylindrospermopsin was appropriate due to its genotoxic capabilities. The Cyanobacteria Survey Project found 9 samples of finished water that contained
cylindrospermopsin levels between 8 and 97 **μ** g/L. As for anatoxin

- a, 2 samples contained

level s from 2 to 8 **μ** g/ L, and 4 samples contained detectable levels but below an arbitrary level

of 1 **μ** g/L ( C. Williams, GreenWater Laboratories/CyanoLab, April 14, 2004 , personal

communication ). Again

, quality assurance issues cause the results to be questiona ble.

Since that study, FDOH has established a testing laboratory and certification program for these chemicals and is participating in additional studies of recreational and drinking waters. Several Drinking Water facilities are either monitoring for t hese substances or are participating in a larger study to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment methodologies to eliminate the toxins. Reports from WHO and other research around the world indicate that conventional treatment processes are effective at e liminating the algae and the toxin, when present. The taste, odor, and color associated with the bloom provide a clear indication of its presence and initiate the use of additional treatment. While these treatment techniques are being used to control the taste, odor, and color of the water, they are also being shown to very effective at removing or degrading the toxins.

Consistent/persistent low levels of microcystins (0.1 to 1.0 **μ** g/L) have been found in the Harris Chain of Lakes in central Florida and in Lake Okeechobee. Eutrophic waterbodies with high

blue

- green populations are likely to have consistent levels of toxins present, especially during the spring and summer months. R eports indicate that the greatest toxin production200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

83 (microcystins) is almost always during the late fall and early winter (Williams, April 14, 2004

, personal communication ).



### Pfiesteria

Citizens near the Lower St. Johns River and St. Lucie River Estuary hav e expressed particular concern about potential blooms of Pfiesteria piscicida, which has been documented to cause ulcers in fish and respiratory irritation, skin rashes, and possible neurocognitive disorders in

humans in the mid

- Atlantic region

. P. piscid a has never been positively identified in the Lower St. Johns, but Pfiesteria

- like organisms have been found. No Pfiesteria or Pfiesteria

- like events

have been documented in Florida. FMRI has also evaluated coastal waters for Pfiesteria , and no samples t o date have contained this species.



### Red Tide

The Flori da Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FW RI) in St. Petersburg monitors HABs as part of its ECOHAB (Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms in Florida) program. This monitoring primarily fo cuses on red tide, a brevetoxin that has been linked to numerous marine mammal deaths (in manatees and dolphins) and can cause severe respiratory distress in people who are exposed to a strong red tide event. Additional information on red tide is

availabl e at FDACS’ website at http://www.floridaaquaculture.com/RedTide/RedTideInfo.htm

.



# Wetlands Program

**Wetlands Inventory and Wetlands Protection**

Florida does not assess attainment of designated use for wetlands as it does for rivers and streams, lakes, estuaries, and coastal waters, because water quality in wetlands is not routinely

monitored. However, w etlands are often associated with rivers and lakes, which are routinely sampled.

Although some background data are collected for issuing permits (particularly for wastewater discharged to wetlands) and restoration programs may require water quality data, Florida does not have a comprehensive wetlands monitoring network. This section provides an inventory of major wetlands and historical coverage of wetlands in the state, the development of wetlands water quality standards, and wetlands management and protection efforts.



### Major Wetland Systems

Wetlands comprise almost one

- third of the state. Because of its low elevation and peninsular nature, Florida has many varied types of wetlands, including estuarine and freshwater marshes, mangrove forests, cypress swamps, and riverine floodplain. The following are the largest and most important in the state:

**•** The Everglades and the adjacent Big Cypress Swamp. Including the Water Conservation Areas (diked portions of the original Everglades system) and excluding the developed coastal ridge, this system extends approximately from

Lake Okeechobee to Florida Bay.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

84 **•** The Green Swamp in the state’s central plateau.

**•** The Big Bend coast from the St. Marks River to the (South) Withlacoochee

River.

**•** Vast expanses of Spartina marsh between the Nassau and St. Mary’s Rivers.

**•** The system of the St. Johns River mars hes. Before alteration by humans, all

but the northernmost one

- fifth of the river basin was an extensive freshwater system of swamps, marshes and lakes. p

**•** The headwaters and floodplains of many rivers throughout the state, especially the Apalachicola, Suwannee, St. Johns, Ocklawaha, Kissimmee, and Peace

Rivers. Even today, half of the length of the St. Johns River is actually marsh, and in many respects it fun ctions like a northern

- flowing Everglades.



### Historical Wetlands Coverage in Florida

Although infor mation on the historical extent of Florida’s wetlands is limited, one researcher estimates that the state lost as many as 46 % of its original wetlands between the 1780s and the

1980s

. **Table 2**  **4** contains estimates of Florida’s historical wetlands at a numbe r of different points in time

.

**Table 24**  **. Historical Estimates of Wetlands in Florid a, 1780** 

**– 1980** 

**Period Wetlands Acreage**  **Source**

circa 1780 20,325,013 Dahl, 1990

mid

- 1950s 12,779,000 Hefner, 1986

mid

- 1970s 11,334,000 Hefner, 1986

mid

- 1970s 11,298,600 Frayer and Hefner,

1991

1979

– 80 11,854,822 Tiner, 1984

circa 1980 11,038,300 Dahl, 1990

What is notable about the table above is that the rate of wetland loss appears to have significantly slowed since the mid

- 1970s , corresponding to when federal and state dredge

- and

fill regulatory programs were enacted. Another point to keep in mind is that there is no single, current, comprehensive way to estimate the wetland acreage in Florida. The s tate uses its own wetland delineation methodology, which has be en adopted as Rule 62

- 340 , F.A.C . This methodology

, used by all state and local agencies throughout the state

, requires field

- based,

site

- specific determinations on a case

- by

- case basis

— including an assessment of on

- site soils, hydrology, and vegetation ( as such, wetland estimates can not be determined based on aerial surveys or mapping). Th e methodology is similar, but not identical

, to the 1987 Manual methodology used by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Further, many of the estimates in the

table are based on the rather crude National Wetlands Inventory, which has not been ground

truthed and does not directly correspond to either the s tate or the Corps ’ methodology.

p Kushlan, 1990.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

85 

### Development of Wetlands Water Quality Standards

Since most wetlands are considered wat ers of the state, q they are regulated under the same standards as other surface waters, and the same five functional classifications described earlier also apply. The state's antidegradation rules are set out in Sections 62

- 302.300 and 62

- 4.242,

F.A.C. S tatutory authority for regulating impacts to wetlands and other surface waters is set

forth in Part IV

, Chapter 373, F. S . Rules regulating impacts to wetlands and other surface waters have been adopted under that authority by FDEP and the state’s five wat er management

districts. Th e se include Rule 62

- 312, F.A.C., which covers the Florida Panhandle, and Rules

62

- 330, 62

- 341, 62

- 343, 40A

- 4, 40B

- 4, 40B

- 400, 40C

- 4, 40C

- 40, 40C

- 41, 40C

- 400, 40D

- 4,

40D

- 40, 40D

- 400, 40E

- 4, 40E

- 40, 40E

- 41, and 40E

- 400, F.A.C. A requirement for issuance of a permit is that the activity must not be contrary to the public interest, or, if located in OFWs, the activity must be clearly in the public interest. Finally, an extremely rigorous nondegradation policy covers Outstanding Nat ional Resource Waters. r



### Integrity of Wetlands Resources Florida’s rules already contain qualitative and quantitative biological criteria

— for example, substances shall not be present in concentrations that will result in a dominance of nuisance species

, and there is a maximum allowable d egradation of biological integrity. The state has developed procedures for assessing biological communities in streams and lakes, defining relevant ecoregions, and identifying relatively pristine reference sites. Florida has also developed and implemente d the toughest standards for phosphate loading in the country

, 10 ppb , for the Everglades

.

**Table 2**  **5** summarizes the acreage of affected wetlands regulated by FDEP ( since 2003 ) and the water management districts (since 2000).



### Wetlands Management and Protection

Florida implements an independent permit ting program that operates in addition to the federal dredge

- and

- fill permit ting program. The state ’s regulatory permit program is implemented differently, depending on the locat ion of the activity. As described below, this includes a statewide regulatory environmental resource and wetland resource permit under P art IV

, C hapter 373 , F.S, and a mangrove trimming and alteration program under C hapter 403 , F.S

. , as follows:

**•** In penin sular Florida (encompassing the geographic territory of four water management districts, beginning south and east of mid

- Jefferson County):

— An Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) Program regulates virtually all alterations to the landscape, including all tidal and freshwater wetlands and other surface waters (including isolated wetlands) and uplands. The ERP addresses dredging and filling in wetlands and

q W etlands owned entirely by one person other than the state are not considered waters of the state; this would include isolated wetlands owned entirely by one permit (Section 403.031[13], F.S.).

r Although this last designation, created in 1989, applies to Everglades and Biscayne National Parks, it has not been confirmed by the Florida legislature.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

86 **Table 25** 

**. Acreage of Affected Wetlands Regulated by FDEP**  **( s**  **ince 2003) and the Water Management Di**  **stricts (**  **s ince 2000)** 

**Agency Wetlands Acreage** 

**Acreage Permanently Lost**  **3 Acreage Created**  **4 Acreage Preserved**  **5 Acreage Improved**  **6**

FDEP 1 323.9 570. 9 62. 8 892.1

Water Management Districts

Northwest Florida 124.0 5

, 205. 7 117.2 573.9

Southwest Florida 1

, 487. 3 8

, 648. 2 2

, 233.7 3,209.6

St. Johns River 6

, 394.7 57

, 381.5 1

, 339. 4 9,033.4

South Florida 16

, 538. 5 38

, 847.9 10

, 875. 4 19,723.9

Suwannee River 24

, 594.4 110

, 621.3 14

, 635.8 34,133. 9

Totals 2 49

, 462.8 221

, 275.4 29,264. 3 67,567.0

1 FDEP data coverage is from February 2003 to the present. This marks the creation of the ERPce Database for tracking wetlands impacts. Previous data reported have proven to be unreliable.

2 Data do not represent impacts from nonregulated or unpermitted activities

. 3 Wetlands that h ave been destroyed

. 4 Wetlands created where non e existed (i.e.

, in uplands)

. 5 Wetlands having additional protective devices placed on them (i.e.

, conservation easements)

. 6 Poor or lesser quality jurisdictional wetlands that have been enhanced through va rious activities (i.e.

, improved hydrology; the removal of exotics, the re

- establishment of native flora)

.

other surface waters, as well as stormwater runoff quality (i.e ., stormwater treatment) and quantity (i.e.

, stormwater attenuation and flooding of other properties)

, including that resulting from alterations of uplands. Th e program regulates everything from the construction of single

- family residences in wetlands, convenience stores in uplands, to dredging and filling for any purpose in wetlands and other surface waters (including maintenance dredging), to the construction of roads located in uplands and wetlands, to agricultural alterations that impede or divert the flow of surface waters. Issuance of the ERP also constitutes a water quality certif ication or waiver

under S ection 401 of the C WA , 33 U.S.C. 1341. In addition, the issuance of an ERP in coastal counties constitutes a finding of consistency under the Florida Coastal Zone Management Program under Section 307 (Coastal Zone Management Act). The ERP P rogram is implemented jointly by FDEP and four water management districts, in accordance with an operating agreement that identifies the respective division of responsibilities.

**•** In the P anhandle (encompassing the geographic territory of the Nor thwest Florida Water Management District, west of and including mid

- Jefferson County):

— A W etland R esource P ermit P rogram under Rule 62

- 312 , F.A.C

, regulates dredging and filling in all tidal and freshwater wetlands and other surface

waters that are conne cted (by one or more natural or artificial waters) to other bays, bayous, streams, rivers, lakes, estuaries, or the Gulf of Mexico. It does not regulate dredging or filling in isolated wetlands. The i ssuance of a W etland

R esource P ermit also constitutes a water quality certification or waiver under200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

87 S ection 401 of the C WA , 33 U.S.C. 1341, and a finding of consistency under

the Florida Coastal Zone Management Program under Section 307 (Coastal Zone Management Act). This program is implemented solely by FDE P

.

— A separate stormwater permit program under Rule 62

- 25 , F.A.C., regulates construction and land alterations (typically in uplands) that collect, convey,
channel, hold, inhibit

, or divert the movement of stormwater and th at discharge

into surface water s . Th e program only addresses the quality of water discharged from stormwater systems, not the quantity of water (i.e.

, it does not address flooding issues

, as does the ERP P rogram in the rest of the state.) This program is implemented solely by FDEP , exc ept that the c ity of Tallahassee has received a delegation to review and take agency action on stormwater general permits within its geographic limits ( see below )

.

— An agricultural and dam safety program implemented by the Northwest Florida

Water Manageme nt District under Rule 40A

- 4

, F.A.C. This includes regulating the management, storage, and drainage of surface waters associated with agricultural and forestry projects. Th e program has jurisdiction over impacts to isolated wetlands in agricultural lands , and issuance of this permit constitutes water quality certification under S ection 401 of the C WA , 33 U.S.C. 1341. The dam safety program regulates the construction, alteration

, or abandonment of dams or levees utilized in nonagricultural settings.

In addition to the regulatory permit programs described above , activities that are located on submerged lands owned by the state (otherwise called sovereign submerged lands) also require

a proprietary authorization for such use under C hapter 253 , F.S. Such l ands generally extend waterward from the mean high water line (of tidal waters) or the ordinary high water line (of fresh waters) both inland and out to the state’s territorial limit (approximately 3 miles into the Atlantic Ocean, and 10 miles in to the Gul f of Mexico). If such lands are located within certain designated Aquatic Preserves, the authorization also must meet the requirements of C hapter

25 , F.S. Such authorization considers issues such as riparian rights, impacts to submerged
land resources, a nd the preemption of other uses of the water by the public. Authorizations typically are in the form of consents of use, easements, and leases. This program is implemented jointly by FDEP and four of the state’s five water management districts

, in

accord ance with the same operating agreement that governs the ERP P rogram. The program

is structured s o that applicants who do not qualify at the time of the permit application for both the regulatory permit and the proprietary authorization cannot receive eith er a permit or

authorization.

Although each FDEP and water management district office has its own enforcement officers, the public reports many violations. Public education occurs through several state pamphlets and documents, technical and regulatory wo rkshops, and newspaper coverage. The press has done a good job of reporting on wetlands issues.

As discussed above, Florida uses its own methodology (Rule 62

- 340, F.A.C.), rather than the federal methodology, to define the boundaries of wetlands and othe r surface waters. This approach, designed specifically for Florida wetlands communities, determines the landward200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

88 extent of wetlands and other surface waters. It applies to both isolated and contiguous wetlands, with some exceptions in northwest Florida, and must be used by all local, state, and regional governments.

Numerous programs are working to restore both freshwater and estuarine wetlands

— most notably the Everglades system. Over 60,000 acres of filtration marshes, known as stormwater

treatment are as, are being built to reduce the phosphorus in agricultural r unoff entering the Everglades.

Comprehensive mapping is essential to assessing the extent of Florida’s wetlands and how

human activities affect them. Both the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service a nd the F WCC have mapped wetlands in Tampa Bay, and Sarasota Bay. In addition, FDEP continues to develop its GIS capabilities to track t he wetlands management program.

Land acquisition is crucial to wetlands preservation. The state has bought wetlands an d other environmentally sensitive lands since 1963, mainly through the Florida Forever and Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) Programs, administered by FDEP, and the Save Our Rivers (SOR) Program, administered by the water management districts. Both are funded primarily by the documentary stamp tax on the transfer of property. Additional funding comes from the Preservation 2000 (P

- 2000) Trust Fund. In addition to outright land purchases, the state and water management districts can enter into agree ments where the owner retains use of the property with certain restrictions such as conservation easements, the purchase of development rights, leasebacks, and sale with reserved life estates.

Florida’s five water management districts regulate agriculture and silviculture under Chapter 373, F.S. Permit applicants must show that they will not harm wetlands (including isolated wetlands) of five acres or larger. FDACS a lso has developed and advises the districts on agricultural and silvicultural BMPs in har dwood forested wetlands. In addition, t he districts administer permits for surface water and ground water withdrawals (consumptive use permitting) under Part II, Chapter 373, F.S.

Mitigation , which is often used to offset otherwise unpermittable wetlands impacts

, may include the restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation of wetlands, other surface waters, or upland s. Prior to 2004, the recommended ranges of ratios for offsetting wetland impacts through mitigation generally ranged from 1.5:1 to 4 :1 for created or restored marshes, 2:1 to 5:1 for created or restored swamps, 4:1 to 20:1 for wetlands enhancement, 10:1 to 60:1 for wetlands preservation, and 3:1 to 20:1 for uplands preservation.

In 2004, FDEP , in consultation with the water management districts, adopted a statewide Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) in Rule 62

- 345, F.A.C. A ll state, regional, and local agencies in the state use UMAM to determine the amount of mitigation required to offset impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. As of August 2005, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District , also began using this method

. It is used to determine the amount of functional loss caused by a proposed project, and the amount of “lift” need to offset

that loss of f unction.

FDEP and the water management districts adopted rules governing mitigation banks in 1994 (Rule 62

- 342, F.A.C. ). A mitigation bank is a large area set aside for enhancement, restoration

, and preservation. Mitigation credits are the increase in ecological value from restoring, creating,

enhan cing, or preserving wetlands. Permit applicants can use mitigation credits to offset200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

89 damage to wetlands functions. **Table 2**  **6** lists all mitigation banks in the state and the agency

administer ing each of them

.

**Table 26** 

**. Mitigation Banks in Florida** 

**Bank Name Administrative**  **Agency** ***** **Acres Potential** 

**Credits Credits** 

**Released Credits** 

**Used**

B ear Point F DEP 317.00 49.80 20.00 0.10

B reakfast Point F DEP 4,637.00 1,051.66

Corkscrew FDEP 635.00 351.80

D evils Sw amp FDEP 3,049.20 526.80

FMB FDEP 1,582.00 847.50 847.50 646.60

FPL/EMB I FDEP 4,124.67 424.50 382.00 219.22

FPL/EMB II FDEP 9,026.00 1,769.53 194.60 27.90

Garcon FDEP 337.00 172.39 77.40 2.90

Graham FDEP 65.90 32.50 29.25 5.50

L ox FDEP 1,264.00 64 1.60 299.40 194.90

LPI FDEP 1,264.00 807.00 279.40 119.60

San Pedro FDEP 6,748.00 1,083.00 48.80 0.00

S and Hill Lakes FDEP 2,155.00 298.40

W ekiva River FDEP 1,643.00 390.12 48.80 4.10

B ig Cypress S FWMD 1,280.00 1,001.78 593.50 197.00

Bluefield SFWM D 2,675.00 1,240.00 558.14 109.80

Panther SFWMD 2,788.15 934.64 653.06 404.40

P latt’s Creek SFWMD 82.40 69.51

R eedy Creek SFWMD 2,992.98 908.90 407.00 274.88

RG Reserve SFWMD 638.00 32.48 2.55 0.58

Treasure Coast SFWMD 2,545.14 1,033.43

Barbervil le SJRWMD 365.82 84.30 54.20 30.00

CGW S JRWMD 150.00 63.10 50.50 39.35

Colbert SJRWMD 2,604.00 718.80 268.70 201.80

East Central SJRWMD 1,061.00 286.30 286.30 157.89

Farmton SJRWMD 23,992.00 4,585.00 555.74 247.86

Lake Louisa SJRWMD 1,007.00 297.90 25 6.30 192.89

Lake Monroe SJRWMD 603.00 199.90 130.00 110.50

Loblolly SJRWMD 6,246.92 2,034.30 508.58 115.26

Longleaf SJRWMD 3,020.70 813.80 105.54 15.60

Mary A SJRWMD 2,068.50 1,252.80 302.90 85.74

NE Florida SJRWMD 779.00 407.30 400.00 376.95

Port Or ange SJRWMD 5,719.00 1,176.30 237.90 48.70

Sundew SJRWMD 2,107.10 698.30 81.80 70.63

TM

- Econ SJRWMD 5,198.90 1,568.60 350.46 66.20

Toso SJRWMD 1,312.00 185.00 153.10 151.70

Tupelo SJRWMD 1,524.80 459.70 132.20 127.73200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

90 **Bank Name Administrative**  **Agency** ***** **Acres Potential** 

**Credits Credits** 

**Released Credits** 

**Used**

Boran SWFWMD 236.76 108.59 70.24 3 2.10

Clear Springs SWFWMD 1,168.00 438.00

Myakka SWFWMD 380.00 224.60

Tampa Bay SWFWMD 161.23 111.55

The following banks have released all available credits and are closed :

Wetlands b ank SFWMD 420.00 370.00 367.37 367.37

Split Oak SFWMD 1,049.00 206.50 88.80 88.80

* SFWMD

– South Florida Water Management District.

SJRWMD

– St. Johns River Water Management District.

SWFWMD

– Southwest Florida Water Management District.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

91 

# CHAPTER 4: GROUND WATER

MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT

Summary of Gro und Water Monitoring Programs

The quality of ground water is of foremost concern in Florida, because ground water is so heavily used as a potable water source and because ground water inputs into surface water systems are so important. Over the years, gr ound water quality monitoring has been incorporated into several programs. The programs pertinent to this report are discussed below

and summarized in **Table 2**  **77**

**.**

**Table 27**  **. Summary of Ground Water Monitoring Programs and Data Sources**

**Monitoring Network or Program**  **Period Description** 

FDEP

- maintained Monitoring Networks

Status Network 1999

– ongoing Statewide probabilistic sampling network of over 1,100 water wells per cycle. Probabilistic sampling occurs over the 5

- year basin rotation schedule. Sample lo cations are randomly selected from a list frame of wells with samples collected from 30 wells from unconfined and 30 confined aquifers in a given basin. Data to characterize water quality on a basinwide scale, and parameters monitored correspond with thos e targeted in

surface water evaluations.

Background Network and Temporal Variability (TV) Subnetwork 1985

– 99 Statewide network of 1,600 water wells and monitoring wells to spatially monitor general background water quality of local aquifers (surficial, in termediate, and Floridan). On average, each well was sampled once every 3 years for an extensive list of analytes. TV network well s sampled monthly to quarterly.

Ground Water Temporal Variability (GWTV) Subnetwork 1999

– ongoing Current temporal network c onsists of 46 wells statewide. Designed to help correlate Status Network results with seasonal hydrologic variations, estimate temporal variance of analytes.

Very Intense Study Area (VISA)

Network 1989

– 99 Network monitored the effects of land uses on gro und water quality in 23 selected areas of the state. Individual VISAs consisted of approximately 20 wells sampled 3 times over an

11

- year period. Sampled for a targeted list of analytes.

Springs Monitoring Network 2001

– present 58 samples collected quart erly from 23 first

- magnitude and 9

second

- magnitude spring clusters. Basic analyte list identical to

that used for the Status Network.

Programs That Include Potable Ground Water Sampling

Public Water System (PWS) Monitoring 1975

– Ongoing Under Rule 62

- 550, F.A.C., all public water systems are required to monitor and report water quality at regular intervals within their Compliance Cycle. Ground water is the primary source of potable water in the state.

FDOH/FDEP Water Supply Restoration Program (WSR P)

– Private Well Sampling Program Ongoing Private well data collected in investigations of potential ground water contamination, maintained in an FDEP WSRP database. Parameter list is variable, depending on contaminants of

concern.

Monitoring of discharge s to ground water Ongoing Under Rule 62

- 522, F .A.C., facilities discharging to ground water are required to implement a ground water monitoring plan and report those results to FDEP

.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

92 

## FDEP

**- maintained Ground Water and Springs M**  **onitoring Programs** 

FDEP est ablished a ground water quality monitoring network in 1984, under the authority and direction of the 1983 Water Quality Assurance Act. From 1984 to1999, the Background Network was maintained to establish the background and baseline ground water quality of major aquifer systems in Florida. In 1999, FDEP initiated a probabilistic sampling Status Network to assess ground water and surface water quality on a basinwide scale. This sampling has been integrated into the agency’s watershed management approach

. Thus the ground water assessment has been conducted using the 29 surface water basins discussed in Chapter 2. The first round of sampling was initiated in 2000, and over 1,100 wells are evaluated in each

basin management cycle

.

Monitoring results for the Ground Water Temporal Variability Network, which also began in 1999, are used to assess seasonal and long

- term variability in ground water quality. Other, historical monitoring efforts include the Background Network, the VISA Network, and FDOH’s

Private Water Well Quality Survey.

T his report used t he Status Network monitoring data to evaluate overall ground water quality, potential contaminants of concern

, and ground water parameters of particular concern that may influence receiving surface waters.

FDE P established a springs monitoring network as part of the Florida Springs Initiative. Beginning in 2000, this initially included quarterly monitoring at each of the state’s first

magnitude springs but has since expanded to include important second

- magnitu de springs a s well. In this report, Springs Initiative monitoring data are evaluated to identify spring water quality trends and issues of concern.



## Potable Water Monitoring by **FDOH/FDEP Water Supply Restoration Program** 

Contaminated drinking water wells a re identified through the sampling efforts of the local c ounty

p ublic h ealth u nits

, supported by FDEP funding. To optimize resources, wells are sampled in areas of known or suspected contamination, such as agricultural areas, areas of known offsite

contam ination near regulated facilities, landfills, or near underground storage tanks.

The State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response (SUPER) Act program at F DOH concentrates its efforts in areas suspected to have petroleum

- related contamination and ta rgets drinking water wells near known storage tanks for sampling.

T he Toxics sampling program looks for contamination related to the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and contamination from solvents and metals. Th e program is a cooperative effort

betwee n F DOH, the c ounty p ublic h ealth u nits, and FDEP

. FDEP funds the program through a

contract with F DOH, and F DOH directs the sampling effort by the local p ublic h ealth u nits.

In this report, the WSRP database maintained by FDEP was used in the evaluation of the ground water contaminants of concern identified in private drinking water wells. Th e database currently has water quality records for approximately 44,000 private wells. A caveat to their use in this evaluation is that these wells are not evenly d istributed because they were sampled in200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

9 3 areas of known or suspected contamination. Thus, the number of detections in a particular basin can be misleading because results may depend on well density and distribution in relationship relative to a given probl em area.



## Public Water System (PWS) Monitoring

A pproximately 5,000 public water systems in Florida rely on ground water. These are served by nearly 10,000 wells. Rule 62

- 550, F .A.C. , sets the drinking water standards, monitoring requirements

, and treatme nt techniques to be met by public water systems and the testing protocol required for certified laboratories. The ultimate concern of the public water system supervision program is the quality of water for human consumption when the water reaches

consumer s, and so public water system monitoring involves the direct sampling of wells in some

instances . H owever, water quality results also include samples from various entry points into the water system, may include treated water, and for some parameters may i nclude composite sampl es.

The monitoring framework for public water systems is a nine

- year compliance cycle containing specific monitoring requirements for individual parameter groups and specific actions based on the detection of parameters above action limits or maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). Water quality data in the PWS database are reported by system (PWS ID#). While individual sample results collected for this report may exceed an action level or MCL, that exceedance does not necessarily transl ate directly into a violation of water delivered to the consumer (1) because of the compositing or blending of water mentioned above, or (2) because averaging with subsequent samples was below the action level or MCL.

Water quality data in the P WS d atabas e were used in the evaluation of regional and statewide contaminants of concern. These data can either represent one individual well or a composite sample from multiple wells that comprise a system. Generally, the most densely populated

areas of the stat e have public supply systems with multiple wells

, while less populated areas may rely on only one well. Each public supply well was assigned to a basin or, in the case of a system, the basin that represents the majority of those wells. In the analysis of contaminants of concern, the number of MCL exceedances is not weighted , and thus each exceedance may represent one individual well or a composite of many wells in a system. Drinking water standards, monitoring requirements

, and the frequency of sampling for public water supply wells

are based on Rule 62

- 550, F.A.C.



## Monitoring **of Discharges to Ground Water**

FDEP implements a comprehensive ground water quality protection program that regulates discharges to ground water. The program establishes ground wate r quality standards and classifications and permitting criteria. Within several FDEP rules there are construction and operation requirements, minimum setbacks, and ground water monitoring criteria.

Most permitted discharges to ground water are required to submit and implement a ground water monitoring plan show ing the location of the proposed upgradient and downgradient monitoring wells, construction details, and a ground water sampling and analysis protocol. At a minimum, these plans require three moni toring wells: a background well, an intermediate well, and a compliance well. These wells are generally sampled quarterly, and the analysis is submitted to FDEP to ensure compliance with Florida’s ground water standards.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

94 

# Summary of Ground Water Quality

**Overall Ground Water Quality**

Data from the Status Network and G WTV Subnetwork (trends) were used to evaluate the overall quality of ground water based on primary ground water MCL s . The data were sorted into analyte groups

, and an “indicator” analyte was selected to determine ground water quality for wells in each of the basins. The groups used in this evaluation include metals, bacteria

, nitrates, and saline water, which represent some of the the most common threats to drinking water noted by the EPA in national surveys. Organics and radionuclides were not included in the Status Network parameter list but are addressed in a later section of this chapter.

Most of t he wells used in this statewide evaluation of overall ground water quality were selected

r andomly from a database of candidate wells. The y are of all types

— including private, public,

monitor ing, and, less commonly, agricultural irrigation wells

— that represent the basin’s most predominant aquifers used for potable supply. These data indicate general basin

- scale or

statewide conditions and do not represent local con ditions . The y generally represent ambient ground water quality , although a small number of upgradient facility wells are included. This is a

small number of wells and there may be data sufficiency issues for some basins and analytes,

but it is assumed for the purposes of this analysis that the water quality in these wells provide s a reasonable representation of overall ground water conditions

.

The total basin area sampled for groun d water conditions was estimated by assuming that each well represent ed one square mile of the aquifer’s ground water. These data were then added to

estimate the areal extent (by percent) of the state’s ground water s that ar e sorted by two major categorie s, unconfined and confined. Florida’s unconfined aquifers exist under water table

conditions

, are directly responsive to precipitation

, and are more vulnerable to contaminant sources. Confined aquifers are separated from the surface by geologic material (such as clay) that retards the downward and upward migration of water

, and thus are considered less

vulnerable to contamination from the surface. **Table 2**  **8** presents t he results of this evaluation

.

In the statewide dataset

, bacteria (as total coliform) an d salinity (as sodium) were the analyte

group s with the fewest wells that were found to m e et their designated use s. **Table G** 

**- 1**  in Appendix G provides the ground water MCLs.

Coliform bacteria can commonly reflect conditions in the well rather than the aqui fer when associated with well construction or inadequate maintenance issues, and so these results should also be scrutinized. They are discussed in greater detail in the next section, on contaminants of concern. The statewide assessment shows that wells in approximately approximately 20% of the ground waters of the state exceed ed the MCL for total coliform.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

95 **Table 28** 

**. Indicator**  **A nalytes and**  **O verall**  **G round**  **W ater**  **Q uality in Florida’s**  **A quifers** 

**Indicator Analyte Statewide All Aquifers (sampled 2000** 

**– 07)** 

**S tatus/Trends Networks** 

**Percent of Ground Water Samples in the State Meeting**

**Designated Use in Confined (C) and Unconfined (U) Aquifers** 

Metals, Highest % MCL 97.9%(C); 96.4%(U); as lead 1

Metals, Arsenic 99.2%(C); 95.5%(U)

Total Coliform 84.3%(C); 76.8%( U)

Nitrates 100%(C); 98.20%(U)

Saline Water, Sodium 85%(C); 95.50%(U)

Notes:

– The estimates in **Table 2**  **8** may change as more ground water data become available.

– Maximum value per well was used to produce a conservative assessment with equal represent ation from wells.

– Detection limits for some of the historical data may have been higher than current laboratory method detection limits.

– All values below the detection limit were consistently used at half the laboratory method detection limit. In some cases, this may slightly affect the number of MCL exceedance s.

– There are several metals that have primary ground water standards. When all metals were assessed, the value used represents the metal with the highest number of samples exceeding its MC L . When there were no MCL exceedance s, the primary metal that was sampled most frequently was used for calculations.

1 For metals, the greatest number of MCL exceedances was for lead. However, lead concentrations can be elevated due to well/plumbing m aterials and quality assurance issues with sampling.

2 For arsenic, the greatest number of MCL exceedances could be due to anthropogenic or natural abundances

, or a combination of

both.

3

Sodium can be used as an indicator for saline ground water when freshwater aquifers ar e threatened by salt water intrusion. The issues with salt water can be related to increased ground water usage that creates the upconing of mineralized ground water from deeper aquifers or

seawater intrusion if wells are located in coastal areas. Saline water (as sodium) may be a

concern in confined

- aquifer ground water in approximately 15 % of the state, based on statewide

statistics. However, the number for unconfined aquifers was much lower.

One or more metal s exceeding a primar y ground water MCL was found to occur in 4.5 % of the

unconfined

- aquifer wells, with the most prevalent metals exceed a nces for lead and arsenic. Lead detections are sometimes related to well casing or plumbing material

, but arsenic is most frequently assoc iated with a contaminant source or natural condition in the aquifer when it is

found at concentrations above its MCL.

Nitrate is a conservative contaminant, and detected concentrations are not typically biased by well materials or sampling technique. Ele vated nitrate detections reflect the presence of nutrient sources such as fertilizers, animal waste, or domestic wastewater. According to the statewide assessment, nitrates above MCLs would be a concern in fewer than 2 % of the unconfined wells

.

This gene ralized analysis shows that overall ground water quality in the state is good, when considering these parameters. The statewide assessment suggest s that over 84% of the confined aquifers and over 76% of the unconfined aquifers meet their designated use, w ith coliform bacteria being the most limiting contaminant. Excluding bacteria, 85% of the confined and 95% of the unconfined aquifers meet their designated use of providing potable water.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

96 However, this analysis indicates that there are some ground water quality issues in the state

, and

, depending on the contaminant, they can occur on a localized or regional scale . The following section describes the contaminants of concern in Florida and their observed occurrence in potable ground waters.



## Ground **W ater**  **Q uality**  **I ssues and**  **C ontaminants of**  **C oncern,** 
**I ncluding**  **P ublic**  **H ealth**  **I ssues** 

As discussed in the analysis of ambient data , the overall quality of ground water in Florida is good . However

, there are ground water quality issues in specific areas. M onitoring networks, private well sampling data, and water quality data from public water systems that are served by ground water were used to develop a summary of the categories of parameters that were most frequently found at levels exceeding MCLs in potable water aquifers . These detections help shape some of the issues that pose the most significant concern to potable ground water

resources

. **Figure 7**  provides a statewide summary of findings by contaminant category. **Table**

**29** provides summary information on contam inant categories in each of the state’s 29 major

basins. These categories include volatile organic compounds (VOC s ), pesticides/synthetic organic chemicals (SOC s ), nitrates, primary metals, salinity (as measured by sodium concentrations), and radionuclide s

. The specific contaminants included in this evaluation have potable ground water MCLs. Although not included in the summary table, trihalomethanes and

bacteria are significant contaminants affecting water supplies, and they are also discussed in

this s ection

.



### Volatile Organic Compound s

Volatile organics can be highly mobile and persistent in ground water

, and incidences of ground

water contamination by VOCs are widespread. **Table 29**  summarizes t he numbers of water systems or wells with above

- MCL detect ions of VOCs that have primary drinking water MCLs in aquifers used for potable supply. The greatest numbers of public water systems with above

MCL VOC detections were in the Ocklawaha (23 systems), Middle St. Johns (16 systems), and Tampa Bay Tributaries (14 systems) Basins. The largest numbers of MCL exceedances in private wells were in the Lower St. Johns (184), Tampa Bay Tributaries (158 wells), Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka (158 wells), and Middle St. Johns (139 wells) Basins. The largest number

of Stat us Network wells with above

- MCL VOC detections occurred in the Lake Worth Lagoon

– Palm Beach Coast and Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka Basins(5 wells each).

Benzene was the compound that most frequently exceeded MCLs in each of the three sets of water quality da ta. Trichloroethene (TCE) was the second most frequently detected compound above MCLs in the PWS and WSRP datasets, closely followed by tetrachloroethene (PCE,

which was the second most frequently detected compound in the state monitoring networks).

Othe r compounds with primary MCLs that were detected included vinyl chloride,
dichloromethane, 1,1

- dichloroethene, 1,2

- dichloroethane, and carbon tetrachloride (in PWS systems only). The most frequently repeated detections in public water systems occurred in the basins of southeastern Florida, with the primary compounds being vinyl chloride and TCE.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

97 **Figure 7.**  **Statewide Summary of Contaminants of Concern in Potable Ground Water Sources**

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Radionuclides

Saline Water Primary Metals VOC Nitrates Pesticides/SOC

NUMBER OF WATER SYSTEMS OR WELLS WITH MCL EXCEEDENCES

**Public Water Systems Private Wells (WSRP)**  **Status/ Background/ VISA Network Wells**200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

98 **Table 29** 

**. Summary of Contaminants of Concern for Aquifers Used as**  **Potable Water Sources**

**Basin**

**— Aquifer**  **Contaminant Categories and Number of Wells or Water Systems with Samples that Have Exceeded Primary Standards** 

**VOCs 1**  **Pesticides/SOCs 2**  **Nitrates 3** **Public Water Systems 7** **Private Wells (WSRP) 8** **Status/ Background/ VISA Ne** **twork Wells Public Water Systems** **7 Private Wells (WSRP)** **8 Status/ Background/ VISA** **Network Wells Public Water Systems** **7 Private Wells (WSRP)** **8 Status/ Background/ VISA** **Network Wells**

Apalachicola

– Chipola

— Floridan Aquifer 4 17 4 645 0 43

Caloosahatchee

— Su rficial Aquifer 7 13 1 9 7 1

Charlotte Harbor

— Floridan Aquifer (SW) 0 62 2 3 0 2

Choctawhatchee

– St. Andrew

— Floridan Aquifer 1 36 1 5 19 0 2
Everglades

— Surficial Aquifer (SW) 1 3 1 0

Everglades West Coast

— Surficial Aquifer 1 5 1 7 0 6

Fisheating Creek

— Surficial Aquifer 0 2 1 2 2

Florida Keys

— None 0 2 0 0

Indian River Lagoon

— Floridan and Surficial Aquifers 6 36 5 3

Kissimmee River

— Floridan, Intermediate, and Surficial Aquifers 11 58 3 21 798 2 6 1

, 154 10

Lake Okeechobee

— Surficial Aquifer (SW) 2 6 1 0

Lake Worth Lagoon

– Palm Beach Coast

— Surficial Aquifer 9 55 5 6 4 1

Lower St. Johns

— Floridan Aquifer 7 184 5 19 3 35

Middle St. Johns

— Floridan Aquifer 16 139 21 118 16 45 1

Nassau

– St. Marys

— Floridan Aquifer 4 15 0 1 1

Ochlockonee

– St. Marks

— Floridan Aquifer 2 21 1 3 1 11 1

Ocklawaha

— Floridan Aquifer 23 107 1 54 475 12 466

Pensacola

— Sand

- and

- Gravel Aquifer 9 10 3 6 13 2 2 3

Perdido

— Sand

- and

- Gravel Aquifer 2 2 4 1 0 1 2
Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

— Fl oridan and Surficial Aquifers 9 158 5 33 248 8 401 2

Southeast Coast

– Biscayne Bay

--- Biscayne Aquifer 8 120 1 9 1 6 13 2
Springs Coast

— Floridan Aquifer 15 22 2 7 9 1 11 16

St. Lucie

– Loxahatchee

— Surficial Aquifer 10 135 15 2 2

Suwannee

— Floridan Aq uifer 5 120 3 2 60 7 145 5
Tampa Bay

— Floridan Aquifer 5 66 6 31 6 16

Tampa Bay Tributaries

— Floridan Aquifer 14 158 16 19 48 118

Upper East Coast

— Floridan Aquifer and Surficial Aquifer 1 8 2 3 5

Upper St. Johns

— Floridan Aquifer and Surficial Aquifer 1 8 1 2 0 1

Withlacoochee

— Floridan Aquifer 11 27 1 29 69 7 59 1

STATEWIDE SUMMARY

— All results 184 1

, 595 34 272 2

, 529 17 148 2

, 537 29

Notes:

1 Systems or wells with samples that exceeded MCLs for volatile organic compounds

, excluding trihalo methanes and ethylene dibromide.

2 Systems or wells with samples that exceeded MCLs for pesticides (also known as synthetic organic chemicals , or SOCs).

3 Systems or wells with samples that exceeded MCLs for nitrate or nitrate+nitrite

. 4 Systems or wells w ith samples that exceeded MCLs for primary metals.

5 Systems or wells with samples that exceeded MCL for sodium, an indicator of salinity.

6 Systems or wells with samples that exceeded MCL for radionuclides

, measured as radon 226, radon 228, gross Alpha, a nd/or gross Beta.

7 PWS data not restricted to wells only. Some parameter results may be for other entry points into a system, composite samples , or treated water. Data are from systems that that operate their own wells. While individual sample results collected for this report may exceed an action level or MCL, that exceedance does not necessarily translate directly into a violation of water delivered to the consumer (1) because of the compositing or blending of water mentioned above, or (2) because ave raging with subsequent samples was below the action level or MCL.

8 Private well sampling under the WSRP is targeted sampling conducted in areas of suspected contamination

, and the parameters analyzed are specific to contaminants of concern.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

99 **Table 29**  **(co nt**  **inued )**  **. Ground Water Contaminants of Concern in Aquifers Used as Potable Water**

**Sources**

**Basin**

**— Aquifer**  **Contaminant C**  **ategories and N**  **umber of W**  **ells or W**  **ater S**  **ystems**

**with S**  **amples that H**  **ave E**  **xceeded P**  **rimary S**  **tandards**

**Primary Metals 4**  **Saline Water 5**  **Radionucli des**  **6 Public Water Systems** **7 Private Wells (WSRP)** **8 Status/ Background/** **VISA Network Wells Public Water Systems** **7 Private Wells (WSRP)** **8 Status/ Background/** **VISA Network Wells Public Water Systems** **7 Private Wells (WSRP)** **8 Status/ Background/** **VISA Network Wel ls** 

Apalachicola

– Chipola

— Floridan Aquifer 25 55 8 5

Caloosahatchee

— Surficial Aquifer 12 8 1 4 14 1 3

Charlotte Harbor

— Floridan Aquifer 10 1 2 5 14 4

Choctawhatchee

– St. Andrew

— Floridan Aquifer 34 3 3 7

Everglades

— Surficial Aquifer 6 2 4

Everglades West Coast

— Surficial Aquifer 7 16 7 6 3
Fisheating Creek

— Surficial Aquifer 1 1 2 3 2

Florida Keys

— None 0 1 0

Indian River Lagoon

— Floridan and Surficial Aquifers 20 6 6 3 9 2 9 1

Kissimmee River

— Floridan, Interme diate, and Surficial Aquifers 46 2 34 6 4 30 4

Lake Okeechobee

— Surficial Aquifer 5 2 1 1 5 3
Lake Worth Lagoon

– Palm Beach Coast

— Surficial Aquifer 29 5 10 1 1 9

Lower St. Johns

— Floridan Aquifer 68 121 19 3 15 6 8 3

Middle St. Johns

— Floridan A quifer 48 8 38 16 15 8 13 3

Nassau

– St. Marys

— Floridan Aquifer 16 17 4 1 0

Ochlockonee

– St. Marks

— Floridan Aquifer 19 7 9 1 1 11 1

Ocklawaha

— Floridan Aquifer 116 71 26 12 1 1 5 3

Pensacola

— Sand

- and

- Gravel Aquifer 27 18 20 2 18 17

Perdido

— Sa nd

- and

- Gravel Aquifer 2 1 5 2 6
Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

— Floridan and Surficial Aquifers 70 17 35 8 10 3 97

Southeast Coast

– Biscayne Bay

– Biscayne Aquifer 28 54 83 6 4 7 9 7 Springs Coast

— Floridan Aquifer 41 54 16 11 8 6 7

St. Lucie

– Loxahatc hee

— Surficial Aquifer 32 18 13 2 3 4 4 1

Suwannee

— Floridan Aquifer 38 76 35 7 3 5 8 19
Tampa Bay

— Floridan Aquifer 33 17 6 3 17

Tampa Bay Tributaries

— Floridan Aquifer 121 102 11 48 4 10 53 27

Upper East Coast

— Floridan Aquifer and Surficial Aquife r 12 4 19 5 2 4

Upper St. Johns

— Floridan Aquifer and Surficial Aquifer 6 2 16 7 2 1

Withlacoochee

— Floridan Aquifer 78 132 12 7 2 9 13

STATEWIDE SUMMARY

— All results 950 792 452 148 82 93 376 28 79

Notes:

1 S ystems or wells with samples that exc eeded MCLs for volatile organic compounds

, excluding trihalomethanes and ethylene dibromide.

2 Systems or wells with samples that exceeded MCLs for pesticides (also known as synthetic organic chemicals ).

3 Systems or wells with samples that exceeded MCLs f or nitrate or nitrate+nitrite

. 4 Systems or wells with samples that exceeded MCLs for primary metals.

5 Systems or wells with samples that exceeded MCL for sodium, an indicator of salinity.

6 Systems or wells with samples that exceeded MCL for radionuclide s

, measured as radon 226, radon 228, gross Alpha, and/or gross Beta.

7 PWS data not restricted to wells only. Some parameter results may be for other entry points into a system, composite samples, or treated

water. Data are from systems that that operate their own wells. While individual sample results collected for this report may exceed an action level or MCL, that exceedance does not necessarily translate directly into a violation of water delivered to the consumer (1) because of the compositing or bl ending of water mentioned above, or (2) because averaging with subsequent samples was below the action level or MCL.

8 Private well sampling under the WSRP is targeted sampling conducted in areas of suspected contamination, and the parameters a nalyzed

are specific to contaminants of concern.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

100 

### Synthetic Organic Chemicals/Pesticides

For SOCs used as pesticides, the largest number of MCL exceedances in public water systems occurred in the Oklawaha (54 systems).Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka (33 systems) and

Withla coochee (29 systems) Basins. In private wells, the largest number occurred in the Kissimmee (798 wells), Apalachicola (645 wells), and Ocklawaha (475 wells) Basins. The

d etections of agrichemicals in private wells can provide meaningful information on th e presence/absence of these substances and give an indication of the aquifer’s vulnerability to pesticide use. The number of private well exceedance s can sometimes be related to the density of homesteads (unregulated rural growth v ersus dense rural reside ntial developments) and their proximity to agricultural land uses or lawn /turf care practices. **Table 29**  shows t he

distribution of MCL exceedance s

.

The pesticides that occurred in public water systems at above

- MCL concentrations were mainly

detected in th e mid

- to late

- 1980s and have since been banned from use. Lindane, toxaphene

, and methoxychlor were the pesticides most commonly detected at above

- MCL concentrations in
the 1980s, but have not appear ed in the PWS database at above

- MCL levels since the ear ly

1990s. These compounds , plus heptachlor, endothal

, and mal a thion, were mainly detected in

the basins where agricultural land uses are or were prevalent

. Dieldrin, another older compound, was also detected in private drinking water wells.

EDB , a nemat ocide used heavily in the 1980s on citrus and other croplands, was found to be highly mobile and a threat to potable ground water supplies. In response to FDEP’s identification of this as an issue, FDOH conducted a comprehensive EDB sampling program in

ar eas where it was suspected to have been applied. In 16 basins, this revealed numerous private drinking water wells that were contaminated by the compound, prompt ing the formal delineation of ground water contamination areas. EDB was also detected in publ ic water systems throughout the state. In the late 1980s, the use of EDB was banned. New detections

of EDB seldom occur ; however, some private drinking water wells continue to yield samples

with d etectable concentrations of EDB decades after its use was discontinued. The most recent PWS system detections of EDB above its MCL (in the late 1990s) were reported in the Tampa Bay Tributaries Basin of southwest Florida, which includes a significant agricultural area

.

More recently, applied pesticides such as bromacil and alachlor were detected at levels exceeding their health advisory limits in private drinking water wells. Bromacil has a ground water guidance concentration, and alachlor has a primary MCL. Elevated detections of bromacil were found (mainly i n the 1990s) in the citrus

- growing area of central Florida, which includes parts of the Kissimmee, Tampa Bay Tributaries, Middle St. Johns, and Ocklawaha Basins. In the 1990s, both compounds were found (along with dieldrin) at elevated levels at numerous wells in an agricultural area of Jackson County in the Apalachicola

– Chipola Basin. FDACS has since required modifications to the application of bromacil to prohibit its application from citrus areas with vulnerable soils and high leaching potential. Alac hlor is now listed as a restricted use pesticide.



### Nitrates

Nitrates above the MCL of 10 mg/L were detected in 156 public water systems, with the Tampa Bay Tributaries Basin having by far the greatest number (45 systems). The largest number of private wel ls with nitrates above the MCL were found in the Kissimmee Basin (1,154 wells), followed by the Ocklawaha (466 wells) and Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka (401 wells) Basins.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

101 Several status wells also had nitrate above MCLs, with the largest number in the Kissim mee Basin (10 wells). These are all summarized in **Table 29** 

.

The basins with the highest number of above

- MCL detections in water systems and wells include large citrus

- growing areas or areas where citrus was previously grown on top of vulnerable aquifers. The area of the Kissimmee Basin that has the highest number of above

MCL concentrations of n itrate in private wells is the r idge citrus area along the basin’s western edge. In the early 1990s, FDACS began implementation of a BMP program for growers in t he

r idge citrus area to use fertilizers more efficiently and reduce nitrate concentrations in ground water. It is hoped that this program will eventually reduce the number of nitrate exceedances in

wells.



### Primary Metals

Metals with primary drinking water MCLs include arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and selenium. **Table 29**  summarizes the detections of primary

metals above their MCLs.

Approximately 1,000 public water systems reported one or more primary metals exceedin g an MCL, which may be misleading since elevated metals in public water systems are often due to the materials containing and conveying the water rather than actual concentrations in the ground water. Metal well casings, piping, storage tanks, and plumbin g fixtures, in addition to sampling techniques, often cause bias in the analysis of ground water samples for metals. Lead and cadmium are the most frequently detected metals at above

- MCL concentrations in public water systems, and both metals are very fre quently associated with impurities in water distribution and storage systems. Galvanized coatings on metal surfaces, paint, and lead solder are documented sources of metals contamination in water systems. The Tampa Bay Tributaries (121 systems) and Ockla waha (116 systems) Basins have the greatest number of water systems with above

- MCL detections, primarily for lead and cadmium. Results from resampling frequently show that the ground water is actually not affected by these metals.

In private drinking wat er wells, the metals most frequently exceeding MCLs are arsenic and lead. The basins with the greatest number of exceedances are the Withlacoochee (132 wells), Lower St. Johns (121 wells)

, and Tampa Bay Tributaries (102 wells) Basins. Lead, again, may

be an artifact of well materials, piping, or plumbing fixtures, but arsenic is not typically associated with any of these. The resampling of private water wells usually reveals that there is no actual ground water problem with lead. The majority of the wel ls in FDEP’s

S tatus/ B ackground/VISA N etworks that exceed MCLs for metals exceed the MCL for lead, followed by arsenic, with a smaller number exceeding the MCL for cadmium. Many of the reported concentrations for metals in FDEP’s Status Network are qualifi ed due to the potential influence of well materials, lead water level recorder weights, and/or sampling problems.

Future monitoring will help FDEP determine the extent to which elevated metals detections actually represent ground water quality. However, for public water systems and private wells, the materials composing the water storage and distribution systems, piping

, and fixtures will continue to pose a challenge to the interpretation of data for metals. Differentiating natural

sources from contamina ting influences is another issue. Arsenic, in particular, can on occasion

exceed its MCL of 10 **μ** g /L due to natural conditions.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

102 

### Radionuclides

In Florida, most elevated radionuclide levels are due to natural conditions, but these conditions

may still pos e a significant health concern. Radionuclides occur naturally as trace elements in rocks and soils as a consequence of the radioactive decay of uranium

- 238 (U

- 238) and thorium

232 (Th

- 232). Elevated radionuclide levels occur most commonly from phosphate that is prevalent in Miocene

- age clay deposits present throughout much of the state. Radionuclides measured in ground water include gross Alpha, gross Beta, radium 226, and radium 228. Gross Alpha is the most commonly measured parameter. **Table 29**  summar izes radionuclide detections in public water systems and wells.

Public water systems in the west

- central area of the state have the greatest incidence of MCL exceedances for radionuclides. The Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka (97 systems) Basin, followed by the Tampa Bay Tributaries (53 systems), and the Kissimmee River (30 systems)

Basins lie within one of the 3 largest phosphate

- mining areas in the world ; this area includes large areas of Manatee, Sarasota, Polk, and Hillsborough Counties. The health departme nt infrequently samples p rivate wells for radionuclides. The highest number of detections above MCLs was found in the Tampa Bay Tributaries Basin (27 wells).

The Suwannee (19 wells) and Pensacola (17 wells) Basins had the greatest number of

radionuclide exceed a nces, although few private wells have been sampled for this parameter
category.



### Saline Water

The intrusion of saline water is a well

- documented concern in coastal areas of the state where a wedge of salt water migrates laterally inshore as dischar ge from supply wells increases.
However, recent data indicate that these are not currently the areas with the greatest number of

issues. In other areas that lie more inland, the upconing of brackish water from deeper zones

seems to be more of an issue. In this assessment, an exceedance of the MCL for sodium was used as an indicator of possible saline water intrusion or upwelling. **Table 29**  summarizes these

results.

Elevated sodium concentrations were noted in samples from public water systems in the Tam pa Bay Tributaries (48 systems), Middle St. Johns (16 systems), and Ocklawaha (12 systems) Basins. Public drinking water supplies in the 3 basins with highest number of sodium exceedances are in high

- growth areas of the state where consumptive use is begi nning to exceed aquifer capacity. In these basins, overpumpage has resulted in upconing from deeper zones in the Floridan aquifer that are saline. The increase in population in many of these areas is creating stress on potable ground water supplies, and water resource managers and public water utilities have begun to look for alternative supplies to continue providing potable water to

their customers. Private wells in the Lower St. Johns (15 wells), Middle St. Johns (15 wells),

and Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Mya kka (10 wells) Basins have also been affected by increases in aquifer salinity.



### Trihalomethanes

Chlorination is a disinfection treatment practiced by many public water systems to remove potentially harmful bacteria. Unlike a number of states, Florida req uires disinfection. Trihalomethanes (THMs) are an unfortunate byproduct of chlorinating source water that contains organic matter. Chloroform, dibromochloromethane, bromodichloromethane, and200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

103 bromoform are the most common THMs found in treated water. Bas ins with the most apparent influence by THMs (based on primary MCL exceed a nce s ) include Middle St. Johns (20 systems), Lake Worth Lagoon

– Palm Beach Coast (19 systems), Everglades West Coast (11 systems), and Upper East Coast (11 systems). Many public wate r systems are using alternative disinfection methods (such as the use of chloramine) to reduce or eliminate the creation of

THMs.



### Bacteria (Coliform)

Bacteria are not typically a concern to public water systems, because the water is disinfected

before dis tribution. However, the bacterial contamination of private wells is an ongoing issue

that is being addressed by FDOH. Unfortunately, the number of bacterial exceedances in private drinking water wells is poorly documented and not maintained in a central database. Of all water quality issues evaluated, bacterial contamination, as indicated by elevated total and/or fecal coliform counts, is the most prevalent issue in ground water samples collected from the Status Network monitoring wells. Over one

- third of the basins had significant exceedances of MCLs or health advisory levels for total and/or fecal coliform, indicating potential public health

issues in some of these cases.

However, the significance of these findings must still be determined. High ba cterial counts may be caused by improper well construction, poor hygiene at the wellhead, animal waste or septic tank issues and/or flooding, and the surface water infiltration of a water system. These considerations highlight the fact that individual wel l assessments are necessary, and that in many cases, bacterial contamination is localized and may not be an issue outside of the

individual wells themselves.



# Summary of Ground Water Contaminant Sources

The EPA’s 2004 Florida Source Water Assessment ident ified the top five potential sources of

contami nation in Florida

. These are ( 1) underground storage tanks (not leaking); ( 2) gasoline service stations (includ ing historic al gas stations); ( 3) municipal sanitary waste treatment and disposal (commercial, do mestic

, and industrial waste); ( 4) known contamination sites/plumes (equivalent to FDEP’s delineated areas); and ( 5) drycleaning facilities. Several of these have commonly been the focus of waste cleanup and monitoring activities in Florida. However, the re are also instances where ground water has been degraded as the result of nonpoint activities.

This section discusses the most significant ground water degradation sources

, based on waste cleanup, monitoring, and restoration actions taken by FDEP and ot her agencies conce rned with ground water quality.



## Petroleum Facilities

FDEP ’s Storage Tank Contamination Monitoring (STCM) database contains information on all storage tank facilities registered with FDEP and tracked for active storage tanks, storage tank history, or petroleum cleanup activity. Currently, the STCM database lists approximately 6 1 ,000 registered petroleum storage tanks

, and it shows that approximately 14,000 storage tank

facilities have documented ground water contamination by petroleum con stituents. Petroleum sites and petroleum problems are concentrated in the most populated areas of the state, as well as along major transportation corridors. The main petroleum constituents found in ground water200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

104 are benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene s, and methyl tert

- butyl ether. Contaminants at older petroleum sites may also contain lead and EDB.

Florida ’s Petroleum Cleanup Program encompasses the technical oversight, management, and administrative activities necessary to prioritize, assess, and c lean up sites contaminated by the discharges of petroleum and petroleum products from stationary petroleum storage systems.

These sites include those determined to be eligible for state

- funded cleanup using preapproval contractors designated by the proper ty owner or responsible party and state lead contractors

under direct contract with FDEP , as well as nonprogram or voluntary cleanup sites funded by responsible parties.



## Drycleaning Solvent Facilities

Approximately 1,400 drycleanin g facilities (mainly ret ail) have signed up for eligibility for contaminant cleanup under FDEP ’s Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program (DSCP) due to evidence of contamination. Of those, approximately 200 are actively being assessed and may be under remedial action. Drycleaning so lvent constituents (PCE, TCE, dichloroethenes, and vinyl chloride) are among the most mobile and persistent contaminants in the environment.

The Florida l egislature has established a state

- funded program , administered by FDEP, to clean up properties that are contaminated as a result of the operations of a drycleaning facility or wholesale supply facility ( Chapter 376, F .S. ). The drycleaning industry sponsored the statute to address environmental, economic, and liability issues resulting from drycleaning s olvent

contamination. The program limits the liability of the owner, operator

, and real property owner of drycleaning or wholesale supply facilities for cleaning up drycleaning solvent contamination

, if the parties meet the eligibility conditions stated i n the law.



## Federal and State Waste Cleanup and Monitoring Sites

The Federal Superfund P rogram (authorized under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act [CERCLA] ) and Florida’s Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup P rogram were devel oped to provide mechanisms for addressing contamination on
uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites. In the state, there are currently 50 Superfund sites on the National Priorities List (NPL) and 72 sites on Florida’s Hazardous W aste

C leanup P rogra m list. Many of these sites have documented ground water contamination.



## Nonpoint Sources

Degraded ground water quality is sometimes not associated with a single contaminant source but instead may be related to multiple sources or land use practices in an area. In many cases, the cumulative effect of human activities through leaching from nonpoint sources of pollution

, such as septic tanks or fertilizer applications

, creates ground water quality problems. In many urban areas of the state, ground water (i ncluding sinkholes and permitted injection wells) receives untreated stormwater runoff from urban areas and roadways. Ground water is particularly vulnerable in areas of karst, where these discharges have a direct, unfiltered pathway to the drinking water resource. In other areas, wastewater applications, septic tank leachate, right

- of

- way maintenance, and residential landscaping fertilization activities can degrade ground water quality and cause potential problems in karst areas where springs200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

105 discharge. Additionally, the leaching of fertilizers and pesticides from agricultural lands has had a significant impact on ground water quality.

Unfortunately, the potable ground water resource in some areas dominated by agricultural activities is often suscepti ble to direct impacts by fertilizer and agrichemical use. The r idge

citrus area in central Florida provides an example of an area with known nitrate impacts to ground water. The citrus growers in this area are now addressing nonpoint impacts through the Agricultural Nonpoint Source Program, using voluntary fertilizer management practices as a primary BMP. This work is serving as a model for the implementation of BMPs to protect ground water from contamination caused by the use of fertilizers and pesticid es on urban lands.

These more

- refined BMP programs should reduce the nutrient contamination of ground water.



# Ground Water

– Surface Water Interaction

**Setting and Pathways**

The free exchange between ground water and surface water in Florida cannot be

overem phasized. As mentioned previously, spring

- fed stream systems can depend almost entirely on ground water discharge. Canals can also contain mostly ground water. Other streams and lakes may receive over half of their total inflows via ground water seepage , and natural estuaries rely on ground water seepage as a significant source of fresh water. In areas where the Floridan aquifer system is near the surface, and in southern parts of the state where porous limestone exists near the surface, conduit systems in the limestone material efficiently deliver ground water to streams and canals at high rates. In other areas of the state, ground water discharge occurs as seepage from the surficial aquifer system.



## Ground Water Parameters of Concern for Impaired Surf **ace Waters**

Nutrients, DO, and iron are t he parameters of greatest concern identified in basin

- scale

eval uations of ground water influence on impaired or potentially impaired surface waters. **Table**

**30** summarizes the median concentrations of these parameter s in unconfined aquifers of the state’s 29 major basins. The table also compares these ground water medians with the statewide medians for surface water types.

Relatively low concentrations of nitrate and phosphorus can create nutrient imbalances in

surf ace water and contribute to impairments. Nitrate in ground water is associated with anthropogenic sources such as atmospheric deposition, fertilizers, animal waste, and human wastewater. Elevated nitrogen concentrations are of particular concern to fragi le surface water systems such as spring runs. As discussed previously, phosphorus occurs naturally throughout the state, and its natural occurrence in ground water is attributed to ground water contact with mineral phosphate in the aquifer material. It c an also be derived from organic material such as peat or from phosphatic shell beds. The more common anthropogenic sources of phosphorus include fertilizers, animal waste, and domestic wastewater/residuals.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

106 **Table 30** 

**. Media**  **n Concentrations of Ground Wa ter** 

**– Surface Water Constituents** 

**in Unconfined A quifers**  **(2000**

**– 07)** 

**Basin Median Concentrations in Unconfined Aquifers**  **1, 3**

**Nitrite+Nitrate (mg/L)**  **Phosphorus (mg/L)**  **DO (**  **mg/L) Total Iron**  **( μ** 

**g/L )**

**Cycle 1**

**Dissolved Cycle 2** 

**Total Cycle 1** 

**Dissolved Cycle 2** 

**Total 2000** 

**– 07**  **2003**

**– 07** 

Apalachicola

– Chipola 0.23 2.35 0.005 0.0135 5.725 20.5

Caloosahatchee 0.002 0.0055 0.0495 0.0425 0.535 1,140

Charlotte Harbor 0.002 0.01 0.031 0.0485 0.58 900.5

Ch octawhatchee

– St. Andrew Bay 0.645 0.16 0.0065 0.008 4.065 67.5

Everglades 0.002 N/A 0.021 N/A 0.235 N/A Everglades West Coast 0.002 0.0065 0.018 0.047 0.32 819 Fisheating Creek 0.005 0.007 0.035 0.0275 0.51 158 Florida Keys 0.017 N/A 0.037 N/A 0.19 N/A Indian River Lagoon 0.009 0.007 0.35 0.86 0.755 1100

Kissimmee River 0.01 0.0375 0.86 0.0435 0.87 372

Lake Okeechobee 0.002 0.002 0.4525 0.26 0.295 569 Lake Worth Lagoon

– 0.007 0.057 0.23 207

Palm Beach Coast 0.002 0.0515

Lower St. Johns 0.00 2 0.009 0.044 0.047 0.59 317

Middle St. Johns 0.013 0.02 0.045 0.04 1.24 793

Nassau

– St. Marys 0.006 0.007 0.027 0.065 0.82 396

Ochlockonee

– St. Marks 0.0305 0.086 0.017 0.024 2.81 197.5

Ocklawaha 0.66 0.27 0.051 0.1 3.6 382

Pensacola 0.28 0.445 0.002 0.002 7.46 54

Perdido 0.825 N/A 0.0035 N/A 5.15 N/A Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka 0.01 0.009 0.12 0.26 1.14 1,510

Southeast Coast

– Biscayne Bay 0.0205 0.0085 0.025 0.008 2.92 528 Springs Coast 0.0125 N/A 0.0285 N/A 0.4 N/A

St. Lucie

– Loxahatchee 0.0095 0.0 1 0.0385 0.096 0.17 934

Suwannee 0.03 0.015 0.045 0.058 1.18 429 Tampa Bay 0.01 0.0095 0.04 0.0395 0.54 512 Tampa Bay Tributaries 0.016 0.018 0.057 0.088 1.01 962 Upper East Coast 0.006 5.5 0.205 1.1 0.32 55 Upper St. Johns 0.002 0.002 0.0685 0.25 0.8 805.5

Withlacoochee 0.081 0.02 0.053 0.056 0.73 1,210

Ground Water Statewide Median 0.01 0.01 0.035 0.0425 0.815 454

Statewide Medians for Surface Water 2

Lake 0.02 0.03 7.66 158

Stream 0.07 0.08 5.53 200 Estuary 0.01 0.02 7.2 N /A

Notes:

N/A

– Not a vailable.

1 Values highlighted in gray exceed medians for at least one waterbody type; values highlighted in yellow exceed medians for al l surface water types.

2 Obtained from Typical Water Quality Values for Florida’s Lakes, Streams, and Estuaries (Draft ) , May 2004. Nitrate+ n itrite and

p hosphorus threshold values for surface waters are based on total rather than dissolved concentrations.

3 Data used for this assessment were sampled between 2000 and 2007 and mainly include the Status and Trend Network's C ycle 1 (2000

– 04) and Cycle 2 (2004

– 07) basin monitoring. The analytes and list frame of wells used by the Status Network's probabilistic design differed for the cycles. The Cycle 1 well list frame included a relatively larger population of background wel ls

, while the Cycle 2 well list frame included a significantly greater number of upgradient facility wells. D O was sampled during both cycles and total iron was only sampled during Cycle 2 of the Status Network.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

107 Low DO is a normal characteristic of gro und water. Depressed DO in springs, spring runs, spring

- fed rivers, and many drainage canals is primarily or entirely attributable to ground water inflows. In instances where ground water contributions to surface waterbodies are high, low DO is a typical consequence.

Iron is another ground water constituent that occurs naturally due to the leaching of ferric iron

from iron

- rich clay soils and sediment. Iron in the environment also has an affinity for organic materials. Streams that are high in iron con centration typically have a high to moderate ground water component, low DO, and high dissolved organic carbon content.



## Springs and Spring

**- related Issues** 

Elevated nitrates are a common and growing problem in Florida springs, with steady rises in

nitrate levels observed in many Florida springs over the past 30 years (Florida Springs Task Force, 2000). Nitrate was once a very minor constituent of Florida spring water. Typical nitrate concentrations were less than 0.2 mg/L. Today many Florida springs dis charge water that has more than 1.0 mg/L of nitrate nitrogen . It is believed that nitrate nitrogen levels as low as 1 mg/L or less can cause a significant shift in the balance of spring ecological communities, leading to the degradation of biological sys tems due to the overgrowth of algae and sometimes aquatic plants

.

There is currently no statewide adverse

- effects threshold for nitrate for Florida, although several

science

- based values have been offered that can be used for reference purposes. In an FD EP

funded study, Michigan State University researchers determined that algal species reductions occurred at nitrate concentrations below 0.591 mg/L for the algal genus Vaucheria spp. and below 0.250 mg/L for the more prevalent Lyngbya wollei (Stevenson et al

. , 2007). Another reference threshold was provided in documentation supporting spring run

– related TMDLs for the Wekiva River and Rock Springs Run by FDEP (Gao, 2007). The Wekiva River/Rock Springs Run TMDL was based on a nitrate threshold of 0.286 mg/L , established at a level that would reduce overall periphyton biomass concentration to an acceptable level.

F or th is evaluation , FDEP used spring water quality data provided by the Springs Initiative special projects and quarterly monitoring network (200 0

– 06 ). **Table 3**  **1** lists th ese reference springs

, along with median values for nitrate. A reference spring in this report is defined as having a nitrate median concentration less than 0.06 mg/L. Some of the springs listed in **Table**

**31** have limited data and r equire additional sampling in the future to confirm their inclusion in the list of reference springs.

The statewide spring data were combined and compared with the reference springs for nutrients. The period of record for statewide nitrate nitrogen data is 1985 to 2007; however, most springs only have data from 2000 to 2006. The stat ewide median nitrate value was over

50 times higher than the median value for reference springs. The first

- magnitude springs were also compared with the reference springs an d have a similar result.

The trends in water quality for springs are best analyzed by looking at the data for individual springs or groups of springs that are in close proximity and comparing them with reference springs **(Figure 8**  **).** Some springs were or ganized by clusters or groups to increase the number of sampling events. For th e empirical trend analysis in th is report, only the data from the 200 0

to 200 6 period of monitoring implemented by the Springs Initiative were used . The re could be200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

108 several con tributing factors to observable trends , but the overall increases in nitrate are associated with anthropogenic sources

. Essentially n o nitrate trends were identified in the reference springs , where the primary source of nitrate is assumed to be atmospheri c deposition.

Nitrate trends for most other springs , especially those springs with the highest nitrate

concentrations in the s tate, show measurable increases

.

Nitrate concentrations in s pring clusters or springs that had at least 10 observations over at

least four years were plotted over time to observe trends . The spring clusters or springs were categorized by the magnitude of the nitrate impact into five groups. Nitrates in Kings Homosassa, Rock, and Kings Bay Springs are elevated, but there seem to b e no distinct trends

over the four

- year period. Al l other springs had increasing nitrate nitrogen concentrations

, with Fanning

, and Jackson Blue at the highest levels.

**Table 31** 

**. Reference Springs and Statewide Medians for Nitrate**  **Nitrogen**

**Spring Basin**  **County Spring**  **Magnitude 1**  **Total Nitrate**

**- N** 

**Median (mg/L)** 

Green Cove Springs Lower St. Johns Clay 2 0.002

Beecher Spring Middle St. Johns Putnam 2 0.002

Copper Spring Suwannee Dixie 2 0.002

Holton Creek Rise 2 Suwannee Hamilton 1 0.002

Orange Spring (Mar ion) Ocklawaha Marion 3 0.002

Suwannee Springs Suwannee Suwannee 2 0.002

Newport Spring Ochlockonee

– St. Marks Wakulla 3 0.005

Waldo Spring Suwannee Taylor 3 0.007

Warm Mineral Spring Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myak k a Sarasota 3 0.013

Santa Fe Spring (Columbi a) Suwannee Columbia 1 0.023

Nutall Rise 2 Suwannee Taylor 1 0.029

Silver Glen Springs Middle St. Johns Marion 1 0.049

Alexander Springs Middle St. Johns Lake 1 0.053

Washington Blue Spring (Choctawhatchee) Choctawhatchee

– St. Andrew Washington 2 0.054

Steinhatchee River Rise 2 Suwannee Dixie 1 0.056

Santa Fe River Rise (Alachua) 2 Santa Fe River Alachua 1 0.058

Reference Springs Overall Median 0.0 1

Statewide Springs Overall Median 0. 58

First

- magnitude Springs Overall Median 0. 60

Notes:

1 Spring mag nitude based on discharge. First

- magnitude (1) springs have an av erage discharge greater than 100 cfs; second

magnitude (2) springs have an av erage discharge of 10 to 100 cfs

. Third

- magnitude (3) springs have flows in the range of 1 to 10

cfs.

2 River ris es are included for informational purposes. A river rise is a re

- emergence of ground water through a karst feature, a part

or all of whose waters are derived from surface inflow.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

109 **Figure 8. Comparison of N**  **it**

**rate T rends**  **for Selected Springs (2000**

**– 06)** 

LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME

(0-0.2 mg/L) (>0.20-0.50 mg/L) (>0.50 - 1 mg/L) (>1.0 - 3.0 mg/L) (>3.0 - 10.0 mg/L)

ALEXANDER REF ALLEN MILL POND ARIPEKA BONNET APOPKA*

BEECHER REF BECKTON BUGG (LAKE) BRANFORD CONVICT
BIG SPRING (JEFFERSON) BLACK (JACKSON) **CHASSAHOWITZKA  CRYSTAL (PASCO) FANNING** 

COLUMBIA BRUNSON LANDING DELEON (VOLUSIA)* **DEVIL'S EAR (GILCHRIST)  HAYS (JACKSON)

COPPER REF CORDLE DOUBLE (JACKSON) FALMOUTH JACKSON BLUE** 

FERN HAMMOCK - CYPRESS* GADSEN (JACKSON) GILCHRIST BLUE RUTH (LAFAYETTE)

**GAINER** - ELLAVILLE GEMINI GINNIE SHANGRI-LA

GREEN COVE REF GATOR (HERNANDO) GUARANTO HART

JUNIPER HOLMES BLUE GULF HAMMOCK LETTUCE LAKE

MORRISON HORN **HOMOSASSA** - LAFAYETTE BLUE**

NEWPORT REF HORNSBY ICHETUCKNEE** ** **LITHIA/BUCKHORN 
ORANGE (MARION) REF ** KINGS BAY -** LEVY BLUE MADISON BLUE**

POE NATURAL BRIDGE LITTLE (HERNANDO) MANATEE**

ROSSETER FENNEY LITTLE RIVER MEARSON

SALT (MARION) PONCE DE LEON MILL POND (JACKSON) OTTER
SANTA FE (COLUMBIA) REF RHODES ROCK BLUFF OWENS

SILVER GLEN REF SALT (HERNANDO) SPRINGBOARD **RAINBOW 

** SPRING CREEK** SANLANDO VOLUSIA BLUE* ROCK (ORANGE) -

SUWANNEE REF SHEPHERD **WAKULLA*** RUNNING

TREEHOUSE STARBUCK **WEEKI WACHEE  SUN

WALDO REF SULPHUR CAVE ** SILVER**

WARM MINERAL REF SUWANACOOCHEE TELFORD CAVE

WASHINGTON BLUE TURTLE TROY**

(CHOCTAWHATCHEE) REF **WACISSA  WEKIWA (ORANGE)** 

WASHINGTON BLUE
(ECONFINA)

WELAKA

WILLIFORD

Notes: Springs in bold are included in FDEP routine monitoring

. Springs in italics represent groups or clusters of springs

. REF Reference spring selected by lowest nitrates statewide.

** Springs Initiative

– monitored spring with e levated nitrate and an increasing t rend

. * Springs Initiative

– monitored spring with e levated nitrate and a decreasing t rend

.

- Springs Initiative

– monitored spring with e levated nitrate and no discernable t rend

.

The data used for this assessment were partly from special projects and quarterly monitoring for the Springs Initiative (2000

– 0 6 ). Some springs not routinely sampled in the quarterly monitoring may have issues with data sufficiency and were not included in the trend analyses.

A group of 36 springs was used to compare historical

, 30

- year

- old nitrate data with recent quarterly sampling data. Median values were calculated for the comparison. Thirty years ago, nitrates were already a concern in Florida’s springs, with the majority of the spri ngs with nitrate concentrations higher than background and proposed thresholds. The more current data for the same springs show that nitrate levels have increased in most of the springs originally having

nitrate

. Also, during this 30

- year period, the com bined median value for nitrate has more than doubled for these springs. **Figure 9**  shows the historical and recent median nitrate levels in representative springs in Florida.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

110 **Figure 9. Comparison of Recent and**  **Historical Nitrate Concentrations in Flori da Springs** 

Note: Historical data are pre

- 1970; r ecent data are from 2000

– 06 sampling. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Lithia Jackson Blue Crystal Troy Fanning Gilchrist Blue Baltzell Falmouth Ginnie Manatee Branford Silver Madison Blue Owens Rock Bluff Ponce De Leon Ichetucknee Poe Wakulla Chasahowitzka Rainbow Homosassa Mill Pond (Columbia) Hornsby Guaranto St. Marks Spring Creek Blue Hole Volusia Blue Salt Wekiwatchee Gainer Alexander Juniper

White

Nitrate concentration in milligrams per liter Recent

Historical200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

111 **Figure 10**  shows the distribution of nitrate concentrations in individual springs and spring clusters. The water quality evidence indicates that elevated nitrate conc entrations are often associated with relatively near

- field sources that lie within spring recharge areas (or springsheds ). Typical sources include chemical fertilizers associated with agriculture, lawns, and turfgrass, and organic sources such as domestic wastewater and animal waste.

**Figure 10.**  **Distribution of Nitrate Concentrations in Springs Monitored by FDEP** 200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

112 

# CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Public Participation Process

The success of Florida’s water resource management program, especially its w atershed
management approach/TMDL P rogram, depends heavily on input from local watershed

stakeholders. This process is highly collaborative

, and F DEP staff closely coordinate and

communicate with watershed stakeholders in all phases of the five

- yea r, rota ting basin cycle.

During Phase 1, a kickoff meeting is held within each basin to provide an overview of F DEP’s watershed management program and cycle, and to solicit data and other relevant information needed to complete the initial evaluation of waterbod y health. Those attending these meet ings

are asked to provide their email address es and other contact information

, so that they can be placed on a basin

- specific list to be notified of future meetings and deliverables such as the Status Report or the Asse ssment Report. Also during Phase 1, F DEP staff work closely with local monitoring staff to determine when and where additional monitoring is needed. This culminates in the preparation of a Strategic Monitoring Plan that is implemented the following

year

, during Phase 2 of the cycle.

The key product of Phase 2 is the Verified List of i mpaired w aters. As discussed in Chapter 3,

FDEP work s with a variety of stakeholders and holds public meetings on developing and adopting the Verified Lists for the state’s 29 river basins. Basin

- specific draft Verified Lists of

i mpaired w aters that m e et the requirements of the IWR are placed on FDEP ’s TMDL Program

website (available at http://www.dep.state.fl. us/water/tmdl/index.htm ) and are also sent on request to interested parties via mail or email. Stakeholders are given the opportunity to comment on the draft lists in person and/or in writing. As part of the review process, public workshops are advertis ed and held in each basin to help explain the process for developing the Verified Lists, exchange information, and encourage public involvement. The workshops are

noticed in the Florida Administrative Weekly and on the w ebsite

. If additional information or data is provided during the public comment period or before, FDEP typically creates a revised draft Verified List for further review and comment before submitting the final proposed list to the Secretary for adoption and then to the EPA.

During Phase 3 of the cycle, watershed and waterbody modeling are carried out to develop the TMDL and the preliminary allocations to point and nonpoint sources. Interested stakeholders are routinely advised of the plan to develop a TMDL in each basin by a variety of me ans. First, under Florida law, a notice is filed in the Florida Administrative Weekly (FAW) to formally announce that the FDEP plans to begin work to develop TMDL rules in a particular basin. Second, individual announcements for each draft TMDL are notic ed in the FAW, which advises the public of how they can access the draft TMDL report, how to participate in a workshop that must be held in a location convenient to the area of the impaired waterbody, and, finally, and, finally, when and how they can provi de comments on the draft TMDL report. Third, once a TMDL has drafted and edited to address comments, the report is condensed into rule form for formal adoption. The proposed rule is noticed in the FAW and all interested stakeholders are separately advise d using statewide and basin

- specific distribution lists. These rules are subject to a formal administrative challenge period (under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes) and then sent to EPA R4 for their review and approval.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

113 A b asin w orking g roup

, formalized d uring this phase

, may begin the process of developing the Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) , even at this early stage of TMDL development

. F DEP works closely with t he b asin w orking g roup and other watershed stakeholders to en sure that they understand an d support the approaches being undertaken to devel op the TMDL.

During Phase 4 of the cycle, the b asin w orking g roup and other stakeholders

— especially representatives of local governments

, including local elected officials

— develop the BMAP. This
process t ypically takes about two years and culminates in the adoption of the BMAP by F DEP ’s Secretary.

Both the BMAP and the Verified List of i mpaired w aters are adopted by Secretar ial Order

, while all TMDLs are adopted by rule. Like all official agency actions, these adoptions are subject to state administrative procedures set forth in Chapter 120, F.S. Once a BMAP, Verified List, or TMDL is adopted, a notice is published in the Florida Administrative Weekly allowing any affected party to request an administrat ive hear ing to challenge the adoption.



# Responsiveness Summary

As noted, p ublic input is received via email , letters, or oral comments . All public meetings are recorded, and specific comments are noted in written meeting summaries. These and any other

com ments received are on permanent file at FDEP . S ignificant comments typically receive a written response . All of FDEP’s responses are also kept in a permanent file maintained by

FDEP

.

All written comments and FDEP’s responses are included in an Appendix to each Water Quality Assessment Report; the reports are available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/stat_rep.htm

.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

114 

# REFERENCES

American Public Health Association. 1995. Standar d methods for the examination of water and

wastewater resources. 19 th Edition. Baltimore, Maryland: United Book Press.

Conover, W.J. 1999

. Practical n onparametric s tatistics

. New York : Wiley.

Crabbe, N. February 28, 2008. Drought just tip of wat er problems. Gainesville Sun.

Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands

— Losses in the United States, 1780s to 1980s. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report to Congress. Washington, D.C.

Fernald, E.A., and E.D. Purdum, Eds. 1998. Water resources atlas of Florida. T allahassee, Florida: Florida State University, Institute of Science and Public Affairs.

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 2006. Shellfish bed closures.

Available: http://www.floridaaquaculture.com/SEAS/SEAS_intro.htm

.

——— . 2006. Red tide. Available: http://www.floridaaquaculture.com/RedTide/RedTideInfo.htm ).

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2000. Florida’s water quality assessment 2000 305(b) report. Tallahassee, Florida.

——— . May 1, 2001. Impaired Surface Waters Rule (Draft

–

Adopted version)

. Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/docs/AmendedIWR.pdf

.

——— . 2004. Florida’s water quality assessment 2004 305(b) report. Tallahassee, Florida.

Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/docs/2004_Integrated_Report.pdf

.

———

. 2000

– 06. Water quality status reports and water quality assessment reports.

Available: http://www.dep.state .fl.us/water/tmdl/stat_rep.htm

.

———

. Interpretative tool for the assessment of metal enrichment in Florida freshwater

sediment. Ja nuary 2003. Available : http://www.dep.state.fl.us/w ater/monitoring/fwseds.htm

.

———

. February 1, 2004. Standard o perating p rocedures for f ield a ctivitie s. DEP

- SOP

001/01 . Available : http://www.dep.state.fl.us/labs/qa/qadocument.htm

.

—— —

. Elements of Florida’s Water Monitoring and Assessment Program. December 22, 2004 (revised March 30, 2005). Tallahassee, Florida: Division of Water Resource Management

, Bureau of Watershed Management

.

——— . 2006. Discussion of ground water indicator s. Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us

.

———

. 2006. STORET Program. Available : http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/storet/index.htm

.

——— . 20 06. Criteria for s urface w ater q uality c lassifications

. Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/classes.htm

.

——— . 2006. Allocation Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC) Report

.

———

. 2006. Florida’s springs: Protecting native gems . Available:

———

. 2006. South Florida Mercury Science Program. Available: www.floridasprings.org

.

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/labs/mercury/index.htm

.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

115 ——— . 2006. Drinking Water Program. Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/drinkingwater/index.htm

.

Fl orida Department of Health. 2006. Bacterial contamination and sampling. Available: http://esetappsdoh.doh.state.fl.us/irm00beachwater/terms.htm

.

———

. 2006. Healthy Beaches Program. Beach water sampling results. Available: http://esetappsdoh.doh.state.fl.us/irm00beachwater/default.aspx

. History. Available: http://esetappsdoh.doh.state.fl.us/irm00beachwater/history/hisintro.htm

.

———

. 2006. Fish consumption advisories. Available:

———

. 2006. Small water systems. Available: http://www.doh.state.fl.us/environment/community/fishconsumptionadvisories/index.html

.

http://www.doh.state .fl.us/environment/water/index.html

.

———

. 2006. Beach closures. Available: http://esetappsdoh.doh.state.fl.us/irm00beachwater/default.aspx

.

Florida LakeWatch . October 19 99a. A beginner’s guide to water management: The ABCs. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Available: http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/circpdffolder/ABCsInt.pdf

.

———

. October 1999 b

. Novemb er 2000. Florida’s springs: Strategies for protection and

restoration. Florida Springs Task Force. A vailable : http://www.dep.state.fl.us/springs/reports/floridaspringsreport.pdf

.

———

. 2006. Available: http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/

. Frayer, W.E., and J.M. Hefne r. 1991. Florida wetlands status and trends, 1970s to 1980s.

Atlanta , Georgia: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region

. Gao, X. 2007. TMDL report: Nutrient TMDLs for the Wekiva River (WBIDs 2956, 2956A, and 2956C) and Rock Springs Run (WBI D 2967), Draft 11/15/07. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Watershed Assessment Section.

Gilbert, R.O. 1987. Statistical methods for environmental pollution monitoring . New York, Van

Nostrand.

Hefner, J.M. 1986. W etlands of Florida 1950s to 1970s. In : E.D. Estevez, J.Miller, J.Morris,

and R. Hamman (E ds .)

. Proceedings of the conference: managing cumulative effects in

Florida wetlands. New College Env ironmental Studies Program, Publ ication No. 37.
Madison, Wisco nsin: Omnipress.

Kushlan, J.A. 1990. Freshwater marshes

. In: Myers, R.L., and J.J. Ewel (Eds.). Ecosystems

of Florida. Orlando, Florida: University of Central Florida Press.

Long, E.R., and L.G. Morgan. 1990. The potential for biological effects of sediment

- sorbed contaminants tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52. Seattle, Washington: National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration.

MacDonald, D.D. 1994. Approach to the assessment of sedimen t quality in Florida coastal

waters

. McDonald Environmental Sciences Ltd.

South Florida Water Management District. 2006. Available: http://www.envirobase.usgs.gov/

.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

116 Stevenson, R. J, A . Pinowska, A. Albert in, and J. O. Sickman

. 2007. Ecological condition of alga and nutrients in Florida springs: The synthesis report. Michigan State Univ ersity, Department of Zoology, DEP Contract WM858.

Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: Current sta tus and recent trends. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory.

U.S. Census Bureau Website . 2006. Available : http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/stat es/12000.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March 2003. Elements of a state water monitoring and
assessment program

. Washington, D.C.: Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds

. EPA 841

- B

- 03

- 003. Available : http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/elements/

.

———

. July 29, 2005. Guidance for 2004 assessment, listing, and reporting requirements under Sections 303(d) and 305 (b) of the Clean Water Act. Watershed Branch, Office of

Wetla nds, Oceans and Watersheds.

———

. 2006 a

. Ecoregions of Florida. Available: http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/fl_eco.htm

.

———

. 2006 b

. Region 4: Total Maximum Daily Loads in Flor ida. Available: http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/tmdl/florida/

.

———

. 2006 c

. National STORET Program. http://www.epa.gov/storet/

. U. S. Geologic al Survey. 2006. Available: http://water.usgs.gov/

.

——— . 2008. Historical water use by category, 1970

–

2000. Available: http://fl.water.usgs.gov/WaterUse/Historical_Tables_Miscellaneous/florida

- historical

category.1970

- 2000.htm

. Vogel, M. April 2006. Economic yearbook 2006: Good migrations. Florida Trend. Available: http://www.floridatrend.com/article.asp?id=5795

. Water Quality Association. 2006. Water quality glossary: pH. Available: http://www.wqa.org/glossar y.cfm?gl=1146

.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

117 

# APPENDICES

Appendix A

. Discussion of Status Network Surface

Water Indicators for Rivers and Lakes, and Ground

Water Indicators

**Surface Water Indicators for Rivers and Lakes** 

Fecal Coliform Bacteria

The threshold for fecal coliform bacte ria is 400 colonies per 100 milliliters (mL) of water. Additionally, twice that number (800) is cited in Rule 62

- 302, F.A.C., as indicating a highly contaminated result used for regulatory purposes. The p resence of these bacteria can indicate

the contami nation of a waterway or well and the possible presence of other pathogenic organisms.

Fecal c oliform bacteria can enter water through the discharge of waste from mammals and birds, from agricultural and storm water runoff, a nd from untreated human sewage. S eptic tanks

for individual homes can become overloaded during the rainy season and allow untreated human wastes to flow into drainage ditches and nearby waters. Agricultural practices such as allowing animal wastes to wash into nearby streams during the rainy season, spreading manure and fertilizer on fields during rainy periods, and allowing livestock watering in streams can all

contribute fecal coliform contamina tion.



### Dissolved Oxygen

The state criterion for DO is greater than or equal to 5 mg/L. D O is a measure of water quality indicating free oxygen dissolved in water. Oxygen is measured in its dissolved form. If more oxygen is consumed than is produced, DO levels decline and some sensitive aquatic animals may move away, weaken

, or die. Levels var y with water temperature ; therefore, c old water holds more oxygen than warm water.

Surface water gains oxygen from the atmosphere and plants as a result of photosynthesis. Running water contains more oxygen than still water because of its flow

. Respirat ion by aquatic animals, decomposition

, and various chemical reactions consume oxygen.

Wastewater from sewage treatment plants often contains organic materials that are decomposed by microorganism s, which use oxygen in the process. Other sources of oxyge n

consuming waste include stormwater runoff from farmland or urban streets, feedlots

, and failing septic systems. Ground water is naturally low in DO. Surface water contact with ground water seepage or upwelling can cause a natural lowering of DO levels.



### pH

The surface water criterion for pH is ≥ 6, ≤ 8.5 su. pH is a measure of the degree of acidity or alkalinity of a solution

, as measured on a pH scale of 0 to 14. The midpoint of 7.0 on the pH200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

118 scale represents neutrality

— that is, a neutral solution is neither acid nor alkaline. Numbers below 7.0 indicate acidity; numbers above 7.0 indicate alkalinity.

pH is the negative of the logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration of a solution. The hydrogen ion concentration is the weight of hydrogen ions, i n grams, per liter of solution. In neutral water, for example, the hydrogen ion concentration is 10 7 grams per liter; the pH is

therefore 7.

Hydrogen is responsible for acidity and alkalinity; therefore

, the abbreviation "pH" stands for the "potential o f hydrogen." The neutral point of 7.0 actually indicates the presence of equal concentrations of free hydrogen and hydroxide ions.

Acidity increases as pH gets lower. pH affects many chemical and biological processes in

water. For example, different or ganisms flourish within different ranges of pH. When pH levels are outside this range, aquatic animal diversity is harmed because it stresses the physiological systems of most organisms and can reduce reproduction. Low pH can also allow toxic

elements an d compounds to become mobile and "available" for uptake by aquatic plants and

animals. This can produce conditions that are toxic to aquatic life, particularly to sensitive species. Changes in acidity can be caused by atmospheric deposition (acid rain), surrounding rock, and certain wastewater discharges.



### Unionized Ammonia

The threshold for unionized ammonia is ≤0.02 mg /L as ammonia and is calculated using temperature, salinity, ammonia, and pH. This criterion applies to predominantly fresh waters in

Florida. In water, ammonia occurs in two forms, which together are called total ammonia nitrogen, or TAN. Chemi cally, these two forms are represented as NH 4 + and NH 3

. NH 4 + is

called i onized a mmonia because it has a positive electrical charge, and NH 3 is called u nionized

a mmonia since it has no charge. U nionized ammonia (abbreviated as UIA), is the form that is

to xic to fish and invertebrates. Water temperature and pH a ffect which form of ammonia is predominant at any given time in an aquatic system.



### Chlorophyll **a**

The impairment threshold for chlorophyll is ≤ 20 **μ** g/L

. This threshold is applied to the rivers and streams resources in the Status Monitoring Network. This is not a criterion under Rule 62

- 302

, F.A.C.; rather

, it is listed as a measure to identify impairment in surface waters in Section 62

- 303.351 , F.A.C. , describing the asse s sment of nutrients in streams. Chlorophyll is the pigment that allows plants

— including algae

— to convert sunlight into organic compounds during the process of photosynthesis. Chlorophyll a is the predominant type found in alg ae and cyanobacteria (blue

- green algae), and its abundance is a good indicator of the amount of algae present in a surface waterbody.

Excessive quantities of chlorophyll a can indicate the presence of alga l blooms. These usually consist of a single speci es of algae, typically a species undesirable for fish and other predators

to consume. Unconsumed algae sink to the bottom and decay, using up the oxygen required by other plants and benthic organisms to survive. The presence of too many nutrients, such a s nitrogen and phosphorus, can stimulate algal blooms and result in reduced water clarity.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

119 Chlorophyll a also plays a direct role in reducing the amount of light available to plants in

shallow

- water habitats. Like their terrestrial cousins, these plants need sunlight to grow. As chlorophyll a levels increase, the amount of sunlight reaching underwater plants declines.



### Trophic State Index

Lakes are potenti ally impaired for nutrients if (1) in l akes with a mean color greater than 40 CUs) , the annual mean TSI for the lake exceeds 60, or (2) in l akes with a mean color less than or equal to 40 PCUs , the annual mean TSI for the lake exceeds 40. TSI was used as a threshold for both large and small lakes in the Status Monitoring Network.

The T SI classifies l akes based on chlorophyll levels and nitrogen and phosphorus

concentrations. It is base d on a classification scheme that relie s on 3 indicators

— Secchi depth, chlorophyll

, and total phosphorus

— to describe a lake’s trophic state. A 10

- unit change in the

in dex represents a doubling or halving of algal biomass.

The Florida TSI is based on the same rationale, but total nitrogen replaces total Secchi depth as the third indicator. Attempts in previous 305(b) reports to include Secchi depth have been

unsuc cessf ul in dark

- water lakes and estuaries, where dark waters rather than algae diminish
transparency.

Note: Both TSI and chlorophyll a are not standards, but thresholds used to estimate the condition of state waters. These thresholds are used in the analysis of Status Network data based on single samples within a basin during a predetermined index period. The analysis and representation of these data are not intended to infer the verification of impairment as defined in

Rule 62

- 303, F.A.C., in these waters.



## Ground Water Indicators

Analytes with primary drinking water standards have been added to measure the condition of

Florida’s aquifers. **Table A** 

**- 1**  contains the list of analytes wit h the associated criterion for each analyte. Primary standards mean that th e criterion for an analyte is based on human health

effects.

Key indicator contaminants for ground water (e.g., chloride, nitrate, metals

, and bacteria) serve to assess the general suitability for drinking water purposes. In Cycle 1 of the Status Network

, aquifer samples were filtered to mitigate well construction factors, and the analytes were measured as dissolved constituents. This was changed in Cycle 2 to total constituents in order to reflect more closely the water directly from the aquifer. Addit ionally, standards are measured using unfiltered water, and so unfiltered samples allow consistency with standards.



### Total Coliform Bacteria

The EPA has determined that the presence of total coliform in ground water is a possible health

concern. Total c ol iform is common in the environment and the bacteria generally are not

harmful themselves. The ir presence in drinking water, however, generally is a result of a problem with water treatment or the pipes that distribute the water, and indicates that the wat er may be contaminated with organisms that can cause disease.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

120 The EPA and the state have set an enforceable drinking water standard for total coliform of 4 counts per 100 mL to reduce the risk of adverse health effects. Drinking water that meets this

st andard is usually not associated with a health risk from disease

- causing bacteria and should

be considered safe.

**Table A** 

**- 1** 

**. Status Network Water Quality Standards for Ground Water** 

**Analyte Criterion/Threshold**  **Use**

Total Coliform Bacteria (# /100 m L ) ≤ 4 (sample maximum) Potable water

Arsenic

Cadmium

Chromium

Fluoride

Lead

Sodium ≤ 10 **μ** g/ L

≤ 5 **μ** g/ L

≤ 100 **μ** g/L

≤ 4 mg/L

≤ 15 **μ** g/L

≤ 160 mg/L Potable water

Nitrate + Nitrite ≤ 10 mg/L Potable water



### Arsenic

Arsenic

, a naturally occurring el ement , is widely distributed in the earth’s crust. Two main categories are found, inorganic and organic arsenic. Inorganic arsenic compounds are mainly used to preserve wood. Arsenic in animals and plants combines with carbon and hydrogen to form organi c arsenic compounds. Organic arsenic compounds are used as pesticides, primarily on cotton plants.

Many arsenic compounds can dissolve in water, and can be transported into ground water.

Arsenic can affect human health. Several studies have shown that inorganic arsenic can increase the risk of lung , skin, bladder, liver, kidney , and prostate cancer s

. The World Health Organization (WHO), the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), and the EPA have determined that inorganic arsenic is a hum an carcinogen.

O rganic arsenic compounds are less toxic than inorganic arsenic compounds. Exposure to high levels of some organic arsenic compounds may cause similar effects to those of inorganic

arsenic.



### Cadmium

The EPA and FDEP set the drinking water standard for cadmium at 5 pp b to protect against the

risk of adverse health effects. Cadmium

, a naturally occurring heavy metal whose chemical properties are similar to those of zinc

, does not occur uncombined in nature. A byproduct of200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

121 smelting and refi ning ores of zinc and lead, it is used for its anticorrosive properties in the electroplating of steel, in its sulfide form in the manufacture of paint pigments, and in the

manufactur e of batteries and other electrical components. Cadmium also occurs as a byproduct in many chemical fertilizers that are produced from phosphate ores. Cadmium enters the ambient air primarily from local smelting operations, it enters soil from local mining operations

and from chemical fertilizers

, and it enters water from fer tilizer runoff and/or industrial

wastewater.

This inorganic metal is a contaminant in the metals used to galvanize pipe. It generally gets into water by corrosion of galvanized pipes or by improper waste disposal. The EPA has set the drinking water sta ndard for cadmium at 0.005 part s per million (ppm) to protect against the risk

of adverse health effects. Drinking water that meets the EPA standard is associated with little to none of this risk and is considered safe with respect to cadmium.



### Chromium

T his inorganic metal , which occurs naturally in the ground

, is often used in the electroplating of

metals. It generally enters w ater from run off from old mining operations and improper waste disposal from plating operations. Some humans exposed to high le vels of chromium suffered liver and kidney damage, dermatitis and respiratory problems. The EPA has set the drinking water standard for chromium at 0.1 ppm to protect against the risk of adverse health effects. Drinking water that meets the EPA standard is associated with little to none of this risk and is considered safe with respect to chromium.



### Fluoride

Under EPA regulations

, fluoride, which occurs naturally in some water supplies, must not exceed a concentration of 4.0 mg/L in drinking water. Expos ure to drinking water levels above 4.0 mg/L for many years may result in crippling skeletal fluorosis, a serious bone disorder.

State regulations require a water system to notify the public when monitoring indicates that the fluoride in drinking water ex ceeds 2.0 mg/L

. This is intended to alert families about dental problems that might affect children under nine years of age.

Fluoride in children's drinking water at levels of approximately 1 mg/L reduces the number of

dental cavities. However, some chi ldren exposed to levels of fluoride greater than about 2.0 mg/L may develop dental fluorosis. Dental fluorosis, in its moderate and severe forms, is a brown staining and/or pitting of the permanent teeth.

Because dental fluorosis occurs only when develop ing teeth (before they erupt from the gums) are exposed to elevated fluoride levels, households without children are not expected to be affected by this level of fluoride. Families with children under the age of nine are encouraged to

seek other sources o f drinking water for their children to avoid the possibility of staining and pitting.



### Lead

Materials that contain lead have frequently been used in the construction of water supply distribution systems, and in plumbing systems in private homes and other b uildings. The most commonly found materials include service lines, pipes, brass and bronze fixtures, and solders

and fluxes. Lead in these materials can contaminate drinking water as a result of the corrosion200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

122 that takes place when water comes into contac t with those materials. The EPA's national primary drinking water regulation requires all public water systems to optimize corrosion control to minimize lead contamination resulting from the corrosion of plumbing materials.



### Nitrate

- Nitrite

Nitrate is us ed in fertilizer and is found in sewage and wastes from human and/or farm animals ; it generally enters drinking water from th e se activities. Excessive levels of nitrate in drinking

water have caused serious illness and sometimes death in infants less than 6 months of age.

The EPA has set the drinking water standard at 10 ppm for nitrate to protect against the risk of

a dverse effects.

The EPA has also set a drinking water standard for nitrite at 1 ppm. In addition, t o allow for the

fact that the toxicit y of nitrate and nitrite are additive, the EPA has established a standard for the sum of nitrate and nitrite at 10 ppm. Drinking water that meets the EPA standard is associated with little to none of this risk and is considered safe with respect to nitrat e.



### Sodium

EPA has set the drinking water standard for sodium (salt) at 160.0 ppm to protect individuals

who are susceptible to sodium

- sensitive hypertension or diseases that cause difficulty in regulating body fluid volume. Sodium is monitored so that i ndividuals who have been placed on

sodium

- restricted diets may take the sodium in their water into account. Sodium naturally occurs in food and drinking water. Food is the common source of sodium. Drinking water contributes only a small fraction (less t han 10 %) of an individual’s overall sodium intake. Sodium levels in drinking water can be increased by ion

- exchange softeners at water treatment facilities or some point

- of

- use treatment devices.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

123 

# Appendix B . Status Network Surface Water Methodology

F lorida launched the sampling portion of the Status N etwork beginning in January 200 4 for the current reporting cycle. This monitoring network is designed to assess both surface water and ground water throughout the state

. The design provides an estimate o f condition, or status

, of

the state ’ s numerous and diverse water resources

. The implementation of the Status N etwork monitoring enables FDEP to estimate the condition of 100 % of accessible aquatic resources in

the state with a known statistical confidenc e. Data produced by the Status Network are used to complement traditional C WA 305(b) reporting.

The Status Network design for probabilistic monitoring is based on the EPA ’s EMAP model. The design incorporates a stratified, rotating

- basin, multiyear appr oach to sampl ing and
report ing on water resources from the entire state. **Figure 4** in Chapter 3 shows the basins used as a foundation for Florida’s watershed programs, especially for 303(d) and 305(b) reporting

. FDEP will be able to answer questions of s tatewide concern

— for example, “what are

the concentrations of nutrients in Florida's surface waters?" and "a re these concentrations changing over time?"



## Monitoring Design

A stratified random design to address statewide as well as regional resources was s elected, using the Generalized Random Tessellation Stratified (GRTS) probabilistic sampling design supported by the EPA’s EMAP Program. All stratified random sampling networks use predefined geographic sub units (basins) that together comprise the whole st ate , so that the resulting data can address questions at statewide and specific basin scales. As seen in **Figure**

**4** ( Chapter 3 )

, and summarized in **Table B** 

**- 1** 

**,** the state is divided into 29 basins as the

foundation for the basin assessments

. During the 5

- year c ycle of the Status Network ( January 2004 through December 2008 ) , all basins will be sampled in a predetermined sequence

, using

the same 5

- year rotation as the TMDL P rogram. At the end of the 5

- year cycle, the entire state will be sampled.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

124 **Table B** 

**- 1** 

**. Ba**  **sin Groups for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle,**  **by FDEP District Office**

**Group 1**

**Basins Group 2** 

**Basins Group 3** 

**Basins Group 4** 

**Basins Group 5** 

**Basins**

Northwest Ochlockonee

– St. Marks Rivers Apalachicola

– Chipola Rivers Choctawhatchee

River and Bay and

St. Andrew Bay Pensacola Bay Perdido River and Bay

Northeast Suwannee River Lower St. Johns

River — St. Marys

– Nassau

Rivers Northeast Coast Lagoons

Central Ocklawaha River Middle St. Johns

River Upper St. Johns

River Kissimmee River Indian River Lagoon

Southwest Tampa Bay Tampa Bay

Tributaries Sarasota Bay and

Peace

– Myakka

Rivers Withlacoochee

River Springs Coast

South Everglades West

Coast Charlotte Harbor Caloosahatchee

River Fisheating Creek Florida Keys

Southeast Lake Okeechobee St. Lucie

– L oxahatchee

Rivers Lake Worth Lagoon/Palm

Beach Coast Southeast Urban

Coast Everglades

Sampling in the Status Network occurs 1 to 2 years ahead of the TMDL rotation. This schedule provides both recently collected data from the region of interest and an e stimate of condition for

4 surface water and 2 ground water resources from each of the 29 basins. Results ar e provided annually to FDEP’s Watershed Assessment Section to complement the information gathered to prepare basin reports . E very 2 years

, the resul ts of the Tier I sampling of basins are submitted to the EPA through the 305(b) reporting process

.

Some limitations are inherent in the GRTS sample design, due to the state’s geography. Not all

resources can be sampled in all basins , depending on how the basins are delineated and whether specific resources are actually present. Portions of Florida do not support all the “typical” waters used in the sampling design. For example, there are few, if any, true small lakes in the southern portions of the stat e. Or watersheds may split the tributaries to an estuary from the upland contributing portion, leaving no stream miles on the estuarine side of the two watersheds. Therefore, the ideal number of samples would not be collected.

As in any monitoring progr am, t he placement of sites and the total number of sites are based on the assessment questions. Since many of the Tier I monitoring questions require assessments for "all" of Florida’s fresh waters, then an element of the sampling design must be extractab le and thus probabilistic in nature. The use of the term “p robabilistic ” i nfers that the sites are representative and not biased. Therefore, the use of random selections is adopted from a list (list frame) of resources available to sample from each popula tion. The specific protocol for the selection of sample sites for each resource type (e.g., small lakes, small streams) is somewhat

different. Some resources are selected as points, while others are line features, and still others

are based on area. The base for the state map showing water resources is the revised National Hydrography Dataset ( rNHD )

. The following section discusses the selection of the sites.



## Geographic **D esign** 

Location information for point

- feature sites (e.g., wells, small lakes) and electronic representations of all other water resources are sent in a GIS file with associated metadata to200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

125 the EPA in Corvallis, Oregon. Thirty random primary selections and a 5

- time oversample, for a total of 180 possible selections, are chosen from each resource in each basin. The oversample is required because of the high probability of possible sampling problems, such as landowner denials of permission, dry resources, possible GIS errors, and other sampling challenges

, that are routinely associated wi th random versus fixed station sampling designs.

The 180 potential sample sites are placed into a database and accessed by samplers in an

Internet

- based application called OGWIS. These sites must be sampled in the same order in which they were generated from the EPA program. The application allows samplers to review selected sites using an Arc Interactive Mapping System (ArcIMS). Initial reconnaissance can then be conducted to determine whether the site represents the correct resource, whether

additiona l information is needed from the field to determine if the site meets the definition of the population being sampled, or even to help determine the easiest access for collecting samples

at the site.



## Water Resource Types

T o sample many different occurrenc es of water systematically across the state

, Florida’s waters

have been subdivided into “resources

. ” Each resource constitutes a readily identifiable

occurrence of a water of interest for management purposes. In addition, t he scale of a waterbody has an effect on sampling strategy and, in many cases, on the management of

resources, and so the resources have been subdivided to facilitate sampling and resource

evaluation. The following surface water resources are monitored as part of the Status Network:

**•** L akes (2.5 to 25 acres and over 25 acres), and

**•** Large rivers and small streams (including canals).



### Lakes

Lakes are subdivided into two groups: (1) small lakes between 2.5 and 25 a c res and (2) large

lakes over 25 a c res. This differentiation on the basis of size is intended to accommodate

differ ent sampling strategies and methods and allow better representation of the resource. The

number and size of large lakes would have skewed selection and caused small lakes to be

under

- represented in the sample design, had all lakes been in one category.

The protocol for site selection for small lakes ( between 2.5 and 25 acres ) was based on the
rNHD 1:100,000 scale. All lakes less than 25 acres in size are associated with latitude

longitude coordinates for the center of the lake. A list frame was developed for each basin

, and

18 0 random selections were chosen in each basin.

The selections of l arge lakes ( over 25 acres ) were also based on available coverage from the rNHD 1:1000:000 scale. Random point locations were generated based on area; several stations may exist in one lake.



### Rivers, Streams, and Canals

Streams and rivers are abundant in Florida, which has approximately 52,000 miles of waters including canals and ditches (see the section on Surface Water and Gro und Water Resources in Chapter 2). Using the 1:100,000 coverage and not counting the estuarine portions of these200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

126 waterbodies, the statewide estimate of waters in the Status Network listframe is approximately
48,000 miles.

The resource was divided into “ l arge r ivers” and “ s mall s treams” based on the 1:100,000 GIS

coverage

. This division was predetermined by review by water management district and FDEP project managers . Large rivers were selected as waters of greatest interest or significance

within the different watersheds

. Once the “ l arge r ivers” coverage was determined, the remaining rivers and streams on the 1:100,000 scale were deemed “ s mall s treams

. ” This also allows adequate representation of the large river resource when making sample site selec tions, as the miles of small streams far exceed the large river miles.

Each year approximately 30 random samples are collected from each of the resources in 5 to 6

basins around the state. Approximately 120 samples are collected for the combined surface

water resource s in addition to quality assurance samples. The indicator list , which consists of both chemical and biological parameters, is discussed in Appendix A

. The same sampling and analytical methodologies are used for all of the basins.

P roposed indicators may exhibit large intra

- annual (seasonal) variability. Generally, monitoring programs do not have the monetary resources to characterize this variability

, or to assess ambient conditions in all seasons for "all" resources (i.e., all of Florida ’s fresh waters). Therefore, sampling is often limited to a confined portion of the year (index period)

. Annual sampling for the Status Network occurs during different index periods of 4 to 12 weeks for each
resource type ( **Table B** 

**- 2** 

).

A study is under w ay to answer the question of whether there are significant changes in individual measures of condition as a result of the seasonality in the study design. Duplicate

stations are collected from the same lakes, but will be sampled in different seasons. The r esults will be compared to determine whether the proportional estimate of condition of selected indicators is significantly different.

**Table B** 

**- 2. Status Network Primary**  **Index Periods**

**Resource North Florida Jan**  **Feb Mar**  **Apr May**  **Jun Jul**  **Aug Sep**  **Oct Nov**  **D ec** 
Confined Aquifers

Unconfined Aquifers

Small Streams

Large Rivers

Small Lakes

Large Lakes

**Resource Peninsular Florida Jan**  **Feb Mar**  **Apr May**  **Jun Jul**  **Aug Sep**  **Oct Nov**  **Dec**

Confin ed Aquifers

Unconfined Aquifers

Small Streams

Large Rivers

Small Lakes

Large Lakes200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

127 

# Appendix C . I mpaired Surface Waters Rule Methodology for Evaluating Impairment for the Basin

Assessments

To determine the status of surface water quality in individual WBIDs in Florida, three categories

of data

— chemistry data, biological data, and fish consumption advisories

— a re evaluated using the IWR methodology to determine potential impairmen ts for four designated use attainment categories : aquatic life, primary contact and recreation, fish and shellfish consumption, drinking water use, and protection of human health.



## Aquatic Life Based Attainment

Th e IWR follows the principle of independent applicability. A waterbody is listed for potential impairment of aquatic life use support based on exceedances of any one of four types of water quality indicators (numeric water quality criteria, nutrient thresholds, biological thresholds, and toxicity data).



### Exceedances of Numeric Water Quality Criteria

The water quality data from STORET used in evaluating impairment were also used in making attainment determinations. The assessment of impairment included only ambient surface water quality stations. Water quality information from point sources or wells was excluded. Data that were determined to be of insufficient quality for TMDL data quality objectives were also

excluded from the Verified List assessment. Monitoring s tations were classified as one of five waterbody types

— spring, stream, lake, estuary, or blackwater

— based on specific criteria. The assessments included the following parameters:

**Metals** Arsenic, aluminum, cadmium, chromium VI, chromium III, copper, iron, lead, mercury, nickel, seleni um, silver, thallium, and zinc

**Nutrients** Chlorophyll a for streams and estuaries, and TSI (chlorophyll a, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus) for

lakes

**Conventionals** DO, fecal coliform, pH, unionized ammonia

The requirements for placing waters on the Planning List of potentially impaired waters included a minimum of 10 temporally independent samples from the 10

- year period of record shown in

**Table s**  **13 a**  and **13b** (in Chapter 3 ), unless there were 3 exceedances of water quality or 1

exceedance of an acute toxicity criterion in a 3

- year period. The screening methodology for the

Verified List of impaired waters requires at least 20 samples from the last 7. 5 years preceding the Planning List assessment. An exceedance, meaning that water quality criteria or s tandards are not met, is recorded any time the criterion is exceeded by any amount. An exceedance for200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

128 DO, however, means that a waterbody does not meet the DO criterion, rather than an actual

exceedance of the criterion.

To determine if a water should be placed on the Planning List for each parameter, the chemical data were analyzed using a computer program written to assess the data, based on criteria established in the IWR, with two exceptions. First, un

- onized ammonia data were not analyzed by the pro gram, but rather with an Excel spreadsheet. Second, because the full complexity of the pH criterion could not be programmed, the incomplete listings for pH we re not included , but

were further examined while additional data were collected during Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle. Data analysis and statistical summaries of waterbody identification numbers (WBIDs), waterbody types, and parameters obtained from the STORET Database were conducted using Access, SAS statistical software, and ArcView GIS applications

The data for metals and conventional parameters were compared with the state surface water quality criteria in Section 62

- 302.530, F.A.C. (IWR). The rule contains a table of sample numbers versus exceedances. A waterbody was placed on the P lanning List if there was at

least 80 % confidence that the actual criteria exceedance rate was greater than or equal to 10 %

. To be placed on the Verified List, at least a 90 % confidence rate was required.



### Exceedances of Nutrient Thresholds

The state curr ently has a narrative nutrient criterion instead of a numeric value for nutrient thresholds. The narrative criterion states, “In no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aqua tic flora or fauna.” The IWR provides an interpretation of the narrative nutrient criterion. In general, the TSI and the annual mean chlorophyll a values are the primary means for assessing whether a waterbody should be assessed further for nutrient impa irment.

The rule also considers other information that might indicate an imbalance in flora or fauna due to nutrient enrichment, such as algal blooms, excessive macrophyte growth, a decrease in the distribution (either in density or aerial coverage) of se agrasses or other submerged aquatic vegetation, changes in algal species richness, and excessive diel oxygen swings.

Potential nutrient impairment was evaluated by calculating annual mean chlorophyll a values for

estuaries and streams and the TSI for lake s. For lakes, the TSI was calculated using chlorophyll a , total phosphorus, and total nitrogen measurements. Direct evidence of

imbalances of flora and fauna in waterbodies was also considered in the evaluation of nutrient impairments.

In estuarine area s, a water body was considered nutrient enriched if the annual mean chlorophyll a values were greater than 11 **μ** g/L, or if annual mean chlorophyll a values increased by more

than 50 % over historical values for at least 2 consecutive years. For streams, a wa ter body was considered nutrient enriched if the annual mean chlorophyll a values were greater than 20 **μ** g/L, or if the annual mean increased by more than 50 % over historical values for at least 2 consecutive years.

A lake with a mean color greater than 40 PCUs was considered nutrient enriched if the annual mean TSI exceeded 60. A lake with a mean color less than or equal to 40 PCUs was considered nutrient enriched if the annual mean TSI exceeded 40. In addition, a lake was200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

129 considered nutrient enriched if there was a statistically significant increase in TSI over the last 5

- year period, or if TSI measurements were 10 units higher than historical values.



### Exceedances of Biological Thresholds

Bioassessments were carried out for streams, lakes, canals, and riv ers using the IWR as guidance and following FDEP ’s standard operating procedures, which provide definitions and specific methods for the generation and analysis of bioassessment data. These are referenced

in the individual bioassessment data tables contai ned in the Water Quality Status Reports (available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/basin411/default.htm ) . The purpose behind using a bioassessment methodology in surface water char acterizations is that biological components of the environment manifest long

- term water quality conditions and thus provide a better indication of a waterbody’s true health than discrete chemical or physical measurements alone. Biological communities also respond to factors other than water quality, such as habitat disruption and hydrologic disturbances. Therefore, to use bioassessment data to list a waterbody, FDEP must reasonably demonstrate the pollutant responsible for the observed degradation. Recen t recalibrations of the SCI and the BioRecon method involved the use of the Human Disturbance Gradient (HDG). The HDG ranked sites based on independent assessments of habitat quality, the degree of hydrologic disturbance, water quality, and human

land use intensity. Biological measures (metrics) associated with minimally affected waters in a given region were used to set ecoregional expectations

.

A metric is a precise measure of biological community structure or function that responds in a predictable ma nner to human disturbance. Metrics (e.g., number of long

- lived taxa, number of

sensitive taxa

, % filter feeders , % clingers ) were calculated and aggregated into a dimensionless, multimetric index. Indices have advantages over individual metrics in that t hey can integrate several nonredundant metrics into a single score that reflects a wider range of biological variables. In Florida, multimetric bioassessment indices have been developed for vascular plants (aquatic trees, shrubs, and herbaceous macrophyte s) and benthic macroinvertebrates (animals without a backbone, such as aquatic insects, crayfish, snails, and mussels). Efforts to create multimetric indices for periphyton (attached algae) and phytoplankton (drifting algae) are currently under way.

Only macroinvertebrate data from ambient sites in state surface waters were used in the bioassessments analyzed for the Planning and Verified Lists. The data included sites designated as test and background sites for NPDES fifth

- year inspections, but excluded data from effluent outfalls from discharging facilities, or data from monitoring sites not clearly established to collect ambient water quality data. Because site

- specific habitat and physicochemical assessment information (e.g., % suitable macroinverteb rate habitat, water velocities, extent of sand or silt smothering, and riparian [ or streamside ] buffer zone widths) was not available at the time of reporting, it was not included. However, this information is important for identifying the stressors respo nsible for a failed bioassessment and will be included in future reporting. Waterbodies that are adversely affected only by pollution (e.g., a lack of habitat or hydrologic disruption) but not a pollutant (a water quality exceedance) are not placed on the

Verified List.

The data used to develop the Planning and Verified Lists were obtained from FDEP ’s Biological Database (SBIO) and the EPA’s STORET Water Quality Database, where it could be substantiated that the data were generated in compliance with the bioassessment standard operating procedures referenced in the IWR (Section 62

- 303.330, F.A.C.). The data from these

databases we re used without regard to the randomness of sample site selection. For the200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

130 purposes of the Status Reports, the seasons we re de fined as follows: winter (1/1

– 3/31), spring (4/1

– 6/30), summer (7/1

– 9/30), and fall (10/1

– 12/31). The wet season for northern Florida generally includes November through March, while the wet season in south Florida is usually from June to September, alth ough conditions can vary in the state as a whole.



### Lake Condition Index

The scoring of the individual metrics of the Lake Condition Index (LCI), except % Diptera, was performed according to the following formula:

100(B/A) where A = the 95 percentile of th e reference population and B = observed

value.

For % Diptera, the following formula was used:

100 (100

- B)/(100

- A) where A = the 95 percentile of the reference population and B

= observed value.

An average LCI score was calculated by averaging the scores of the 6 metrics in the method: total number of taxa; total number of taxa belonging to the orders Ephemeroptera, Odonata, and Trichoptera (EOT taxa); % EOT taxa; Shannon

- Wiener Diversity Index score; Hulbert Index score; and % Dipteran individuals. LCI calculations were only provided for noncolored lakes ( < 20 PCUs). As macroinvertebrate

- based indices have not been shown to assess colored lakes in Florida accurately (> 20 PCUs), they have been excluded from bioassessments. A poor or very poor rating based on the average score constituted a failed bioassessment, based

on the IWR.



### Stream Condition Index

A total SCI score was calculated by averaging the scores of the 10 metrics in the method: total number of taxa; total number of taxa belonging to the order Ephemeroptera, total taxa of the

order Trichoptera

, % filter feeders, % long

- lived taxa, clinger taxa, % dominant taxa

, % taxa in the Tanytarsini, % sensitive taxa, and % very tolerant taxa (see the table below for calculations). A poor or very poor rating based on the total score constituted a failed bioassessment, based on

the IWR. The Basin Status Reports contain definitions and specific methods for the generation and analysis of bioassessment data.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

131 **SCI Metric Northeast**  **Panhandle Peninsula** 

To tal taxa 10 * ( X

– 16)/26 10 * ( X

– 16)/33 10 * ( X

– 16)/25

Ephemeroptera taxa 10 * X /3.5 10 * X /6 10 * X /5

Trichoptera taxa 10 * X /6.5 10 * X /7 10 * X /7

% filterer 10 * ( X

– 1)/41 10 * ( X

– 1)/44 10 * ( X

– 1)/39

Long

- lived taxa 10 * X /3 10 * X /5 10 * X /4

Clinger taxa 10 * X /9 10 * X /15.5 10 * X /8

% dominance 10

– ( 10 * [ ( X

– 10)/44 ] ) 10

– ( 10 * [ ( X

– 10)/33 ] ) 10

– ( 10 * [ ( X

– 10)/44 ] )

% Tanytarsini 10 * [ ln( X + 1) /3.3] 10 * [ ln( X + 1) /3.3] 10 * [ ln( X + 1) /3.3]

Sensitive taxa 10 * X /11 10 * X /19 10 * X /9

% Very tolerant 10

– (10 * [ ln( X + 1)/4.4 ] ) 10

– (10 * [ ln( X + 1)/3.6 ] ) 10

– (10 * [ ln( X + 1)/4.1 ] )



### BioRecon naissance

To establish an impairment rating based on BioRecon data, th e six metrics as calculated in the

table below were used.

**BioRecon Metric Northeast**  **Panhandle Peninsula** 

Total taxa ( X

– 14)/23 ( X

– 16)/33 ( X

– 11)/25

Ephemeroptera taxa X /3.5 X /12 X /5

Trichoptera taxa X /6.5 X /7 X /7

Long

– lived taxa X /6 X /10 X /7

Clinger taxa X /7 X /15.5 X /8

Sensitive taxa X /11 X /19 X /9

A poor score, based on two BioRecon failures, warrants inclusion on the Verified List.

**BioRecon Index Range** 

1 sample

Pass (6

– 10)

Fail (0

– 6)

2 samples

Good (7

– 10)

Fair (4

– 7)

Poor (0

– 4)200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

132 

### Biological Integrity Standard

Quantitative data, generated through the use of Hester

- Dendy artificial substrate samplers, were

used to calculate Shannon

- Wiener Diversity Index scores for paired background and test sites, as specified in the Biological Integrity Standard of Sub section 62

- 302.530(11), F.A.C. One failure of the standard meant that a waterbody segment was listed as potentially impaired.



### Evaluation of Toxicity Data

Although the IWR describes the use of toxicity data for the assessment of aquatic life

- based

attainm ent, no ambient toxicity data we re available for assessment and this metric was not

used.



## Primary Contact and Recreation Attainment

For Class I, II, or III waters, a waterbody was potentially impaired if the following criteria were

met:

**•** The waterbody segment did not meet the applicable water quality criteria for bacteriological quality,

**•** The waterbody segment included a bathing area that was closed by a local health department or county government for more than 1 week or more than once during a calendar ye ar based on bacteriological data,

**•** The waterbody segment included a bathing area for which a local health department or county government issued closures, advisories, or warnings totaling 21 days or more during a calendar year based on bacteriological data

, or

**•** The waterbody segment included a bathing area that was closed or had advisories or warnings for more than 12 weeks during a calendar year based on previous bacteriological data or on derived relationships between bacteria

levels and rainfall or flow.



## Fish and Shellfish Consumption Attainment

For Class I, II, or III waters, a waterbody was potentially impaired if it did not meet the applicable Class II water quality criteria for bacteriological quality, or if a fish consumption advisory had

been issue d. Fish consumption advisories were based on FDOH’s “limited consumption” or “no consumption” advisories for surface waters because of high levels of mercury in fish tissue. In addition, for Class II waters, waterbody segments that had been approved for shellfish harvesting but were downgraded to a more restrictive classification were listed as potentially impaired.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

133 

## Drinking Water Attainment and Protection of Human Health

For Class I waters, a waterbody was potentially impaired if it did not meet the app licable Class I water quality criteria.200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

134 

# Appendix D : Impaired Lakes in Florida, Group 1

– 5

Basins

**Note:** The most up

- to

- date list of verified waters, by basin group, is available at http://www.dep.st ate.fl.us/water/tmdl/

.

**Lake WBID**  **Parameter Causing**  **Impairment Basin**  **Group Basin Name** 

Alachua Sink 2720A Fecal Coliform Group 1 Ocklawaha

Alford Arm 647 DO Group 1 Ochlockonee

– St. Marks

Alligator Lake 1574A DO Group 1 Tampa Bay

Alligator Lake 3516A DO Group 1 Suwannee

Alligator Lake 3176 Fish Group 4 Kissimmee River

Alligator Lake 3516A TSI Group 1 Suwannee

Banana Lake 1549B DO Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Banana Lake 1549B TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Bay Lake 3004G TSI Group 2 M iddle St. Johns

B ear Gulley Lake 3009 TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Bear Lake 3004A Fish Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Bellows Lake 1579A TSI Group 1 Tampa Bay

Bevens Arm 2718B TSI Group 1 Ocklawaha

Bevens Arm 2718B Turbidity Group 1 Ocklawaha

Blue Cypress Lake 2893V Iron Group 3 Upper St. Johns

Blue Cypress Lake 2893V Fish Group 3 Upper St. Johns

Brick Lake 3177A Fish Group 4 Kissimmee River

Buck Lake 2966A Fish Group 3 Upper St. Johns

Buck Lake 1493E TSI Group 1 Tampa Bay

Calm Lake 1473Y Historical T SI Group 1 Tampa Bay

Cane Lake 3169J TSI Group 4 Kissimmee River

Cedar Lake ( East )

– O pen Water 1523C TSI Group 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries

Chilton Lake

– Open Water 1776A TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Christie Lake 3169S Lead Group 4 Kissimmee River

Clark Lake 1971 TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Clear Lake 3169G TSI Group 4 Kissimmee River

Cowpen Lake 2723A Fish Group 1 Ocklawaha

Crescent Lake 1474V TSI Group 1 Tampa Bay

Crescent Lake 2606B Iron Group 2 Lower St. Johns

Crescent Lake 2606B Fish Group 2 Lower St. Johns

Crescent Lake 2606B TSI Group 2 Lower St. Johns

Crooked Lake 1663 Fish Group 4 Kissimmee River

Dead Lake 2615A Fish Group 2 Lower St. Johns

Deerpoint Lake 553A Fish Group 3 Choctawhatchee

– St. Andrew

Doctors Lake 2389 TSI Group 2 Lower St. Johns200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

135 **Lake WBID**  **Parameter Causing**  **Impairment Basin**  **Group Basin Name** 

Double Pond 210A Fish Group 3 Choctawhatchee

– St. Andrew

Down Lake 3170S Fish Group 4 Kissimmee River

Eagle Lake 1623M TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

East Lake T ohopekaliga 3172 Fish Group 4 Kissimmee River

Ella Lake 2797 A Fish Group 1 Ocklawaha

Fox Lake 3008A Fish Group 3 Upper St. Johns

Fruitwood Lake 2994Y TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Grasshopper Lake 2916B Fish Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Hampton Lake 3635A Fish Group 1 Suwannee

Hillsborough Reservoir 1443E1 DO Group 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries

Hillsborough Reservoir 1443E1 Fish Group 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries

Hillsborough Reservoir 1443E1 Historical Chlorophyll Group 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries

Hollingsworth Lake 1549X Copper Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Hollingsworth Lake 1549X Fecal Coliform Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Hollingsworth Lake 1549X Lead Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Hollingsworth Lake 1549X TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Hollingsworth Lake 1549X Unionized Ammonia Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– P eace

– Myakka

Holly Lake 2803A Fish Group 1 Ocklawaha

Howell Lake 2997B TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Huckleberry Lake 1893 TSI Group 4 Kissimmee River

Island Lake 2994D TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Johns Lake 2873C Fish Group 1 Ocklawaha

Johns Lake 287 3C TSI Group 1 Ocklawaha

Keene Lake 1451B TSI Group 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries

Konomac Lake Reservoir 2954 Fish Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Adair 2997R TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Agnes 1466 Fish Group 4 Withlacoochee

Lake Alma 2986D TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Altho 3605H Fish Group 1 Suwannee

Lake Annie 1938H Fish Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Arbuckle 1685A Fish Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Barber 3036A1 Historical Chlorophyll Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Barton 3023B TSI Group 2 Mid dle St. Johns

Lake Bentley 1549C TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Lake Beresford 2893U TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Bessie 3170T Fish Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Bonny 1497E Lead Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Lake Bonny 1497E TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Lake Bryant 2782C Fish Group 1 Ocklawaha

Lake Bryant 2782C TSI Group 1 Ocklawaha

Lake Buckeye 1488S TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Lake Buffum 1677C Fish Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Lake Burkett 3009C TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Burkett 3009C Unionized Ammonia Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Butler 3170Q Fish Group 4 Kissimmee River200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

136 **Lake WBID**  **Parameter Causing**  **Impairment Basin**  **Group Basin Name** 

Lake Butler 3170Q Historical TSI Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Cannon 1521H TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Lake Carg o 1497D1 TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Lake Catherine 3169P DO Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Catherine 3169P TSI Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Chase 3170V Fish Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Cherry 2839D Fish Group 1 Ocklawaha

Lake Cherry 3322A Fi sh Group 1 Suwannee

Lake Cherry 2839D Historical TSI Group 1 Ocklawaha

Lake Clarke 3245B DO Group 3 Lake Worth Lagoon

– Palm

Beach Coast

Lake Clarke 3245B Iron Group 3 Lake Worth Lagoon

– Palm

Beach Coast

Lake Clinch 1706 Fish Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Concord 2997P TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Cone at Seminole 28932 Fish Group 3 Upper St. Johns

Lake Conine 1488U TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Lake Copeland 3168M TSI Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Crosby 3593A Fish Group 1 Suwannee

Lake C ypress 3180A Fish Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Cypress 3180A TSI Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake D avenport

–

Open Water 1436A DO Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Dead Lady 1474W TSI Group 1 Tampa Bay

Lake Delancey 2894 Fish Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Denha m 2832A DO Group 1 Ocklawaha

Lake Denham 2832A TSI Group 1 Ocklawaha

Lake Disston 2630B Iron Group 2 Lower St. Johns

Lake Disston 2630B Fish Group 2 Lower St. Johns

Lake Dorr 2929C Fish Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Dot 2997Q TSI Group 2 Middle St. Jo hns

Lake Eaton 2771A DO Group 1 Ocklawaha

Lake Eaton 2771A Fish Group 1 Ocklawaha

Lake E ckles

– Open Water 1523D TSI Group 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries

Lake Ellen 1176A Fish Group 1 Ochlockonee

– St. Marks

Lake Eloise 1521B TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakk a

Lake Eusti s 2817B DO Group 1 Ocklawaha

Lake Fairview 3004N TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Fannie 14882 TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Lake Formosa 2997M TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Garfield 1622 TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Lake Gentry 3177 Fish Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake George 2893A Fish Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake George 2893A TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake George Leftover 2893A3 Fish Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Gibson 1497D Lead Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– M yakka200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

137 **Lake WBID**  **Parameter Causing**  **Impairment Basin**  **Group Basin Name** 

Lake Gibson 1497D TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Lake Haines 1488C TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Lake Hancock 1623L DO Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Lake Hancock 1623L TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Lake Hanna 1451T TSI Group 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries

Lake Harney 2964A DO Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Harney 2964A Fish Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Harney 2964A TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Hart 3171 Fish Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Hartridge 1521I TSI Group 3 Sa rasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Lake Hatchineha 1472B Fish Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Hell ‘n’ Blazes 2893Q DO Group 3 Upper St. Johns

Lake Hell ‘n’ Blazes 2893Q Iron Group 3 Upper St. Johns

Lake Hell ‘n’ Blazes 2893Q Fish Group 3 Upper St. Johns

Lake Hell ‘n’ Blazes 2893Q TSI Group 3 Upper St. Johns

Lake H icpochee 3237C Lead Group 3 Caloosahatchee

Lake Holden 3168H TSI Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Howard 1521F TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Lake Hunter 1543 Lead Group 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries

Lak e Hunter 1543 TSI Group 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries

Lake Hunter 1543 Turbidity Group 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries

Lake I dylwild 1521J TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Lake in the Woods 29977 TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake I stokpoga 1856B Fish Group 4 Ki ssimmee River

Lake Istokpoga 1856B Historical TSI Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Istokpoga 1856B TSI Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake I vanhoe 2997F DO Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Ivanhoe 2997F TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake J ackson, Osceola County 318 3G DO Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Jackson, Osceola County 3183G TSI Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Jessie 1521K TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Lake Jessup 2981 TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Jessup 2981 Unionized Ammonia Group 2 Middle St. Jo hns

Lake Jessup near the St.

Johns River 2981A TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Joanna 2821B Historical TSI Group 1 Ocklawaha

Lake J osephine 1860B Fish Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Josephine 1860B TSI Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake J uanita 1473W Histor ical TSI Group 1 Tampa Bay

Lake J une in Winter 1938A Fish Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Juniper 283 Fish Group 3 Choctawhatchee

– St. Andrew

Lake Kerr 2899B Fish Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Killarney 2997X TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Kissimmee (M iddle ) 3183B Fish Group 4 Kissimmee River200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

138 **Lake WBID**  **Parameter Causing**  **Impairment Basin**  **Group Basin Name** 

Lake Kissimmee (Middle) 3183B TSI Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Lawne 3004C TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Lawne 3004C Unionized Ammonia Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Lena 1501 TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Lake Lorna Doone 3169H TSI Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Lotta 3002G TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Louisa 2839M DO Group 1 Ocklawaha

Lake Louisa 2839M Fish Group 1 Ocklawaha

Lake Louise 3170W Fish Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Lulu 1521 TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Lake Lulu 1521 Unionized Ammonia Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Lake M adelene 1516B TSI Group 1 Tampa Bay

Lake M anatee Reservoir 1807B DO Group 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries

Lake Mann 3169I TSI Group 4 Kissimmee River

La ke Margaret 2892 Fish Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Marian 3184 Fish Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Marian 3184 TSI Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Marie 2951 TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Marion 3731A DO Group 1 Suwannee

Lake M ary Jane 3171A Fish Grou p 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Mary Jane 3171A Lead Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Maude 1488Q TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Lake May 1521E TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Lake M iccosukee 791N TSI Group 1 Ochlockonee

- St. Marks

Lake Minnehaha 2 839N Fish Group 1 Ocklawaha

Lake Minnehaha 2997D TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Minneola 2839A Fish Group 1 Ocklawaha

Lake Mirror 1521G TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Lake Molly 2680A TSI Group 2 Lower St. Johns

Lake Monroe 2893D DO Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Monroe 2893D Fish Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Monroe 2893D TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Munson 807C DO Group 1 Ochlockonee

– St. Marks

Lake Munson 807C TSI Group 1 Ochlockonee

– St. Marks

Lake Munson 807C Turbidity Group 1 Och lockonee

– St. Marks

Lake Nash 1450B Fish Group 5 Springs Coast

Lake Norris 2929B Fish Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Ocklawaha 2740B Fish Group 1 Ocklawaha

Lake O ctahatchee 3321A Fish Group 1 Suwannee

Lake Okeechobee 3212A Fish Group 1 Lake Okeechobee

Lake Okeechobee 3212B Fish Group 1 Lake Okeechobee

Lake Okeechobee 3212C Fish Group 1 Lake Okeechobee

Lake Okeechobee 3212D Fish Group 1 Lake Okeechobee

Lake Okeechobee 3212E Fish Group 1 Lake Okeechobee

Lake Okeechobee 3212F Fish Group 1 Lake Okeechob ee200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

139 **Lake WBID**  **Parameter Causing**  **Impairment Basin**  **Group Basin Name** 

Lake Okeechobee 3212G Fish Group 1 Lake Okeechobee

Lake Okeechobee 3212H Fish Group 1 Lake Okeechobee

Lake Okeechobee 3212I Fish Group 1 Lake Okeechobee

Lake Olive 3168N TSI Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Orienta 2998C TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

L ake Osborne 3256A DO Group 3 Lake Worth Lagoon

– Palm

Beach Coast

Lake Panasoffkee 1351B DO Group 4 Withlacoochee

Lake Panasoffkee 1351B Fish Group 4 Withlacoochee

Lake Panasoffkee 1351B Historical TSI Group 4 Withlacoochee

Lake Panasoffkee 1351B TSI Gro up 4 Withlacoochee

Lake Pansy 1488Y TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Lake Park 2997U TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Parker 1497B TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Lake Pickett 3003 Historical Chlorophyll Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Piney Z 756B DO Group 1 Ochlockonee

– St. Marks

Lake Piney Z 756B TSI Group 1 Ochlockonee

– St. Marks

Lake Placid 1938C Fish Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Poinsett 2893K DO Group 3 Upper St. Johns

Lake Poinsett 2893K Fish Group 3 Upper St. Johns

Lake Poinsett 2 893K TSI Group 3 Upper St. Johns

Lake Price 3012A Historical TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake P rimavista 3002E TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake R einheimer

– Open Water 1478H TSI Group 1 Tampa Bay

Lake Rochelle 1488B TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myak ka

Lake Rose 3004I TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Ross 2543F TSI Group 2 Lower St. Johns

Lake Rousseau 1329B DO Group 4 Withlacoochee

Lake Rousseau 1329B Fish Group 4 Withlacoochee

Lake Rowena 2997J TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Russell 3170B Fish Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Sampson 3598D Fish Group 1 Suwannee

Lake Searcy 2986E TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Sebring 1842 Fish Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Sheen 3170H Fish Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Shipp 1521D TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Lake Silver 1553A TSI Group 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries

Lake Smart 1488A TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Lake Spring 2997S TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Suzy 2033Z TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Lake Talquin 1297C DO Group 1 Ochlockonee

– St. Marks

Lake Talquin 1297C Fish Group 1 Ochlockonee

– St. Marks

Lake Talquin 1297D Fish Group 1 Ochlockonee

– St. Marks

Lake Talquin 1297C TSI Group 1 Ochlockonee

– St. Marks

Lake Talquin 1297D TSI Group 1 Ochlockonee

– St. Marks200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

140 **Lake WBID**  **Parameter Causing**  **Impairment Basin**  **Group Basin Name** 

Lake Tarpon 14 86A DO Group 1 Tampa Bay

Lake Tarpon 1486A Historic al TSI Group 1 Tampa Bay

Lake T honotosassa 1522B Fecal Coliform Group 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries

Lake Thonotosassa 1522B Historical Chlorophyll Group 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries

Lake Thonotosassa 1522B Lead G roup 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries

Lake Thonotosassa 1522B TSI Group 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries

Lake Thonotosassa 1522B Unionized Ammonia Group 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries

Lake T ibet Butler 3170Y Fish Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake T ohopekaliga 3173A Fish Group 4 Kis simmee River

Lake Trafford 3259W DO Group 1 Everglades West Coast

Lake Trafford 3259W TSI Group 1 Everglades West Coast

Lake Trafford 3259W Unionized Ammonia Group 1 Everglades West Coast

Lake Underhill 3168G TSI Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake Valrico 1 547A TSI Group 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries

Lake Washington 2893O Fish Group 3 Upper St. Johns

Lake Weeks 971B DO Group 1 Ochlockonee

– St. Marks

Lake Weeks

– O pen Water 1547C TSI Group 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries

Lake Weir 2790A Fish Group 1 Ocklawaha

Lake Weir 2 790A TSI Group 1 Ocklawaha

Lake Winder 2893Y Fish Group 3 Upper St. Johns

Lake Winterset 1521A TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Lake Winyah 2997L TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lake Woodruff 2921 Fish Group 2 Middle St. Johns

L ittle Hickory Bay 325 9Z Fish Group 1 Everglades West Coast

Little Lake Fairview 3004H TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Livingston Lake 1730B Fish Group 4 Kissimmee River

Lake W innemissett 2931 Lead Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Lochloosa Lake 2738A TSI Group 1 Ocklawaha

Lower Lake 3496A DO Group 1 Suwannee

Lower Lake Lafayette 756C DO Group 1 Ochlockonee

– St. Marks

Lower Lake Lafayette 756C TSI Group 1 Ochlockonee

– St. Marks

M ill Dam Lake 2779A Fish Group 1 Ocklawaha

Moccasin Creek 1530A DO Group 1 Tampa Bay

Moccasin Creek 1530A Fecal Coliform Group 1 Tampa Bay

Moccasin Creek 1530A TSI Group 1 Tampa Bay

Moore Lake 889A Fish Group 1 Ochlockonee

– St. Marks

Mound Lake 1473X Historical TSI Group 1 Tampa Bay

Mud Lake 2893J Fish Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Mud Lake 1467 TSI Group 4 Wi thlacoochee

Mullet Lake 2893H Fish Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Newnans Lake 2705B DO Group 1 Ocklawaha

Ocean Pond 2339 Fish Group 4 Nassau

– St. Marys

Orange Lake 2749A DO Group 1 Ocklawaha

Orange Lake Reach 2749 DO Group 1 Ocklawaha

Persimmon Lake 1938E TSI Group 4 Kissimmee River200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

141 **Lake WBID**  **Parameter Causing**  **Impairment Basin**  **Group Basin Name** 

Lake Pineloch 3168I TSI Group 4 Kissimmee River

Pocket Lake 3170Z Fish Group 4 Kissimmee River

Prairie Lake 3002N TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Puzzle Lake 2964B Fish Group 3 Upper St. Johns

R attlesnake Slough 1923 DO Group 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries
Rattlesnake Slough 1923 Fecal Coliform Group 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries
Rattlesnake Slough 1923 Historical Chlorophyll Group 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries
Rattlesnake Slough 1923 TSI Group 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries

R eclaimed Mine Cut Lake 1623X TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Red Lake 3171C Copper Group 4 Kissimmee River

Redwater Lake 2713B TSI Group 1 Ocklawaha

Rock Lake 3169Q TSI Group 4 Kissimmee River

Ruth Lake 2964C Fish Group 3 Upper St. Johns

S and Hammock Pond 61A Fish Gro up 3 Choctawhatchee

– St. Andrew

S anta Fe Lake 3605G Fish Group 1 Suwannee

Sawgrass Lake 28931 DO Group 3 Upper St. Johns

Sawgrass Lake 28931 Fish Group 3 Upper St. Johns

Shell Creek Reservoir (Hamilton Reservoir) 2041B DO Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myak ka

Silver Lake 2825A TSI Group 1 Ocklawaha

Silver Lake 3004D TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Silver Lake 3004D Unionized Ammonia Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Smith Lake 2785A Fish Group 1 Ocklawaha

South Lake 3008B Fish Group 3 Upper St. Johns

South Lake T a lmadge 2630I TSI Group 2 Lower St. Johns

Spirit Lake 1501V TSI Group 3 Sarasota Bay

– Peace

– Myakka

Spring Lake 2987A TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

Starke Lake 3002D TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns

S t. Johns River above

Black Creek 2213I Silver Group 2 Lower St. Johns

St. Johns River above

Black Creek 2213I Fish Group 2 Lower St. Johns

St. Johns River above

Black Creek 2213I TSI Group 2 Lower St. Johns

St. Johns River above

Doctor Lake 2213G Cadmium Group 2 Lower St. Johns

St. Johns River above

Doctor Lake 2213G Fish Group 2 Lower St. Johns

St. Johns River above

Federal Point 2213L Fish Group 2 Lower St. Johns

St. Johns River above

Federal Point 2213L TSI Group 2 Lower St. Johns

St. Johns River above Julington Creek 2213H Fish Group 2 Lower St. Johns

St . Johns River above

P almo Creek 2213J Fish Group 2 Lower St. Johns

St. Johns River above

Palmo Creek 2213J TSI Group 2 Lower St. Johns

St. Johns River above

Tocio 2213K Fish Group 2 Lower St. Johns200 8 Integrated Water Quality Ass essment for Florida

142 **Lake WBID**  **Parameter Causing**  **Impairment Basin**  **Group Basin Name** 

St. Johns River above

Tocio 2213K TSI Group 2 Lower St. Johns

Sunset Lake 1496A TSI Group 1 Tampa Bay

Tallavanna Lake 540A TSI Group 1 Ochlockonee

– St. Marks

Tiger Lake 1573A Fish Group 4 Kissimmee River

Trout Lake 2819A DO Group 1 Ocklawaha

Twin Lake

– O pen Water 1440D TSI Group 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries

Upp er Lake Lafayette 756A DO Group 1 Ochlockonee

– St. Marks

Upper Lake Lafayette 756A Fecal Coliform Group 1 Ochlockonee

– St. Marks

Ward Lake 1914A TSI Group 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries

Waunatta Lake 3009A TSI Group 2 Middle St. Johns