FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration

Water Quality Assessment Report

NORTHEAST DISTRICT • GROUP 5 BASIN • 2008

Upper East Coast

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration

Water Quality Assessment Report

2008

Upper East Coast 

Acknowledgments

The Upper East Coast Water Quality Assessment Report was prepared by 

the Upper East Coast Basin Team, Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection, as part of a five-year cycle to restore and protect Florida’s water 

quality. Team members include the following:

Jennifer Gihring, Basin Coordinator

Wayne Magley, Water Quality Assessment Coordinator

Katrina Sanders, Water Quality Assessment

Jessica Rich-Zeisler, Water Quality Assessment

Paul Lee, Ph.D., P.G., Ground Water Protection Section

Janis Paulsen

Amanda Dorsett

Terry Frohm

Cindy Cosper

Patti Sanzone

John Davis

Tom Kallemeyn

Lee Banks

Editorial and writing assistance provided by

Linda Lord, Watershed Planning and Coordination

Production assistance provided by

Center for Advancement of Learning and Assessment

Florida State University

210-B Sliger Building

2035 E. Paul Dirac Drive

Tallahassee, FL 32310

Map production assistance provided by

Florida Resources and Environmental Analysis Center

Florida State University

University Center, C2200

Tallahassee, FL 32306-2641

For additional information on the watershed management 

approach and impaired waters in the Upper East Coast Basin, 

contact

Jennifer Gihring

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Bureau of Watershed Restoration, Watershed Planning and 

Coordination Section

2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3565

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400

jennifer.gihring@dep.state.fl.us

Phone: (850) 245-8418; SunCom: 205-8418

Fax: (850) 245-8434

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 5
Access to all data used in the development of this report can be 

obtained by contacting

Wayne Magley

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Bureau of Watershed Restoration, Watershed Assessment Section

2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3555

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400

wayne.magley@dep.state.fl.us

Phone: (850) 245-8463; SunCom: 205-8463

Fax: (850) 245-8356

Web Sites

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of 

Watershed Management

TMDL Program

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

Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/legal/Rules/shared/62-303/62-303.pdf

STORET Program

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

2004 305(b) Report

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/docs/2004_Integrated_Report.pdf

Criteria for Surface Water Quality Classifications

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/surface.htm

Status/Assessment Reports

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 4: Total Maximum Daily Loads in Florida

http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/tmdl/florida/

National STORET Program

http://www.epa.gov/storet/

6 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Preface

Content Features

• Executive Summary: Appears at the beginning of every report and 

provides an overview of the watershed management, its implementation, and how this approach will be used to identify impaired waters.

• Sidebar: Appears throughout the report and provides additional 

information pertinent to the text on that page.

• Noteworthy: Appears on pages near text that needs additional 

information but is too lengthy to fi t in a sidebar.

• Defi nitions: Appear where scientifi c terms occur that may not 

be familiar to all readers. The word being defi ned is bold-faced in 

the text.

• References: Appear immediately before the Appendices and provide 

a complete listing of all sources used in the text.

• Appendices: Appear at the end of the report and provide additional 

information on a range of subjects such as bioassessment methodology, rainfall and stream fl ow, types of natural communities, 

STORET stations, water quality statistics, land use, and permitted 

facilities.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 7

Executive Summary

Upper East Coast

The Water Quality Assessment Report for the Upper East Coast Basin 

is part of the implementation of the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection’s (Department’s) watershed management approach for restoring and protecting water resources and addressing Total Maximum Daily 

Load (TMDL) Program requirements. A TMDL represents the maximum amount of a given pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate and still 

meet the waterbody’s designated uses. A waterbody that does not meet its 

designated uses is defi ned as impaired. The watershed approach, which is 

implemented using a cyclical management process, provides a framework 

for implementing the requirements of the 1972 federal Clean Water Act 

and the 1999 Florida Watershed Restoration Act (Chapter 99-223, Laws of 

Florida).

A Status Report, published during Phase 1 of the watershed management cycle, provided a Planning List, or preliminary identifi cation, of 

potentially impaired waterbodies in the Upper East Coast Basin. This 

Assessment Report presents the results of additional data gathered during 

Phase 2 of the cycle. The report contains a Verifi ed List of impaired waters 

(Table 5.2 in Chapter 5) that has been adopted by Secretarial Order and 

approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). TMDLs 

must be developed and implemented for these waters, unless the impairment is documented to be a naturally occurring condition that cannot 

be abated by a TMDL, or unless a management plan already in place is 

expected to correct the problem. The Verifi ed List also constitutes the 

Group 5 basin-specifi c 303(d) list of impaired waters, so called because it 

is required under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. In addition, the 

report provides the results of a preliminary ground water quality assessment and discusses priorities for further evaluation, resource priorities, and 

proposed actions. (See Noteworthy in Chapter 1 for a description of the 

contents of this report, by chapter.)

In the Upper East Coast Basin, state, federal, regional, and local 

agencies and organizations are making progress toward identifying problems and improving water quality. Through its watershed management 

activities, the Department works with these entities to support programs 

that are improving water quality and restoring and protecting ecological 

resources. The Department’s TMDL Program objectives will be carried 

out in the basin through close coordination with key stakeholders such as 

the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), St. Johns 

County, Flagler County, Volusia County, area municipalities, and the 

Guana– Tolomato–Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve.

Not only do stakeholders in the basin share responsibilities in achieving 

water quality improvement objectives, they also play a crucial role in providing the Department with important monitoring data and information 

on management activities. Signifi cant data providers in the basin include 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 9
the Department, the SJRWMD, Volusia County, the Florida Department 

of Health, and Florida LakeWatch.

During the next few years, considerable data analysis will be done 

to establish TMDLs for impaired waters in the Upper East Coast Basin, 

establish the initial allocations of pollutant load reductions needed to meet 

those TMDLs, and produce a Basin Management Action Plan to reduce 

the amount of pollutants that cause impairments. These activities depend 

heavily on the active participation of the water management district, local 

governments, businesses, and other stakeholders. The Department will 

work with these organizations and individuals to undertake or continue 

reductions in the discharge of pollutants and achieve the established 

TMDLs for impaired waterbodies.

Summary of Findings

The Department’s assessment shows that 46 waterbodies or waterbody segments in the Upper East Coast Basin are impaired and require 

the development of TMDLs. Additional segments of the coastline are also 

impaired for mercury in fi sh. The following summarizes, by planning unit, 

impairments by waterbody types and the primary pollutants. Planning 

units are smaller areas in the basin that provide a more detailed geographic 

basis for identifying and assessing water quality improvement activities.

Tolomato River Planning Unit

Of the waterbody segments in the Tolomato River Planning Unit, 

14 segments are verifi ed impaired for at least 1 parameter assessed and 

none meet water quality standards for all parameters. Of the waterbodies 

assessed, 13 estuarine and freshwater segments were identifi ed as meeting 

standards for at least 1 parameter. These parameters included chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen (DO), turbidity, fecal coliforms, and several trace 

metals. 

The 14 verifi ed impaired segments in the planning unit, and the 

parameters of impairment, are as follows:

Waterbody WBID Parameter(s)

Guana River 2320 Chlorophyll a, DO, fecal 

 coliforms, coliforms in shellfi sh, 

mercury in fi sh

Guana River 2320F Chlorophyll a, DO, fecal 

 coliforms, coliforms in shellfi sh, 

mercury in fi sh

Capo Creek 2435 Mercury in fi sh

Marshall Creek 2442 Fecal coliforms, coliforms in 

 shellfi sh

Stokes Creek 2451 Mercury in fi sh

Casa Cola Creek 2468 Mercury in fi sh

Sombrero Creek 2470 Fecal coliforms, mercury in fi sh

Ximanies Creek 2477 Coliforms in shellfi sh, mercury 

in fi sh

10 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Pancho Creek 2483 Mercury in fi sh

Robinson Creek 2487 Mercury in fi sh

Lake Vedra 2320A Chlorophyll a, DO, mercury 

in fi sh

Tolomato River 2363I Arsenic, copper, iron, nickel, 

 coliforms in shellfi sh, mercury 

in fi sh

Lower Deep Creek 2406A Mercury in fi sh

St. Marks Pond Estuary 2457A Mercury in fi sh

Coastal waterbodies in this planning unit (waterbody identifi cation 

numbers [WBIDs] in the 8000 series) are also verifi ed for mercury in fi sh. 

Matanzas River Planning Unit

Of the 24 waterbody segments in the Matanzas River Planning Unit, 

9 are verifi ed impaired for at least 1 parameter assessed and 2 meet water 

quality standards for all parameters. Of the waterbodies assessed, 10 were 

identifi ed as meeting standards for at least 1 parameter. These parameters 

included biology, chlorophyll a, DO, fecal coliforms, turbidity, and several 

trace metals.

The nine verifi ed impaired segments in the planning unit, and the 

parameters of impairment, are as follows:

Waterbody WBID Parameter(s)

Red House Branch 2472 Fecal coliforms

Moultrie Creek 2493 Fecal coliforms, iron

Salt Run 2502 Mercury in fi sh

Quarry Creek 2510 Mercury in fi sh

Unnamed Bayou 2513 Mercury in fi sh

East Creek 2519 Mercury in fi sh

San Julian Creek 2529 Mercury in fi sh

Matanzas River 2363G Iron, lead, mercury in fi sh

St. Augustine Inlet 2363H Mercury in fi sh

Coastal waterbodies in this planning unit (WBIDs in the 8000 series) 

are also verifi ed for mercury in fi sh.

Pellicer Creek Planning Unit

Of the 20 waterbody segments in the Pellicer Creek Planning Unit, 

4 are verifi ed impaired for at least 1 parameter assessed and 3 meet water 

quality standards for all parameters assessed. Of the waterbodies assessed, 

10 were identifi ed as meeting standards for at least 1 parameter. These 

parameters included chlorophyll a, unionized ammonia, DO, fecal 

 coliforms, turbidity, and several trace metals.

The four verifi ed impaired segments in the planning unit, and the 

parameters of impairment, are as follows:

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 11
Waterbody WBID Parameter(s)

Palm Coast 2363D Mercury in fi sh

Intracoastal Waterway 2363E Arsenic, iron, mercury in fi sh

Intracoastal Waterway 2363F Coliforms in shellfi sh, mercury 

in fi sh

Pellicer Creek 2580B Fecal coliforms, iron

Coastal waterbodies in this planning unit (WBIDs in the 8000 series) 

are also verifi ed for mercury in fi sh.

Halifax River Planning Unit

Of the 45 waterbody segments in the Halifax River Planning Unit, 

19 are verifi ed impaired for at least 1 parameter assessed and none meet 

water quality standards for all parameters assessed. Of the waterbodies 

assessed, 21 were identifi ed as meeting standards for at least 1 parameter. 

These parameters included chlorophyll a, DO, fecal coliforms, turbidity, 

and several trace metals.

The 19 verifi ed impaired segments in the planning unit, and the 

parameters of impairment, are as follows:

Waterbody WBID Parameter(s)

Bulow Creek 2620 DO, iron

Unnamed Branch 2641 Fecal coliforms

Unnamed Branch 2642 Mercury in fi sh

Holly Hill Ditch 2647 DO

Halifax Canal 2670 Fecal coliforms

Rose Bay 2672 DO, mercury in fi sh

Spruce Creek 2674 Fecal coliforms, iron

Spruce Creek 2674A Copper, DO, fecal coliforms, iron,

 mercury in fi sh, chlorophyll a

Sand Creek 2675 DO

Strickland Bay 2674B Fecal coliforms, mercury in fi sh

Turnbull Bay 2678 DO, mercury in fi sh, 

chlorophyll a

Halifax River 2363A Mercury in fi sh

Halifax River 2363B Copper, iron, mercury in fi sh

Tomoka Basin 2363C Mercury in fi sh

Palm Coast 2363J Mercury in fi sh

Tomoka River 2634A Iron, mercury in fi sh

Dunlawton 8117B Coliforms (beach advisory)

Hilton 8117C Coliforms (beach advisory)

Silver Beach 8117D Coliforms (beach advisory)

Coastal waterbodies in this planning unit (WBIDs in the 8000 series) 

are also verifi ed for mercury in fi sh.

12 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Total Maximum Daily Load Priority Areas

Spruce Creek was designated as the high-priority area for TMDL 

development in the Upper East Coast Basin. Section 62-303.500, Florida 

Administrative Code, defi nes high-priority waters as waterbody segments 

where the impairment poses a threat to potable water supplies or human 

health; waterbody segments where the impairment is due to a pollutant 

regulated by the Clean Water Act and the pollutant has contributed to 

the decline or extirpation of a federally listed threatened or endangered 

 species, as indicated in the Federal Register listing the species; or waterbody 

 segments verifi ed as impaired that are included on the EPA’s 1998 303(d) 

list as high priority.

The waterbody segments identifi ed as a high-priority area for TMDL 

development are as follows: 

Waterbody WBID Parameter(s)

Spruce Creek

 (stream segment) 2674 Fecal coliforms, iron

Spruce Creek

 (estuarine segment) 2674A Copper, DO, fecal coliforms, iron, 

mercury in fi sh, chlorophyll a

All of the remaining parameters causing impairment for the WBIDs 

placed on the Verifi ed List have been assigned medium or low priority for 

TMDL development. TMDLs for these waterbodies are due in 2011, 2012, 

and 2017.

Summary of Ground Water and Springs 

Assessment Findings

As is the case elsewhere in the state, ground water seepage provides 

water to the basin’s streams, canals, and coastal waterbodies, and can 

infl uence surface water quality. Basefl ow data suggest that ground water 

provides approximately half of the water to streams in the basin.

Basinwide Observations of Elevated Parameter Concentrations

Phosphorus concentrations in ground water are signifi cant throughout 

the basin, except in the Tolomato River Planning Unit. In addition, the 

median ground water values in all of the planning units are comparable 

with the total phosphorus medians for impaired surface waters listed for 

nutrients and DO, suggesting a common source of phosphorus. Ground 

water discharge should not be overlooked as a potentially signifi cant contributing source of phosphorus to these surface waterbodies.

Nitrate (and nitrate+nitrite) values for ground water are relatively low, 

while ammonia median concentrations in the surfi cial aquifer are somewhat high compared with the statewide surface water medians. Ammonia 

 medians for the surfi cial aquifer are at least an order of magnitude higher 

than the typical values for streams. However, compared with the total 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 13
nitrogen values recorded for surface water samples, the contribution of 

ammonia from ground water does not appear to be appreciable.

For iron, median values in the surfi cial aquifer wells sampled are higher 

than Florida’s secondary ground water maximum contaminant level (MCL) 

and the typical median value for streams in Florida (200 micrograms 

per liter [μg/L]). High iron medians suggest that where ground water to 

 surface water pathways exist, iron in ground water could also be a source of 

elevated iron in surface waterbodies.

Median concentrations of copper in ground water are also higher than 

the secondary ground water MCL and are slightly higher than both the 

medians for ground water in surrounding basins and the typical medians 

for streams and coastal waters.

In ground water, concentrations of lead, nickel, and arsenic are lower 

than the surface water thresholds used to list surface waters for potential 

impairment in most of the planning units. However, medians in the surfi cial aquifer for lead in the Halifax River Planning Unit and nickel in the 

Tolomato River Planning Unit are somewhat higher.

Low DO is documented as a natural condition of ground water in all 

the basin’s planning units. Ground water medians are much lower than 

the typical medians for streams and estuarine waters; therefore, signifi cant 

inputs of ground water could depress DO levels in poorly mixed surface 

waters. 

Halifax River Planning Unit

Eight stream and estuarine waterbodies are on the draft Verifi ed List 

because of low DO; one stream is on the draft list for nutrients (chlorophyll a); fi ve streams or estuarine segments are on the draft list for iron; 

and two estuarine stream segments are on the draft list for copper.

Of the waterbodies verifi ed as impaired by low DO and/or high 

nutrients in the planning unit, median phosphorus concentrations were 

all elevated; this appears to be an ambient condition. In these instances, 

 nitrogen appears to be the limiting nutrient.

The available ground water concentrations for nitrogen (nitrate+nitrite 

and ammonia) are much lower than total nitrogen levels in the surface 

water samples; thus, it is not clear whether ground water plays a role 

in nitrogen enrichment. Sources of nitrogen, such as septic tanks, are 

often localized and would not be picked up in an ambient ground water 

 monitoring program.

Median iron concentrations in the planning unit’s surfi cial aquifer are 

higher than both the estuarine and freshwater surface water standards, 

and ground water basefl ow to streams in the planning unit comprises 

about 50 percent of the total fl ow. Natural sources and the delivery 

of iron via ground water seepage have been identifi ed for the Tomoka 

River (WBID 2634A) and two segments of Spruce Creek (WBIDs 2674 

and 2674A). The other two waters listed for iron—Halifax River 

(WBID 2363B) and Spruce Creek (WBID 2674A)—also likely have 

 natural sources.

14 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Halifax River and Spruce Creek, which are also listed for copper, 

have median copper concentrations similar to the median ground water 

values for the surfi cial aquifer. If these two metals correlate in terms of 

 concentrated sources (organic material) and ground water contribution, 

some elevation of copper may also be a natural condition. 

Matanzas River Planning Unit 

As with the Halifax River Planning Unit, ground water is high in iron, 

but there are fewer wells with data. Basefl ow from ground water is signifi -

cant, ranging from 43 to 55 percent in Moultrie Creek (WBID 2493) and 

nearby streams. In both Moultrie Creek and the estuarine segment of the 

Matanzas River (WBID 2363G), elevated iron was identifi ed as a natural 

condition linked to ground water.

The estuarine Matanzas River (WBID 2363G) is listed as impaired for 

lead. However, there is no obvious subregional elevation of lead in ground 

water. Without additional data, it is impossible to identify a localized 

source of lead near the river, if one exists.

The causative pollutant for low DO in an offshore area, Matanzas 

River Ocean (WBID 8122), is not currently identifi ed. Considering the 

mixing that occurs in offshore waters, it is unlikely that ground water discharge could signifi cantly lower DO. 

Pellicer Creek Planning Unit

Pellicer Creek (WBID 2580B) is listed for iron, as is a segment of the 

Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW) (WBID 2363E). The same segment of 

the ICWW is also listed for arsenic, and an unnamed drain (WBID 2550) 

is listed for low DO.

The elevated iron concentrations in Pellicer Creek appear to be caused 

by natural conditions. Iron concentrations in ground water in the planning unit are high, and basefl ow in the upper segment of Pellicer Creek is 

44 percent. Elevated iron levels in Cracker Branch (WBID 2553) are also 

the result of natural conditions.

Based on available data, arsenic concentrations in ground water in the 

planning unit are much lower than the elevated detections in the impaired 

ICWW segment. Ground water seepage from a localized source could be 

responsible, but this cannot be determined with available data.

Ground water infl ows (particularly in poorly mixed areas) may be the 

cause of low DO in the unnamed drain (WBID 2550). For the segment 

of the ICWW that is listed for DO with no causative pollutant, ground 

water contribution could play a role. However, this cannot be determined 

without a more detailed evaluation.

Tolomato River Planning Unit

Two estuarine waters are listed for nutrients (chlorophyll a) and low 

DO (the Guana River [WBID 2320] and Lake Vedra [WBID 2320A]); 

however, based on the limited ground water data available for the planning unit, it cannot be determined if ground water-related nitrogen or 

 phosphorus is an issue.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 15
Nickel and arsenic concentrations in the Tolomato River do not appear 

to be related to regional ground water contributions, based on a comparison 

of available water quality data. In contrast, iron and copper concentrations 

in the Tolomato River are similar to the levels reported for the surfi cial 

aquifer, and elevated concentrations of these metals could be due to natural 

conditions. 

16 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Purposes and Content of the Assessment Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Stakeholder Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

The Watershed Management Cycle in the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection’s Northeast District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Chapter 2: Basin Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Basin Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Surface Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Surface Water Quality Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Special Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Outstanding Florida Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Surface Water Improvement and Management Priority Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Ground Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Aquifers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Ground Water Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Ground Water–Surface Water Interactions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Priority Water Resource Caution Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Watershed Management Activities and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Major Programs and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Northern Coastal Basin Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

St. Johns River Water Management District Stormwater Management 

Cost-Share Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Guana Marsh Renovation Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Rose Bay Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Guana–Tolomato–Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

St. Johns County Model Fertilizer Ordinance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Agricultural Best Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Chapter 3: Surface Water Quality Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Scope of the Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Update on Strategic Monitoring and Data-Gathering Activities During 

Phase 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Sources of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Attainment of Designated Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Integrated Report Categories and Assessment Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Planning Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Assessment by Planning Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Tolomato River and Matanzas River Planning Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Pellicer Creek Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Halifax River Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68

General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 17
Chapter 4: Evaluation of Ground Water/ Geologic Influences on 

Impaired Waterbodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Geology, Soil, and Ground Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Nutrients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Dissolved Oxygen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80

Evaluations by Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Overview of Ground Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80

Evaluation by Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84

Halifax River Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Matanzas River Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Pellicer Creek Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Tolomato River Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Chapter 5: The Verified List of Impaired Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Identification of Impaired Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

The Verified List of Impaired Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Pollutants Causing Impairments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88

Adoption Process for the Verified List of Impaired Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99

Chapter 6: TMDL Development, Allocation, and Implementation . . .101

Prioritization of Listed Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Total Maximum Daily Load Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Total Maximum Daily Load Allocation and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Initial Allocation of Pollutant Loadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Implementation Programs and Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Development of Basin Management Action Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113

Tables

Table 1.1: Stakeholder Involvement in the TMDL Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Table 2.1: Outstanding Florida Waters in the Upper East Coast Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Table 3.1: Summary of Data Providers in the Upper East Coast Basin 

(January 1, 1999–June 30, 2006), Based on IWR Run 29z.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Table 3.2: Designated Use Attainment Categories for Surface Waters in Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Table 3.3: Categories for Waterbodies or Waterbody Segments in the 2002 Integrated Report . . . . 48

Table 3.4: Planning Units in the Upper East Coast Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Table 3.5: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Tolomato River Planning Unit . . . 54

Table 3.6: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Matanzas River Planning Unit . . . 57

Table 3.7: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Pellicer Creek Planning Unit . . . . 65

Table 3.8: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Halifax River Planning Unit . . . . . 70

Table 4.1: Ground Water Statistics for Planning Units in the Upper East Coast Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Table 5.1: Schedule for Development and Adoption of the Upper East Coast Verifi ed List . . . . . . . . 87

Table 5.2: The Verifi ed List of Impaired Waters for the Upper East Coast Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Table 5.3: Parameters Causing Potential Impairments in the Upper East Coast Basin . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Table 5.4: Screening Level Values (70th Percentile) Based on STORET Data, 1970–87 . . . . . . . . . . 98

18 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Figures

Figure 1.1: Schedule for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle in the Department’s 

Northeast District, Basin Groups 1 through 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Figure 2.1: Geopolitical Map of the Upper East Coast Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Figure 2.2: Surface Water Resources of the Upper East Coast Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 2.3: Ground Water Usage and Known Contaminated Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Figure 3.1: Sources of Data for the Upper East Coast Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Figure 3.2: Locations and Boundaries of Planning Units in the Upper East Coast Basin . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Figure 3.3: Composite Map of the Tolomato River Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List, 

Planning List and Verifi ed List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Figure 3.4: Composite Map of the Matanzas River Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List, 

Planning List and Verifi ed List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Figure 3.5: Composite Map of the Pellicer Creek Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List, 

Planning List and Verifi ed List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Figure 3.6: Composite Map of the Halifax River Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List, 

 Planning List and Verifi ed List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Figure 4.1: Orthophosphate Concentrations in Surfi cial Aquifer Monitoring Wells, Upper East 

Coast Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Figure 4.2: Iron Concentrations in Surfi cial Aquifer Monitoring Wells, Upper East Coast Basin . . . . . 83

Figure 5.1: Waters on the Verifi ed List, with Projected Year for TMDL Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Figure 6.1: Upper East Coast Basin Priority TMDL Priority Watersheds for 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Table 5.5: Upper East Coast Basin Median Values for the Verifi ed Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Table 5.6: Upper East Coast Basin Nitrogen to Phosphorus Ratios for the Verifi ed Period . . . . . . . . . 99

Table 6.1: TMDL Development Timeline in the Upper East Coast Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Table 6.2: Municipal NPDES Stormwater Permittees in the Upper East Coast Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 19

Chapter 1: Introduction

Total Maximum 

Daily Load

The maximum amount 

of a given pollutant that a 

waterbody can assimilate 

and remain healthy, such that 

all of its designated uses are 

met.

Purposes and Content of the Assessment 

Report

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) 

is implementing a statewide watershed management approach for restoring 

and protecting water quality and addressing Total Maximum Daily Load

(TMDL) Program requirements. Under Section 303(d) of the 1972 federal 

Clean Water Act and the 1999 Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA) 

(Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida), TMDLs must be developed for all 

waters that do not meet their designated uses (such as drinking water, recreation, and shellfi sh harvesting) and are thus defi ned as impaired. 

TMDLs will be developed, and the corresponding reductions in pollutant loads allocated, as part of the watershed management approach, which 

rotates through the state’s 52 river basins over a 5-year cycle. Extensive 

public participation from diverse stakeholders in each of these basins is 

crucial in all phases of the cycle.

A Status Report published during Phase 1 of the watershed management cycle provided a Planning List, or preliminary identifi cation, of potentially impaired waterbodies in the Upper East Coast Basin. A copy of the 

report can be found at http://www.dep.state.fl .us/water/tmdl/stat_rep.htm.

This Assessment Report, which updates the information in the Status 

Report, incorporates data collected from the Department’s strategic monitoring and gathered from other agencies and groups during Phase 2 of the 

watershed cycle. The report contains a Verifi ed List of impaired waters 

required by the FWRA and Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, 

for which TMDLs must be developed and implemented. It also describes 

the results of a preliminary ground water quality assessment and discusses 

priorities for further evaluation, as well as resource priorities and proposed 

actions. (See Noteworthy for a description of the contents of the Assessment Report, by chapter.)

Based on the assessment results, 46 waterbodies or waterbody segments 

in the Upper East Coast Basin are verifi ed impaired for 1 or more parameters. TMDLs must be developed for these waters, unless the impairment is documented to be a naturally occurring condition that a TMDL 

cannot abate, or unless a management plan is already in place to correct the 

 problem.

This report is intended for distribution to a broad range of potential 

stakeholders, including decision makers in federal, state, regional, tribal, 

and local governments; public and private interests; and citizens.

The Verifi ed List is required by Subsection 403.067(4), Florida 

 Statutes, and Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act. The Department has adopted the Verifi ed List of impaired waters in accordance with 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 21
the FWRA and the Identifi cation of Impaired Surface Waters Rule (Rule 

62-303, Florida Administrative Code). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has also approved this list as the current 303(d) list of 

impaired waters for the basin, so called because it is required under Section 

303(d) of the Clean Water Act. 

The fi rst 303(d) list, which was required by the EPA in 1998, is to 

be amended annually to include basin updates. Florida’s 1998 303(d) list 

included a number of waterbodies in the Upper East Coast Basin.

This Assessment Report follows the EPA’s guidance for meshing 

Clean Water Act requirements for Section 305(b) water quality reports 

and Section 303(d) lists of impaired waters. The integrated water quality 

assessment is used to identify the status of data suffi ciency, the potential 

for impairment, and the need for TMDL development for each waterbody 

or waterbody segment in the basin. Tables 3.5 through 3.8 in Chapter 3 

provide an integrated assessment for the Upper East Coast Basin, by planning unit.

Appendix A describes the legislative and regulatory background for 

TMDL development and implementation through the watershed management approach, and briefl y explains the TMDL Program. Background 

information on the Department’s TMDL Program, the process of TMDL 

development and implementation, lists of impaired and potentially 

impaired waters, and assessments for other parts of the state are available at 

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

Stakeholder Involvement

The FWRA requires the Department to work closely with stakeholders to develop and implement TMDLs. Stakeholder involvement in the 

TMDL process will vary with each phase of implementation to achieve 

different purposes (Table 1.1). 

The Department will work cooperatively with a number of key stakeholders to develop, allocate, and implement TMDLs in the Upper East 

Coast Basin. These include the Department’s Northeast District, the 

St. Johns River Water Management District, and Volusia County.

22 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Watershed Management Cycle Nature of Stakeholder Involvement

Phase 1: 

Preliminary

Evaluation

Close coordination with local stakeholders to conduct a preliminary basin water 

quality assessment, inventory existing and proposed management activities, 

identify management objectives and issues of concern, develop a Strategic 

Monitoring Plan, and produce a preliminary Status Report that includes a Planning List of potentially impaired waters

Phase 2:

Strategic Monitoring

and Assessment

Cooperative efforts between the Department and local stakeholders to collect additional data; enter data into STORET (the EPA’s national water quality 

STOrage and RETrieval database); complete the water quality assessment; produce a final Assessment Report that includes a Verified List of impaired waters 

for Secretarial adoption; and provide an opportunity for stakeholders to document reasonable assurance (for Department review) that existing or proposed 

management plans and projects are adequate to restore water quality without 

the establishment of a TMDL

Phase 3:

Development and

Adoption of TMDLs

Coordination with stakeholders to discuss TMDL model framework, including 

model requirements, parameters to be modeled, model endpoints, design run 

scenarios, and preliminary allocations; communication of science used in the 

process; public workshops for rule adoption of TMDLs

Phase 4:

Development of Basin 

Management Action Plan 

Broad stakeholder participation in developing a Basin Management Action Plan 

(B-MAP) (including detailed allocations and implementation strategies), incorporating it into existing management plans where feasible; public meetings 

during the planning process

Phase 5:

Implementation of Basin 

Management Action Plan

Emphasis on implementing the B-MAP, other voluntary stakeholder actions, 

and local watershed management structures; Department will continue to 

provide technical assistance, fulfill oversight responsibilities, and administer 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System point and nonpoint source 

permits

Table 1.1: Stakeholder Involvement in the TMDL Program

The Watershed Management Cycle in 

the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection’s Northeast District

Figure 1.1 shows the order in which the Department’s Northeast 

District basins will be evaluated under the watershed management cycle. 

These groups are identifi ed according to a U.S. Geological Survey classifi cation system using hydrologic unit codes.

Suwannee, a Group 1 basin, was the fi rst basin in the district to 

undergo a preliminary assessment in 2000. A preliminary assessment for 

the Group 2 basin, Lower St. Johns, was completed in 2001. There is no 

designated Group 3 basin in the Northeast District. Similarly, a preliminary assessment for the Group 4 basin, Nassau–St. Marys, was initiated in 

2003, and the Group 5 preliminary assessment for the Upper East Coast 

Basin was begun in 2004. In 2005, the cycle resumed with the Group 1 

basin, Suwannee.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 23
Figure 1.1: Schedule for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle in the Department’s Northeast 

District, Basin Groups 1 through 5

24 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
• Chapter 1: Introduction

briefly characterizes the 

purposes and content of the 

Water Quality Assessment 

Report, discusses stakeholder 

involvement, and describes 

how the watershed management cycle will be implemented in the Department’s 

Northeast District.

• Chapter 2: Basin Overview

characterizes the basin’s 

general setting, water 

resources, major water 

quality trends, and watershed 

management activities and 

processes.

• Chapter 3: Surface Water 

Quality Assessment discusses 

the scope of the assessment, 

summarizes data-gathering 

activities and sources of data, 

describes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 

terminology for designated 

use attainment and its integrated report categories, and 

provides, by basin planning 

unit, an evaluation of water 

quality, a discussion of permitted discharges and land uses, 

and an overview of water 

quality improvement plans 

and projects.

Contents of This Report

• Chapter 4: Evaluation of 

Ground Water/Geologic 

Influences on Impaired 

Waterbodies describes the 

Department’s principal ground 

water monitoring networks, 

the basin assessment methodology, the results of the 

preliminary assessment of 

ground water quality and 

ground water to surface water 

inter actions, and resource priorities and proposed actions.

• Chapter 5: The Verified List 

of Impaired Waters contains 

the Verified List of impaired 

waters, discusses public 

participation, describes 

documentation of reasonable 

assurance, lists the pollutants 

causing impairments, provides 

listings based on other information indicating a nutrient 

imbalance, and describes 

the adoption process for the 

Verified List.

• Chapter 6: TMDL Development, Allocation, and Implementation discusses the 

prioritization of listed waters, 

TMDL development, TMDL 

allocation and implementation, and the development 

of a Basin Management 

Action Plan.

Noteworthy 25 Water Quality Assessment Report: 

Upper East Coast

Chapter 2: Basin Overview

Basin Setting

The Upper East Coast Basin is located on the northern Atlantic coast 

of Florida. Covering approximately 692 square miles (excluding estuarine 

areas), it includes the watersheds along the Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW) 

from Ponce de Leon Inlet in Volusia County, north through Flagler and 

St. Johns Counties, to southern Duval County. The basin encompasses 

coastal lowlands and extensive marshes interspersed with numerous creeks 

and small rivers draining east to form a series of shallow bays and lagoons. 

These are separated from the Atlantic Ocean by a barrier island system with 

three inlets: St. Augustine, Matanzas, and Ponce de Leon.

Some parts of the basin, particularly the coastal areas, are already 

highly urbanized. Others, such as areas along upper Spruce Creek and the 

Tolomato River, have become subject to development pressures. The principal land use in the basin is silviculture, with urban uses found primarily 

along the coast. Urban development is expected to continue expanding 

westward from the coast. Sizable areas designated for silviculture, agriculture, and conservation remain in each of the three counties but may be 

under development pressure.

The basin has 188,854 acres in the 100-year fl oodplain, 43 percent of 

its total land and water area (St. Johns River Water Management District 

[SJRWMD], 2000). As of 1995, 10 percent of this area had been developed, with an additional 11 percent slated for future low-density residential 

development and 14 percent designated for future higher density residential 

or nonresidential development (SJRWMD, 2000). The most extensive 

areas of fl oodplain developed or designated for development are in the 

 portions of the basin in Volusia County and the St. Augustine and Ponte 

Vedra areas in St. Johns County (SJRWMD, 2000).

There are a number of domestic and industrial wastewater facilities 

(point sources) in the basin with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits to discharge to surface waters. Most of the facilities 

are domestic wastewater treatment plants. The basin’s nonpoint sources of 

pollution, which can degrade ground water as well as surface water quality, 

include stormwater runoff or the leaching of pollutants into ground water 

from agriculture, silviculture and urban/suburban land uses, atmospheric 

deposition, and septic tanks.

Septic tanks can be a source of nutrients, pathogens, and other pollutants. There are known septic tank problems in the Ponte Vedra area, 

on Anastasia Island, on the barrier island east of Palm Coast, and in the 

Rose Bay area (SJRWMD, 2000). In 1995, the total numbers of septic 

tanks in the basin, by county, ranged from 3,352 in Flagler County 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 27
 (serving 18 percent of the population) to 66,949 in Volusia County (serving 32 percent of the population) (SJRWMD, 2000). Total on-site sewage 

treatment and disposal system (OSTDS) failure rates in St. Johns and 

Volusia Counties exceed average state failure rates. New OSTDS failure 

rates for Flagler, St. Johns, and Volusia Counties exceed average state failure 

rates (SJRWMD, 2000).

The SJRWMD 2000 District Water Management Plan identifi ed 

regionally signifi cant habitat areas in the basin. These include the 

 following:

• Volusia County: Spruce Creek and Tomoka River corridors, 

including the Spruce Creek estuary marshes; Tiger Bay and Bennett 

Swamp; silviculture, wetlands, and fl atwoods west of I-95; wetlands, 

fl atwoods, and hardwood forest north of the Tomoka and Halifax 

Rivers

• Flagler County: Bulow Creek/Graham Swamp corridor; Pellicer 

Creek and Matanzas River estuary marshes; wetlands, fl atwoods, 

and hardwood forest west of the Matanzas River; Hulett Branch and 

Swamp; silviculture and wetlands west of U.S. 1, including Pringle 

Branch and Swamp

• St. Johns County: Guana River corridor, including the Guana and 

Tolomato estuaries; Guana Marsh watershed; ICWW, Fish Swamp, 

and wetlands, fl atwoods, and hardwood forest in between; other 

linear swamps

The population of the Upper East Coast Basin has increased rapidly in 

recent years. Flagler County has experienced rapid growth. In 1990, the 

total population of Flagler County was 28,701. In 2006, the population 

had increased 189 percent to 83,084. The population of St. Johns County 

increased approximately 100 percent between 1990 (83,829) and 2006 

(169,224). In Volusia County, the population grew from 370,712 in 1990 

to 496,575 in 2006, an increase of 34 percent (http://www.census.gov/

popest/counties/tables/CO-EST2006-01-12.xls).

Figure 2.1 shows the principal geopolitical features in the Upper 

East Coast Basin. (See the sidebar for the sources of information used in 

this chapter.)

Surface Water Resources

The Upper East Coast Basin contains numerous surface waterbodies. 

Surface waters, including lakes, streams, wetlands, and springs, occupy 

158,939 acres, or about 36 percent of the total basin area. This section 

delineates the basin’s hydrology, describes the movement and management 

of water in the basin, briefl y describes the major characteristics of surface 

waters that infl uence water quality in the basin, and describes surface water 

classifi cations and special designations.

Sources of 

Information

Much of the information about the Upper East 

Coast Basin in this chapter 

was obtained from three 

documents produced by the 

SJRWMD: the District Water 

Management Plan (2000), 

the Northern Coastal Basin 

Surface Water Improvement 

and Management Plan (2003), 

and Status and Trends of 

Water Quality in the Northern 

Coastal Basin (draft) (Miller, 

2003). The References section at the end of this report 

contains a complete listing of 

sources.

28 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Figure 2.1: Geopolitical Map of the Upper East Coast Basin

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 29
The natural hydrology of the basin has been altered by a combination of water control structures, dikes, drainage ditches, and canals. The 

ICWW runs the entire length of the basin’s coastal lagoons. The majority 

of the watersheds in the basin drain by way of small tidal creeks into shallow coastal lagoons, toward the Atlantic Ocean. Tidal exchange is accomplished through 4 inlets in or near the borders of the basin. Along with 

the 3 inlets identifi ed previously, the ICWW extends northward out of 

the basin for approximately 15 miles, where it connects with the St. Johns 

River, which fl ows to the Atlantic Ocean.

Where the ICWW crosses into the basin, it joins and becomes part of 

the Tolomato River. North of St. Augustine, the Tolomato River connects 

to the Guana River and fl ows to the Atlantic Ocean via the St. Augustine 

Inlet. South of St. Augustine, the Matanzas River is a lagoonal estuary, 

with the fl ow of water discharging to the Atlantic Ocean by way of the 

Matanzas Inlet. The Matanzas River estuary connects to the Halifax River 

estuary to the south via an artifi cial channel created as an extension of the 

ICWW. The Halifax River extends south from the artifi cial channel north 

of Daytona Beach, exiting the basin at the Ponce de Leon Inlet. Tidal fl ow 

in this area also originates through the Ponce de Leon Inlet.

Circulation and water quality in the basin are driven by ocean water 

levels, rainfall, wind events, boat wakes, runoff, evaporation, and ground 

water seepage. The transport of suspended and dissolved substances 

in the estuaries and channels is driven primarily by tides and winds 

(SJRWMD, 2003).

Figure 2.2 shows the locations of the largest waterbodies in the basin. 

A more detailed discussion in Chapter 3 provides information on each 

planning unit.

Surface Water Quality Classifications 

Florida’s water quality standards, the foundation of the state’s program 

of water quality management, designate the “present and future most 

benefi cial uses” of the waters of the state (Subsection 403.061[10], Florida 

Statutes [F.S.]). Water quality criteria for surface water and ground water, 

expressed as numeric or narrative limits for specifi c parameters, describe the 

water quality necessary to maintain these uses. Florida’s surface water is 

classifi ed using the following fi ve designated use categories:

Class I Potable water supplies

Class II Shellfi sh propagation or harvesting

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

 well-balanced population of fi sh and wildlife

Class IV Agricultural water supplies

Class V Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state 

 waters currently in this class)

30 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Figure 2.2: Surface Water Resources of the Upper East Coast Basin

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 31
While most of the surface waters in the basin are designated as 

Class III waters, there are a small number of Class II waters, including the 

 following: 

• Matanzas River, Moultrie Creek, San Julian Creek, and the 

St. Augustine Inlet;

• The ICWW (excluding the Treasure Beach Canal System, from 

ICWW Marker No. 29 in St. Johns County south to an east-west 

line through Florida Marker 109 in Flagler County); 

• Guana River;

• Stokes, Casa Cola, Sombrero, Pancho, and Robinson Creeks;

• Tolomato River (North River) and tributaries, from a line connecting Spanish Landing to Booth Landing south to an east-west line 

through ICWW Marker No. 55;

• Lower Deep Creek; and

• St. Marks Pond Estuary.

All of the Class II waters in the Upper East Coast basin are verifi ed as 

impaired for a variety of parameters.

There are two shellfi sh-harvesting areas in the basin designated by 

the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS): the 

North St. Johns County and South St. Johns County areas. More restrictive shellfi sh-harvesting classifi cations have been adopted in most of the 

northern area in response to increased fecal coliform bacteria levels in the 

Tolomato, Guana, and Matanzas Rivers, leaving only small areas conditionally approved for shellfi sh harvesting. Much of the southern area is 

conditionally approved, although a small portion of the southern area has 

been classifi ed as conditionally restricted or prohibited for the same reason. 

Potential sources of the bacteria affecting the shellfi sh harvesting areas are 

numerous, ranging from stormwater runoff and septic tanks to wildlife 

(SJRWMD, 2000).

Special Designations

Outstanding Florida Waters

The waterbodies listed in Table 2.1 have been given additional protection through designation as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs).

OFWs are designated for “special protection because of their natural attributes” (Subsection 403.061[27], F.S.). These waters are listed in 

Section 62-302.700, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The intent of 

an OFW designation is to maintain ambient water quality, even if these 

designations are more protective than those required under the waterbody’s 

surface water classifi cation. Most OFWs are associated with managed areas 

in the state or federal park system, such as aquatic preserves, national seashores, or wildlife refuges. Other OFWs may also be designated as “Special 

Waters” based on a fi nding that the waters are of exceptional recreational or 

ecological signifi cance, and are identifi ed as such in Rule 62-302, F.A.C.

32 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Surface Water Improvement and Management Priority Waters

The SJRWMD considers the entire Upper East Coast Basin a Surface 

Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) priority water for restoration. The District identifi es this basin as the Northern Coastal Basin. 

In 1987, the Florida legislature created the SWIM Program to restore 

waterbodies. The initial legislation identifi ed 6 priority waterbodies: Lake 

Apopka, Tampa Bay, Indian River Lagoon, Biscayne Bay, Lower St. Johns 

River, and Lake Okeechobee. Today, SWIM plans have been developed 

for 30 waterbodies statewide. The SWIM Program addresses a waterbody’s 

needs as a system of connected resources, rather than isolated wetlands or 

waterbodies. The state’s 5 water management districts work with federal, 

state, and local governments and the private sector to develop and implement SWIM plans to restore damaged ecosystems, prevent pollution from 

runoff and other sources, and educate the public.

Ground Water Resources

Aquifers

Hydrologically, the Upper East Coast Basin lies between the Atlantic 

Ocean and the drainage divide formed by the Talbot Terrace (25 to 42 feet 

above mean sea level [MSL]) (Bermes, Leve, and Tarver, 1963). Precipitation in the basin drains to the west toward the St. Johns River and to the 

east toward coastal lagoons and the Atlantic Ocean. The basin is covered 

by undifferentiated sediments of Pleistocene and Holocene ages that consist 

of sand and clay, dune sand, and coquina and shell debris near the coast. 

Together with some isolated peat deposits in the lakes and marshes, this 

layer of undifferentiated sediments comprises the surfi cial aquifer in the 

basin (Bermes et al., 1963). The surfi cial aquifer is less than 50 feet in 

thickness and is unconfi ned (Bermes et al., 1963).

The surfi cial aquifer is underlain by interbedded lenses of marine, fi neto-medium sand, shell, and silty clay of Pliocene and Upper Miocene ages, 

Table 2.1: Outstanding Florida Waters in the Upper East Coast 

Basin

Fort Mose (designation undetermined)

Anastasia State Recreation Area

Faver-Dykes State Park

Washington Oaks State Gardens

Gamble Rogers Memorial State Recreation Area at Flagler Beach

Bulow Creek State Park

North Peninsula State Recreation Area

Tomoka River and Tomoka State Park

Spruce Creek 

Guana River, Guana River State Park, and Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve 

Pellicer Creek Aquatic Preserve

Tomoka River and Tomoka Marsh Aquatic Preserve

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 33
followed by a confi ning layer—the Hawthorn Formation of Miocene age. 

The Hawthorn Formation consists of plastic, phosphatic, sandy clay, and 

marl that are interbedded with lenses of phosphorite pebbles, phosphatic 

sand, and phosphatic, sandy limestone (Bermes et al., 1963). The Hawthorn Formation in the south-central part of the basin is missing, but it is 

up to 200 feet in thickness in other areas of the basin (Scott, Lloyd, and 

Maddox, 1991).

The intermediate aquifer is confi ned and consists of more permeable lenses of sand, shell, and limestone that occur within the confi ning 

layer. It is a locally important water source in eastern Flagler and St. Johns 

 Counties.

The Floridan aquifer system underlies the Hawthorn Formation and 

is confi ned and under artesian pressure in most of the basin. The Floridan 

aquifer in this area consists of a series of limestone formations of Eocene 

age; in descending order these include the Crystal River Formation, Williston Formation, Inglis Formation, Avon Park Limestone, and Lake City 

Limestone (Bermes et al., 1963). The top of the Floridan aquifer is 100 to 

400 feet below MSL, and it has a thickness of approximately 2,000 feet. 

However, it is under artesian pressure where confi ned, and its potentiometric surface is between 5 and 35 feet above MSL (Scott et al., 1991). 

Wells completed in the Floridan aquifer are artesian, and there are fl owing springs offshore. One named springs group, Crescent Beach Springs, 

discharges into the Atlantic Ocean.

Ground Water Usage

The surfi cial aquifer, intermediate aquifer, and Floridan aquifer are all 

signifi cant sources of water for public supply, agriculture, and industrial 

uses in the basin. There are no surface water intakes for potable water.

The Floridan aquifer, because of its depth and location, may contain 

brackish water, but it is the primary source of water. In some areas, water 

withdrawn from the Floridan may have to undergo membrane treatment 

and then be blended with water from the surfi cial aquifer to be used as 

drinking water supply. According to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (Department’s) Public Water System database, there 

are 191 public supply wells, of which 143 serve communities. The greatest 

number of wells are operated by the city of Port Orange (34 wells), Palm 

Coast Utilities (34 wells), the city of Holly Hill (13 wells), and the city of 

New Smyrna Beach (12 wells). Figure 2.3 shows public supply well locations in the Upper East Coast Basin.

Ground Water–Surface Water Interactions

Precipitation in the basin runs off to the Atlantic Ocean, to the lagoon 

system (ICWW) between the barrier islands and the mainland, or to 

streams, wetlands, lakes, and ponds. Precipitation also directly recharges 

the surfi cial aquifer and, in turn, part of the intermediate aquifer. Both 

surface water and ground water may discharge to the ocean. In the 

meantime, the water also evaporates directly, transpires through plants, or 

evaporates indirectly through animals to the atmosphere.

34 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Figure 2.3: Ground Water Usage and Known Contaminated Areas

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 35
However, the basin is also a discharge area for the artesian Floridan 

aquifer. The potentiometric surface of the Floridan ranges from 0 to 

35 feet above MSL near the coast. The amounts of upward fl ux through 

seepage or springs to the surfi cial aquifer, to the intermediate aquifer, and 

to surface waters, including the Atlantic Ocean’s coastal zone, depend on 

the thickness and extent of breaching of the overlying confi ning layer. In 

Volusia County, the confi ning Hawthorn Formation is missing, and the 

Floridan aquifer may contribute to surface water where the confi ning layer 

is absent.

Surface water in the basin can be a mixture of direct precipitation, surface runoff, seepage from the surfi cial aquifer, and seepage or spring fl ow 

from the Floridan aquifer. Surface water can also affect ground water. In 

the near-coastal areas and in the vicinity of canals that do not have salinity 

control structures, saltwater intrusion into the surfi cial aquifer occurs.

Priority Water Resource Caution Areas

The SJRWMD has designated much of St. Johns and Volusia Counties, and portions of Flagler County, as Priority Water Resource Caution 

Areas, based on potential damage to wetlands (St. Johns, Flagler, and Volusia Counties), increased saltwater intrusion (Volusia County), and failure to 

identify a future water supply (St. Johns County) (SJRWMD, 2000).

Under Section 373.036, F.S., and Subsection 62-40.520(1), F.A.C., 

each water management district in the state must identify caution areas in 

which potential water shortages, considerable reductions in water levels, 

saltwater intrusion, or other degradations may occur within 20 years, and 

must develop management plans to address its water resource problems. 

In these areas, existing and anticipated sources of water and conservation 

efforts may not be adequate to supply water for all existing legal uses and 

reasonably anticipate future needs, and still sustain water resources and 

related natural systems. Five constraints are considered in establishing 

these caution areas:

• Impacts to native vegetation, primarily wetlands;

• Impacts to minimum fl ows and levels, primarily spring fl ows;

• Impacts to ground water quality in terms of increased saltwater 

intrusion;

• Impacts to existing legal users; and

• Failure to identify a source of supply for future development.

Watershed Management Activities and 

Processes

Over the years, management plans and activities in the basin have been 

implemented to eliminate wastewater discharges; reduce the discharges of 

polluted stormwater from urban and agricultural areas; and protect, preserve, and restore special areas. The following section describes the major 

programs and projects that address water quality problems.

36 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Major Programs and Projects

A number of major restoration initiatives, if continued, will have 

 signifi cant positive effects on the basin’s water quality.

Northern Coastal Basin Surface Water Improvement and 

Management Plan

The SJRWMD initiated the Northern Coastal Basin Project in 1995 

in response to concerns about the impacts of population growth and 

development on water quality in the basin. Since fi scal year 2001, the 

SJRWMD has provided material and/or technical assistance to a number 

of active management plans and projects throughout the basin. In 2003, 

the District’s Governing Board designated the Northern Coastal Basin as a 

SWIM priority area. A SWIM plan developed and adopted in December 

2003 contains detailed projects and strategies. The primary initiatives of 

the plan are as follows (SJRWMD, 2003):

• Water quality: The SJRWMD and its partners are examining 

the existing water quality monitoring network in the basin and, if 

 necessary, will design and implement a more integrated network.

• Watershed master planning: This initiative includes an evaluation of stormwater management in the basin and the identifi cation of 

problem areas. Detailed remedial actions will be determined using 

hydrologic models to simulate water volumes and fl ows under a range 

of climate conditions.

• Stormwater retrofi t and master plan implementation: This initiative involves developing and implementing a prioritized stormwater 

retrofi t program focusing on areas built prior to 1983. Also, the 

SJRWMD will support the development of local government and 

land acquisition programs for buying land for site facility construction, and will evaluate federal and state funding sources and other 

partnering programs.

• Compliance and rule enforcement: The SJRWMD will work with 

its partners and community leaders to collect and evaluate compliance information from existing permitted stormwater quality treatment systems. The results may be used to increase the effectiveness 

of compliance measures.

• Resource assessment, protection, and restoration: This initiative 

involves evaluating existing data on wildlife and habitat resources 

in the basin to explore habitat restoration and improvement 

 opportunities.

The SJRWMD received a state appropriation of $1.35 million in 

the fi scal year (FY) 2004–05 state budget to implement projects in the 

SWIM plan. Projects to be funded through this appropriation include 

Local Government Cooperative Stormwater Program–Priority Watersheds; North Peninsula Wastewater and Reuse–Phase 1; North Peninsula 

Swale and Stormwater Improvements–Phase 1; Raleigh Drive, Atlanta 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 37
Drive, Derbyshire Road, and Carmen Avenue Stormwater Improvements; and Resource Assessment, Protection, and Restoration Initiative 

(SJRWMD, 2004). 

St. Johns River Water Management District Stormwater Management 

Cost-Share Program

The SJRWMD initiated a Stormwater Management Projects Cooperative Cost-Share Program in FY 1995–96. Since then, it has provided 

$2.8 million to cost share 126 stormwater management projects with local 

governments. Current cost-share projects for municipalities in the Upper 

East Coast (Northern Coastal) Basin include the City of Flagler Beach 

Water Quantity and Water Quality Abatement Program; Maria Sanchez 

Stormwater Conveyance System (city of St. Augustine); Marineland Acres 

Stormwater Management Program (Flagler County); West St. Augustine 

Drainage Improvements System (St. Johns County); Wild Olive Stormwater Improvements; Holly Hill State Revolving Fund Stormwater Improvements–Phase II; and Standish Drive and Royal Palm Avenue Baffl e Boxes 

(Ormond Beach) (SJRWMD, 2003). New projects approved for funding in FY 2004–05 include Pelican–Grandview exfi ltration in Daytona 

Beach and Hand Avenue sediment traps in Ormond Beach (Florida Water 

Resources Journal, 2004; Daytona Beach News-Journal, 2004).

Guana Marsh Renovation Project

The Guana Marsh Basin covers approximately 8,300 acres in the 

northeast corner of St. Johns County and the southeast corner of Duval 

County. Historically, the 15-mile-long narrow marsh drained into the 

Guana River, a brackish estuary. The system was altered beginning in the 

late 1700s by structures that restricted marsh fl ow and allowed the upper 

part of the river to become predominantly fresh water. The fresh water 

fl ushed salt out of the soil to support agricultural efforts, including rice and 

corn cultivation. Over time, the Guana Marsh Basin has been dammed 

and crossed by causeways for agricultural and residential development.

With the construction of the Guana Dam in 1961, natural tide and 

salinity cycles for the entire watershed were disrupted. The loss of saltwater 

exchange and an increase in nutrients, possibly due to the use of fertilizers, 

has led to the heavy growth of cattails and willows, which have clogged the 

historical water channel. These changes have led to fl ooding in the area, 

and the gradual elevation in water tables in the watershed has resulted in 

widespread septic tank failures and saturated septic drainfi elds.

In 1996, St. Johns County, along with the Ponte Vedra Municipal 

Services District and the SJRWMD, funded the development of a Guana 

Basin Master Plan. The plan called for a series of marsh improvements, 

including alleviating the frequency and duration of fl ooding, maintaining the habitat and channel through the Guana Marsh, and ensuring 

that water quality is maintained throughout the Guana Marsh Basin 

(SJRWMD, 2004a).

Water quality and fl ow structure improvements were completed in 

2000. Ongoing activities include supporting efforts to remove septic effl uent from affected waters by replacing the septic tanks with a central sewer 

38 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
system; maintaining the historical channel through the continued harvesting of nuisance aquatic plants; establishing a watershed education program 

through the Florida Yards, Neighborhoods and Ponds Program; continuing water quality monitoring activities; and working with golf courses 

and landscape professionals to develop and implement best management 

practices (BMPs) for existing and new developments.

Rose Bay Restoration

Rose Bay is an estuary on the Halifax River in Volusia County, near 

Ponce de Leon Inlet. In earlier times, good water quality and the bay’s 

proximity to the Atlantic Ocean provided vital nursery grounds and habitat 

for young estuarine and offshore fi sh species. Over time, however, stormwater runoff, leaking septic systems, and restricted water fl ow have threatened the bay’s productivity and health.

The SJRWMD has worked with local citizens, the city of Port Orange, 

and Volusia County to form a coalition of agencies, the Rose Bay Task 

Force, to seek solutions to pollution problems and to restore Rose Bay. A 

comprehensive outline for a fi ve-point restoration plan was developed, and 

partnerships were established with the Florida Department of Transportation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). All phases of the 

restoration plan are being implemented.

The fi ve points of the Rose Bay restoration plan include the following:

1. Control stormwater runoff pollution, 

2. Eliminate leaking septic systems from discharging into Rose Bay, 

3. Replace the existing U.S. 1 bridge and remove the current causeway 

 to reestablish natural water exchange, 

4. Remove accumulated sediment to restore estuary habitat, and 

5. Remove the old causeway east of U.S. 1.

Work on the Rose Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project is ongoing. In 

2007, SJRWMD executed a Project Cooperation Agreement with the 

USACOE. Funding strategies are currently being explored.

Guana–Tolomato–Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve

Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act establishes the 

National Estuarine Research Reserve System. Under the act, healthy 

estuarine ecosystems that typify different regions of the United States can 

be designated and managed as sites for long-term research and used as a 

base for estuarine education and interpretation programs. The Guana–

Tolomato–Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve was designated 

in August 1999.

The reserve encompasses approximately 55,000 acres of publicly 

owned uplands, tidal wetlands, estuarine lagoons, and offshore areas 

within St. Johns and Flagler Counties. It is managed in partnership by the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Department. 

Within the reserve area are 2 aquatic preserves, 2 state parks, a state garden, 

and 2 water management preserves.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 39
The mission of the reserve system is “to promote stewardship of the 

nation’s estuaries through science and education using a system of protected areas” (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2003). 

The 2003–08 Strategic Plan for the reserve system identifi es the following 

strategic goals:

1. Improve coastal decision making by generating and transferring 

 knowledge about coastal ecosystems,

2. Enhance and expand the National Estuarine Research Reserve 

 System, and

3. Increase awareness, use, and support of the reserve system through 

 estuarine science, education, and stewardship programs.

St. Johns County Model Fertilizer Ordinance

In May 2003, the St. Johns County Commission adopted the fi rst 

ordinance in Florida to require licensing, certifi cation, and continuing education for professional fertilizer applicators. It applies specifi cally to practices in the Guana Marsh Basin in the Ponte Vedra area. The ordinance 

requires commercial operations to operate in accordance with the 2002 

manual, Florida Green Industries Best Management Practices for Protection 

of Water Resources in Florida, developed by the Department, the University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), and a 

group of associations representing the turf and landscape industry. It also 

limits homeowners to similar fertilization rates and addresses practices on 

golf courses and athletic fi elds. Training and certifi cation may be obtained 

from the county extension offi ce or from other certifi ed trainers.

Agricultural Best Management Practices

The Florida Watershed Restoration Act authorizes DACS to develop 

interim measures and agricultural BMPs. Additional authority for agricultural BMPs is provided in legislation on nitrates and ground water 

(Section 576.045, F.S.), the Lake Okeechobee Protection Program (Section 373.4595, F.S.), Agricultural Water Conservation (Section 570.085, 

F.S.), and Florida Right to Farm Act Amendments (Section 823.14, F.S.). 

While BMPs are often adopted by rule, they are voluntary if not covered 

by regulatory programs. If they are adopted by rule and the Department 

verifi es their effectiveness, then implementation provides a presumption of 

 compliance with water quality standards.

Over the last several years, DACS has worked with agriculturists, soil 

and water conservation entities, IFAS, and other major interests to improve 

product marketability and operational effi ciency by implementing agricultural BMPs, while at the same time promoting water quality and water 

conservation objectives. In addition, programs have been established and 

are being developed to create a network of state, local, federal, and private 

sources of funds for developing and implementing BMPs.

40 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Manuals for Best Management Practices

To encourage growers to use BMPs, manuals have been published for 

a number of agricultural industries, including container-grown plants, 

blended fertilizer plants, agrichemical handling and farm equipment maintenance, cow/calf operations, aquaculture, citrus, and landscaping. Many 

of these manuals can be downloaded at http://www.dep.state.fl .us/water or 

http://www.fl oridaagwaterpolicy.com.

Manuals for row crops, equine or horse farms, and ornamental 

 nurseries are currently being developed. BMP manuals pertinent to the 

Upper East Coast Basin include the following:

• Silviculture Best Management Practices: BMPs for silviculture activities in Florida were fi rst established in the mid-1970s in 

response to the 1972 federal Clean Water Act. In 1992, DACS established a BMP Technical Advisory Committee to review the existing 

silviculture BMP manual and revise the practices where necessary 

to refl ect the scientifi c, social, and economic changes that had taken 

place since the original BMP development. This manual was revised 

in 1993 and updated in 2000 and 2004.

• Guide for Producing Container Grown Plants: This manual, 

published in 1995 by the Southern Nurserymen’s Association, 

includes irrigation and fertilization BMPs for the container cultivation of nursery plants. It was produced through a cooperative effort 

between the University of Florida, Auburn University, Tennessee 

Tech University, and Virginia Tech. Because the manual is not 

Florida-specifi c, an effort is currently under way to use the document 

in developing a Florida-specifi c manual.

• Best Management Practices for Agrichemical Handling and 

Farm Equipment Maintenance: Recently revised and reprinted, 

this manual gives producers guidance on hazardous materials, proper 

pesticide handling, and the proper disposal of waste products. It 

was cooperatively produced in 1998 by DACS, the Department, and 

several industry associations.

• Water Quality Best Management Practices for Cow/Calf Operations: Many cattle operators statewide have been trained in using 

this manual and are applying BMPs. The Florida Cattlemen’s 

Association and several state, federal, and local agencies developed 

the manual, which was published in 1999. Copies were printed and 

distributed in 2000 using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) Section 319 grant funds. 

• Florida Green Industries Best Management Practices for Protection of Water Resources in Florida: This manual provides BMPs 

for professional turfgrass and landscape managers. Published in 

2002, it was developed through a cooperative effort by Florida Green 

Industries (an industry association); the Department; DACS; the 

Florida Department of Community Affairs; and the St. Johns, South 

Florida, and Southwest Florida Water Management Districts.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 41
• Aquaculture Best Management Practices: As directed by the 

1998 Florida legislature, DACS worked cooperatively with industry, state agencies, and the environmental community to develop a 

comprehensive BMP manual for aquaculture. Florida law requires 

that the Department adopt the manual by rule and provides regulatory exemptions under Chapters 373 and 403, F.S., for growers who 

implement BMPs and are certifi ed by DACS’ Division of Aquaculture. The manual, which was printed and distributed in 2000, has 

been adopted by rule.

• Water Quality/Quantity Best Management Practices for Indian 

River Area Citrus Groves: Although the regional BMPs in this 

manual apply to all or parts of 7 East Coast (Volusia to Martin) 

counties, other Florida fl atwoods citrus operations can benefi t from 

the same practices. The Indian River Citrus League led a cooperative effort involving 15 agencies and industry associations in developing these BMPs. Beginning in 2000, the BMP manual and guidance 

booklets were published using EPA Section 319 and industry funds.

42 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Chapter 3: Surface Water Quality Assessment

Scope of the Assessment

This chapter presents the results of an updated assessment of surface 

water quality in the Upper East Coast Basin. The primary purpose of the 

assessment is to determine if waterbodies or waterbody segments are to be 

placed on the Verifi ed List of impaired waterbodies. The listing will be in 

accordance with evaluation thresholds and data suffi ciency and data quality 

requirements in the Identifi cation of Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) 

(Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]). The results of the 

assessment will be used to identify waters in the basin for which total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) will be developed.

The chapter describes the planning units in the basin used as a basis 

for the assessment. A section on each planning unit contains a general 

description and summary of key water quality indicators (such as nutrients, chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen [DO], and microbiological parameters). Permitted discharges, land uses, and water quality improvement 

plans and projects are summarized for each planning unit. The discussion 

notes where applicable surface water quality criteria have been exceeded 

and summarizes the report’s fi ndings in maps, noting potentially impaired 

waterbodies in each planning unit. The chapter also contains background 

information on sources of data and on designated use attainment, and 

explains the state’s integrated water quality assessment process.

While potentially impaired waters and their causative pollutants are 

identifi ed, it is not within the scope of this report to identify discrete 

sources of potential impairments. Information on the sources of impairment will be developed in subsequent phases of the watershed management 

cycle, including TMDL development and implementation.

Appendix A contains a discussion of the legislative and regulatory 

background for TMDL development and implementation. Appendix B

provides additional information on reasonable assurance. Appendix C

provides the methodology used to develop the Planning and Verifi ed Lists. 

Appendix D contains the integrated water quality assessment (Master List) 

summary (Table D.1) and the water quality monitoring stations used in 

the assessment (Table D.2). Appendix E lists, by planning unit, permitted wastewater treatment facilities in the basin that discharge to surface 

water and ground water, as well as hazardous waste sites and landfi lls; 

Appendix F lists Level I land use by planning unit; and Appendix G

 identifi es public comments received during development of the Verifi ed List 

of impaired waters. The complete text of the IWR is available at 

http://www.dep.state.fl .us/legal/Rules/shared/62-303/62-303.pdf.

.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 43
Update on Strategic Monitoring and DataGathering Activities During Phase 2

During Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle, strategic monitoring and data-gathering activities focused first on waters on the 1998 303(d) 

list, followed by waters that were placed on the Planning List through the 

IWR assessment alone. The majority of the strategic monitoring work 

was conducted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (Department’s) Northeast District staff and included both chemical 

and biological monitoring and data upload to STOrage and RETrieval 

(STORET) databases. Data-gathering activities included working with 

environmental monitoring staff in the St. Johns River Water Management 

District (SJRWMD) and local and county governments to obtain applicable monitoring data from their routine monitoring programs and special 

water quality projects in the basin.

Forty-six waterbody segments were verified impaired for at least one 

parameter in the Upper East Coast Basin as the result of strategic monitoring and data-gathering activities in Phase 2. 

Sources of Data

The assessment of water quality in the Upper East Coast Basin includes 

an analysis of quantitative data from various sources, some of which are 

readily available to the public. These sources include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Legacy and “new” STORET databases, 

the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Florida Department of Health. The 

STORET databases contain water quality data from a number of sources, 

including the Department, water management districts, local governments, 

and volunteer monitoring groups. Appendix C contains a detailed description of STORET and the methodology used to develop the Planning and 

Verified Lists, based on the IWR.

Table 3.1 summarizes the individual data providers who contributed 

to the IWR Database for the Upper East Coast Basin for the period of 

record used in this assessment. Figure 3.1 contains a graph showing the 

amount of data provided by each source. The top five data providers who 

contributed to the IWR Database for the Upper East Coast Basin during 

the period of record used in this assessment (January 1, 1999, to June 30, 

2006) include the Department’s Northeast District, the SJRWMD, Volusia 

County Environmental Health Laboratory, Guana–Tolomato–Matanzas 

National Estuarine Research Reserve, and the Department’s Central 

District. 

In 2002, the Department created the IWR Database to evaluate data 

in accordance with the methodology prescribed in the IWR (Rule 62-303, 

F.A.C.). The data evaluation period of record is 10 years for the Planning 

List assessment, and 7.5 years for the Verified List. Data collected between 

January 1, 1999, and June 30, 2006, were evaluated to establish the 

Verified List for the Upper East Coast Basin (IWR Run 29z.2).

44 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Table 3.1: Summary of Data Providers in the Upper East Coast 

Basin (January 1, 1999–June 30, 2006), Based on IWR Run 29z.2

Data Provider

Percentage of 

Data Provided

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 

Northeast District

36%

St. Johns River Water Management District 32%

Volusia County Environmental Health Laboratory 13%

Guana–Tolomato–Matanzas National Estuarine 

Research Reserve

 5%

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 

Central District

 5%

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 3%

Florida Department of Health 3%

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Watershed 

Monitoring Program

 2%

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 

Southeast District

 1%

Florida Marine Research Institute <1%

Marine Resources Council <1%

U.S. Geological Survey <1%

Figure 3.1: Sources of Data for the Upper East Coast Basin

Upper East Coast Data Providers

Note: The 2006 bar only includes data from the fi rst six months of the year, 

 coinciding with the verifi ed period.

Florida Department 

of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services

3%

Florida Department 

of Health

3%

Florida Department of 

Environmental 

Protection, Watershed 

Monitoring Program

2%

Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection, 

Southeast District

1%

St. Johns River 

Water Management 

District

32%

Guana-Tolomato-Matanzas 

National Estuarine Research 

Reserve

5%

Volusia County 

Environmental 

Health Laboratory

13%

Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection, 

Central District 

5%

Florida Marine 

Research Institute

<1%

Marine Resources 

Council

<1%

U.S. Geological 

Survey

<1%

Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection, 

Northeast District

36%

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 45
To support listing decisions, the evaluation of water quality in this 

basin also includes qualitative information drawn from data in technical 

reports and documents that are not yet included in the database. Some 

of these sources include historical water quality or ecological information 

that was not uploaded to the database because of its qualitative treatment 

of issues.

Attainment of Designated Use

While the designated uses of a given waterbody are established using 

the surface water quality classification system described in Chapter 2, it 

is important to note that the EPA uses slightly different terminology in 

its description of designated uses. Because the Department is required 

to provide use attainment status for both the state’s 305(b) report and 

the state’s 303(d) list of impaired waters, the Department uses EPA 

terminology when assessing waters for use attainment. The water quality evaluations and decision processes that are defined in Florida’s IWR 

for listing impaired waters 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 3.2 summarizes the designated uses assigned to Florida’s various 

surface water classes.

Integrated Report Categories and Assessment 

Overview

The EPA has requested that the states merge their reporting requirements under the Clean Water Act for Section 305(b) surface water quality 

reports and Section 303(d) lists of impaired waters into an Integrated Water 

Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Guidance (Wayland, 2001). This 

Table 3.2: Designated Use Attainment Categories for Surface 

Waters in Florida

Designated Use Attainment Category Used in 

Impaired Surface Waters Rule Evaluation

Applicable Florida Surface 

Water Classification

Aquatic Life Use Support-Based Attainment 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

46 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Assessment Report integrates the 303(d) list and the 305(b) report for the 

Upper East Coast Basin.

Following the EPA’s guidance, the Department delineated waterbodies 

or waterbody segments in each of the state’s river basins, 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 waterbody’s status based on water quality, sufficiency of data, and the need for TMDL development (Table 3.3). This 

Assessment Report contains a comprehensive evaluation of waterbodies that 

fall into Integrated Report Categories 1 through 5 in the table.

Currently only a few waterbodies or waterbody segments statewide fall 

into Category 1 (attaining all designated uses). In particular, fish tissues in 

many waterbodies statewide have not been tested for mercury in fish. No 

waterbody segments in the Upper East Coast Basin are in Category 1.

More waterbodies and segments statewide fall into Category 2 (attaining some uses but with insufficient data to assess completely) than Category 

1 (attaining all uses), because monitoring programs can sometimes provide sufficient data for partially determining whether a designated use in a 

particular waterbody is attained. Five waterbody segments in the basin fall 

into Category 2.

Most waterbodies in the state, however, fall into Category 3 (having 

insufficient data). In the Upper East Coast Basin, the breakdown of waterbodies or segments in Category 3 is as follows:

•	 Category 3a—37 segments for which no data are available to

determine their water quality status,

•	 Category 3b—No segments, and 

•	 Category 3c—16 segments that are potentially impaired based on

the Planning List criteria.

A number of waters either fail to meet water quality standards for DO 

or show signs of biological stress or nutrient impairment. According to the 

IWR, specific pollutants causing DO exceedances or biological stress, or 

an underlying nutrient imbalance creating an imbalance in flora or fauna, 

must be documented for a waterbody or segment to be listed as impaired. 

Sometimes these conditions cannot be linked to a causative pollutant, and 

sometimes they may reflect natural background conditions.

Currently, no waterbodies in the basin are designated as being in 

Category 4. This category includes those waterbodies/segments that are 

impaired but do not require a TMDL for one of three reasons:

•	 Category 4a—Segments for which a TMDL has already been

developed,

•	 Category 4b—Segments for which there is reasonable assurance that

the designated use of an impaired waterbody will be attained by an 

existing or proposed pollutant control measure, and

Understanding the 

Terms “Pollutant” 

and “Pollution”

For purposes of the TMDL 

Program, pollutants are 

chemical and biological 

constituents, introduced by 

humans into a waterbody, 

which may result in pollution 

(water quality impairment). 

There are other causes of 

pollution, such as the physical alteration of a waterbody 

(for example, canals, dams, 

and ditches). However, 

TMDLs are established 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, and 

therefore require a TMDL, 

are listed under Category 

5 in the Integrated Assessment Report; waterbodies 

with water quality impairments due to other causes, or 

unknown causes, are listed 

under Category 4c. Although 

TMDLs are not established 

for Category 4c waterbodies, these waterbodies still 

may be addressed through 

a watershed management 

program (for example, the 

Kissimmee River restoration).

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 47
Table 3.3: Categories for Waterbodies or Waterbody Segments in the 2002 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, the Department 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, the Department will propose partial delisting for the uses 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 

are 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 data and information are 

present to determine that one or 

more designated uses 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 for 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 analysis may be necessary.

NOTE: This category is applicable only to the Status Report. Waters 

that pass the Verified List criteria at this stage of the process are placed 

in Category 5.

4a Impaired for one or more designated uses but does not require TMDL 

development because a TMDL has 

already been completed

After the EPA approves a TMDL for the impaired waterbody or segment, 

the TMDL 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 within a reasonable time frame are either proposed or in 

place.

4c Impaired for one or more 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 other causes of pollution. 

The impairment is not caused by specific pollutants. (See sidebar on 

previous page for a discussion of the difference between the terms 

 “pollutant” and “pollution.”)

5 One or more designated uses is 

not attained and a TMDL is 

required

Waterbodies or segments in this category are impaired for one or more 

designated uses by a pollutant or pollutants. Waters in this category are 

included on the basin-specific Verified List adopted by the Department’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 3.3 are consistent with the EPA’s integrated assessment categories. In the Status Reports 

for Groups 1 through 3 and in the Assessment Reports for Groups 1 through 2 that were previously produced, Categories 

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.

48 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
• Category 4c—Segments for which the impairment is not attributable to a pollutant or pollutants, but is due to natural conditions or 

 physical/hydrologic alterations to the waterbody.

Finally, 46 waterbodies in the basin are in Category 5. These impaired 

waterbodies are on the Verifi ed List of impaired waters adopted by the 

Department’s Secretary and will require TMDLs. Chapter 5 of this report 

discusses in detail the waters in this category.

Planning Units

The Upper East Coast Basin encompasses approximately 692 square 

miles and a complex hydrologic system. To provide a more detailed 

geographic basis for identifying and assessing water quality improvement 

activities, the basin was subdivided into smaller areas called planning units. 

A planning unit is either an individual large tributary basin or a group of 

smaller adjacent tributary basins with similar characteristics. Planning 

units help organize information and management strategies around prominent watershed characteristics.

Water quality assessments were conducted for waterbody segments 

within planning units. Each of these smaller, hydrologically based drainage 

areas within a planning unit is assigned a unique waterbody identifi cation 

number (WBID). Waterbody segments are assessment units (or geographic 

information system polygons) that the Department used to defi ne waterbodies when it biennially inventoried and reported on water quality to the 

EPA under Section 305(b) of the federal Clean Water Act. These WBIDs 

are the assessment units identifi ed in the Department’s lists of impaired 

waters submitted to the EPA in reports under Section 303(d) of the Clean 

Water Act.

The Upper East Coast Basin contains four planning units: Tolomato 

River, Matanzas River, Pellicer Creek, and Halifax River. Table 3.4

describes these planning units, and Figure 3.2 shows their locations and 

boundaries. The remainder of this chapter provides a general description 

Table 3.4: Planning Units in the Upper East Coast Basin

Planning Unit Description

Tolomato River and 

Matanzas River

These planning units, located in portions of 

Duval, St. Johns, and Flagler Counties, have 

a drainage area of approximately 128,337 

acres.

Pellicer Creek The planning unit, located south of 

St. Augustine, includes southern St. Johns 

County and northern Flagler County. It has 

a drainage area of approximately 102,884 

acres. 

Halifax River The planning unit, which includes portions of Flagler and Volusia Counties along 

the northeast Florida coast, encompasses 

nearly 211,897 acres.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 49
Figure 3.2: Locations and Boundaries of Planning Units in the Upper 

East Coast Basin

50 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
of each planning unit, information on land use and potential point sources 

of pollution, water quality assessments for individual waterbody segments, 

and watershed quality improvement plans and projects.

Appendix D of this report provides, by planning unit, the integrated 

assessment (Master List) summary, a list of water quality monitoring 

 stations, and trend data. Appendix E includes summary information, by 

planning unit, for permitted wastewater treatment facilities, hazardous 

waste sites, and permitted landfi ll facilities. Appendix F lists Level I land 

uses, by planning unit.

Assessment by Planning Unit

• Tolomato River and Matanzas River Planning Units

General Description

The Tolomato River and Matanzas River Planning Units cover about 

200 square miles and contain 49 segments with WBIDs. These planning units are located in extreme southern Duval County and northern 

St. Johns County. Local municipalities and residential areas include Ponte 

Vedra, Vilano Beach, St. Augustine, St. Augustine Beach, St. Augustine 

Shores, and Crescent Beach.

Within the Tolomato River watershed, major freshwater drainage to 

the Tolomato River from the west arrives through Smith Creek, Sweetwater 

Creek, Deep Creek, Marshall Creek, Stokes Creek, and Casa Cola Creek. 

Capo Creek, Jones Creek, and Sombrero Creek drain to the Tolomato 

River from the east. The Guana River joins with the Tolomato River and 

converges with the Matanzas River and Salt Run before fl owing into the 

Atlantic Ocean at the St. Augustine Inlet.

Major drainage to the Matanzas River estuary comes from the San 

Sebastian River, Moultrie Creek, and Moses Creek, as well as infl ow from 

overland urban runoff. Pellicer Creek contributes with fl ows east to the 

Matanzas River lagoon. Both the St. Augustine Inlet to the north and the 

Matanzas Inlet, located 14 miles south, tidally infl uence the estuary.

The waterways in these planning units have been altered, beginning 

with the digging of a series of canals connecting the Matanzas River in 

1881. The canal system was eventually continued north through the 

Tolomato River. These canals now comprise portions of the Intracoastal 

Waterway (ICWW).

Water Quality Summary

Guana River was the only waterbody identifi ed as impaired on the 

1998 303(d) list. Figures 3.3 and 3.4, respectively, are composite maps of 

the Tolomato River and Matanzas River Planning Units that show waters 

on the 1998 303(d) list, the Planning List and Verifi ed List, and potential 

pollution sources.

Tables 3.5 and 3.6 summarize the water quality assessment status of 

all waterbody segments in the planning units. The tables and fi gures show 

that 14 estuarine and freshwater waterbody segments in the Tolomato River 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 51
Figure 3.3: Composite Map of the Tolomato River Planning Unit, Including the 1998 

303(d) List, Planning List and Verified List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources

52 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Figure 3.4: Composite Map of the Matanzas River Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List, Planning 

List and Verified List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 53
Table 3.5: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Tolomato River Planning Unit

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 

303(d) List 

Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c) for Listed 

Parameters4

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

 Parameters5

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for 

Listed 

Parameters

EPA’s 

305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment 

 Category for 

WBID6

2320 Guana River Estuary II Coliform (Shellfish Harvesting 

Downgrade), 

DO, Fecal Coliforms, Mercury 

in Fish, Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a)

Nutrients 

(Historical 

Chlorophyll), 

Turbidity

5

2364 Unnamed 

Slough

Stream IIIF 3a

2380 Unnamed 

Slough

Stream IIIF 3a

2400 Smith Creek Stream IIIF DO Fecal Coliforms, 

Nutrients (Chlorophyll a), Turbidity

3c

2406 Deep Creek 

Upper

Stream IIIF DO Fecal Coliforms, 

Nutrients (Chlorophyll a), Turbidity, Unionized 

Ammonia

3c

2429 Sweetwater 

Creek

Stream IIIF 3a

2435 Capo Creek Estuary IIIM Mercury in Fish DO, Fecal Coliforms, Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a), 

Turbidity

5

2442 Marshall 

Creek

Stream IIIM DO Fecal Coliforms 

(Shellfish Harvesting Downgrade)

Fecal Coliforms, 

Nutrients (Chlorophyll a), Turbidity

5

2451 Stokes 

Creek

Estuary II DO, Nutrients 

(Historical 

Chlorophyll)

Mercury in Fish Fecal Coliforms, 

Nutrients (Chlorophyll a), Turbidity

5

2457 St. Marks 

Pond Outlet

Stream IIIF 3a

2468 Casa Cola 

Creek

Estuary II Mercury in Fish DO, Fecal Coliforms, Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a), 

Nutrients (Historical Chlorophyll), 

Turbidity

5

2470 Sombrero 

Creek

Estuary II Fecal Coliforms, 

Mercury in Fish

DO, Fecal Coliforms, Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a), 

Turbidity

5

54 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 

303(d) List 

Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c) for Listed 

Parameters4

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

 Parameters5

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for 

Listed 

Parameters

EPA’s 

305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment 

 Category for 

WBID6

2477 Ximanies 

Creek

Estuary IIIM Coliform 

(Shellfish 

Harvesting 

Downgrade), 

 Mercury in Fish

DO, Fecal Coliforms, Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a), 

Turbidity

5

2483 Pancho 

Creek

Estuary II Mercury in Fish DO, Fecal Coliforms, Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a), 

Turbidity

5

2487 Robinson 

Creek

Estuary II Mercury in Fish DO, Fecal Coliforms, Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a), 

Turbidity

5

8123 Tolomato 

River 

Ocean 1

Coastal IIIM Fecal Coliforms 5*

8125 Tolomato 

River 

Ocean 3

Coastal IIIM Fecal Coliforms 5*

2320A Lake Vedra Estuary IIIM DO, Mercury in 

Fish, Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a)

Fecal Coliforms, 

Turbidity, Zinc

5

2363I Tolomato 

River

Estuary II Arsenic, Coliform 

(Shellfish 

Harvesting 

Downgrade), 

Copper, Iron, 

Mercury in Fish, 

Nickel

Aluminum, Cadmium, Chromium 

3, DO, Fecal Coliforms, Lead, Manganese, Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a), 

Nutrients (Historical Chlorophyll), 

Selenium, 

Turbidity, Zinc

5

2406A Deep Creek 

Lower

Estuary II Mercury in Fish DO, Fecal Coliforms, Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a), 

Turbidity

5

2457A St. Marks 

Pond 

Estuary

Estuary II Mercury in Fish 5

Table 3.5 (continued)

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 55
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 

303(d) List 

Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c) for Listed 

Parameters4

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

 Parameters5

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for 

Listed 

Parameters

EPA’s 

305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment 

 Category for 

WBID6

8998 

(Includes 

WBIDs 

8123, 

8123A, 

8124, 

8125, 

8125A–B)

Florida 

Atlantic 

Coast

Coastal IIIM Mercury in Fish 5

5* = The overall Category 5 call for this WBID is based on a mercury in fi sh listing. All of the coastal listings (8000 series) for 

 mercury in fi sh were combined into WBID 8998; individual entries have been removed from the list.

Notes:

1

The designation “stream” includes canals, rivers, and sloughs. The designation “lake” includes some marshes.

2

The state’s surface water classifi cations are 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

Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class) 3

The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 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 impaired for one or more designated uses;

3d—Meets Verified List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses;

4a—Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete;

4b—Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because an existing or proposed pollutant 

control mechanism provides reasonable assurance that the water will attain standards in the future; 

4c—Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because the impairment is not caused by a 

pollutant; and

5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required. 4

Parameters in bold meet the Verifi ed List evaluation criteria, Section 62-303.400, F.A.C. 5

Parameters in italics are in Category 4 (a, b, or c) waters that do not require TMDL development. 6

The assessment categories listed in this column represent the status of each WBID as a whole, based on multiple parameters. 

The hierarchy for assigning these categories is Category 5, then 4, then 3c, then 2, and then 3b, i.e., each WBID is assigned a 

category based on the highest category assigned to an individual parameter. For example, if WBID 9999 has total coliforms 

as Category 5, fecal coliforms as Category 3c, and coliform–shellfi sh as Category 2, the single assessment call for the WBID is 

 Category 5.

DO = Dissolved oxygen

F = Fresh water

M = Marine

WBID = Waterbody identifi cation number

Table 3.5 (continued)

56 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Table 3.6: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Matanzas River Planning Unit

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 

303(d) List 

Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c) for Listed 

Parameters4

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

 Parameters5

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for 

Listed 

Parameters

EPA’s 

305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment 

 Category for 

WBID6

2471 Unnamed 

Slough

Stream IIIF 3a

2472 Red House 

Branch

Stream IIIF DO Fecal Coliforms Nutrients (Chlorophyll a), Turbidity, Unionized 

Ammonia

5

2491 San 

Sebastian 

River

Stream IIIF DO Fecal Coliforms, 

Nutrients (Chlorophyll a), Nutrients 

(Historical Chlorophyll), Turbidity, Unionized 

Ammonia

3c

2493 Moultrie 

Creek

Stream II Biology Fecal Coliforms, 

Iron

Aluminum, Arsenic, Cadmium, 

Copper, DO, Fluoride, Lead, Manganese, Nickel, 

Nutrients (Chlorophyll a), Nutrients 

(Historical Chlorophyll), Selenium, 

Turbidity, Zinc

3c

2499 Oyster 

Creek

Stream IIIF DO 2

2502 Salt Run Estuary IIIM Mercury in Fish DO, Fecal Coliforms, Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a), 

Turbidity

5

2506 Unnamed 

Slough

Stream IIIF 3a

2508 Unnamed 

Slough

Stream IIIF 3a

2510 Quarry 

Creek

Estuary IIIM Mercury in Fish 5

2513 Unnamed 

Bayou

Estuary IIIM Mercury in Fish 5

2514 Unnamed 

Slough

Stream IIIF 3a

2519 East Creek Estuary IIIM Mercury in Fish 5

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 57
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 

303(d) List 

Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c) for Listed 

Parameters4

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

 Parameters5

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for 

Listed 

Parameters

EPA’s 

305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment 

 Category for 

WBID6

2520 Wildwood 

Creek

Stream IIIF Biology, DO, 

Fecal Coliforms, 

Nutrients (Chlorophyll a), Turbidity, 

Unionized 

Ammonia

2

2521 Unnamed 

Slough

Stream IIIF 3a

2529 San Julian 

Creek

Estuary II Mercury in Fish 5

2532 Unnamed 

Slough

Stream IIIF 3a

2535 Moses 

Creek

Stream IIIF DO Biology, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Nutrients (Chlorophyll a), Turbidity, 

Unionized 

Ammonia

3c

2536 Unnamed 

Slough

Stream IIIF 3a

2537 Unnamed 

Ditch

Stream IIIF 3a

8122 Matanzas 

River Ocean

Coastal IIIM Mercury in Fish Fecal Coliforms 5*

2363G Matanzas 

River

Estuary II Iron, Lead, 

 Mercury in Fish

Aluminum, 

Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, 

DO, Fecal Coliforms, Manganese, Nickel, 

Nutrients (Chlorophyll a), Nutrients 

(Historical Chlorophyll), Selenium, 

Turbidity, Zinc

5

2363G1 Matanzas 

River Upper

Estuary IIIM 3a

2363H St. 

Augustine 

Inlet

Estuary II Mercury in Fish DO, Fecal Coliforms, Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a), 

Turbidity

5

Table 3.6 (continued) 

58 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Table 3.6 (continued) 

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 

303(d) List 

Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c) for Listed 

Parameters4

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

 Parameters5

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for 

Listed 

Parameters

EPA’s 

305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment 

 Category for 

WBID6

2502A Salt Run Estuary IIIM Coliform (Shellfish Harvesting 

Downgrade)

 5

8998 

(Includes 

WBIDs 

8122, 

8122A–D)

Florida 

Atlantic 

Coast

Coastal IIIM Mercury in Fish 5

5* = The overall Category 5 call for this WBID is based on a mercury in fi sh listing. All of the coastal listings (8000 series) for 

 mercury in fi sh were combined into WBID 8998; individual entries have been removed from the list.

Notes:

1

The designation “stream” includes canals, rivers, and sloughs. The designation “lake” includes some marshes.

2

The state’s surface water classifi cations are 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

Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class) 3

The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 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 impaired for one or more designated uses;

3d—Meets Verified List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses;

4a—Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete;

4b—Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because an existing or proposed pollutant 

control mechanism provides reasonable assurance that the water will attain standards in the future; 

4c—Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because the impairment is not caused by a 

pollutant; and

5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required. 4

Parameters in bold meet the Verifi ed List evaluation criteria, Section 62-303.400, F.A.C. 5

Parameters in italics are in Category 4 (a, b, or c) waters that do not require TMDL development. 6

The assessment categories listed in this column represent the status of each WBID as a whole, based on multiple parameters. 

The hierarchy for assigning these categories is Category 5, then 4, then 3c, then 2, and then 3b, i.e., each WBID is assigned a 

category based on the highest category assigned to an individual parameter. For example, if WBID 9999 has total coliforms 

as Category 5, fecal coliforms as Category 3c, and coliform–shellfi sh as Category 2, the single assessment call for the WBID is 

 Category 5.

DO = Dissolved oxygen

F = Fresh water

M = Marine

WBID = Waterbody identifi cation number

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 59
Planning Unit and 9 estuarine and freshwater waterbody segments in the 

Matanzas River Planning Unit are potentially impaired.

In 1996, shellfi sh harvesting areas within Ximanies Creek (WBID 

2477) and Tolomato River (2363I) were downgraded from approved and 

conditionally approved, respectively, to conditionally restricted. Also, shellfi sh harvesting areas within the ICWW’s WBID 2363F were downgraded 

from conditionally approved to conditionally restricted in 1997. These 

downgrades, which were due to elevated coliform bacteria levels, resulted in 

the closure of virtually all of the primary shellfi sh harvesting areas north of 

St. Augustine.

Urban runoff and other sources of sediment load affect the two planning units. The system as a whole has high average total suspended solids 

and somewhat elevated turbidity, which likely refl ect tributary loading and 

bottom scouring and resuspension due to strong tidal current velocities, 

wind-generated waves, and boat wakes (Miller, 2003; SJRWMD, 2003).

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses

Point Sources. There are three facilities in the Tolomato River Planning Unit with active National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permits to discharge to surface waters. These consist of two 

domestic waste treatment plants and one concrete batch plant facility. The 

most signifi cant of the active facilities is the Sawgrass Wastewater Treatment Plant in Ponte Vedra, with a design capacity of 1.5 million gallons 

per day (mgd). In addition, there are two active non-NPDES-permitted 

facilities in the planning unit. There are no designated Superfund sites, 

one active landfi ll, and two closed landfi lls.

Six facilities in the Matanzas River Planning Unit have active NPDES 

permits to discharge to surface waters. These comprise four domestic waste 

treatment plants and two concrete batch plants. The most signifi cant 

of the active facilities are the St. Augustine wastewater treatment facility 

(WWTF) No. 1, with a design capacity of 5 mgd; the Anastasia Island 

WWTF, with a design capacity of 4 mgd; and the State Road 16 WWTF, 

in St. Augustine, at 1.5 mgd. In addition, there are six active non- NPDESpermitted facilities, including two domestic waste facilities and two 

industrial waste facilities. There is one delisted, state-funded Superfund 

site, Control Products Associated, in St. Augustine. This was a pesticide/

insecticide/herbicide operation. There are one active, two inactive, and six 

closed landfi lls in the planning unit.

Figures 3.3 and 3.4, respectively, show permitted wastewater treatment facilities, landfi lls, and delineated ground water contamination 

areas in the Tolomato River and Matanzas River Planning Units (see 

Noteworthy for a defi nition of point sources and a discussion of environmental remediation). Appendix E lists the basin’s domestic and industrial 

surface discharge facilities, along with their permitted fl ows, by planning 

unit. It also lists landfi lls or solid waste facilities, by planning unit.

Nonpoint Sources. In the Tolomato River Planning Unit, upland 

forests, wetlands, and surface waters comprise about 81 percent of the 

planning unit’s area. Approximately 13 percent of the area is urbanized, 

and about 5 percent is used as agricultural land or rangeland. Other land 

60 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
uses include transportation, communication, and utilities (1.4 percent) 

and barren land (0.5 percent). These human land uses can be associated with the nonpoint discharges of pollutants and eroded sediments 

(see Noteworthy for a defi nition of nonpoint sources). According to the 

2000 U.S. Census, St. Johns County is the second-fastest-growing county 

in the state, and much of the new development will increase stormwater 

discharges to the ICWW (SJRWMD, 2003).

Upland forests, wetlands, and surface waters comprise about 68 percent 

of the Matanzas River Planning Unit’s area. Approximately 24 percent of 

the area is urbanized, and about 6 percent is agricultural land or rangeland. Other land uses include transportation, communication, and utilities 

(1.3 percent) and barren land (0.2 percent). These human land uses can be 

associated with the nonpoint discharges of pollutants and eroded sediments. 

Appendix F provides summary information on Level I land uses in the 

basin, by planning unit.

A municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) is a publicly owned 

conveyance or system of conveyances (i.e., ditches, curbs, catch basins, and 

underground pipes) designed for the discharge of stormwater to surface 

waters of the state. An MS4 can be operated by municipalities, counties, drainage districts, colleges, military bases, or prisons, to name a few 

examples. 

As implemented under Rule 62-624, F.A.C., Phase 1 addresses discharges of stormwater runoff from “medium” and “large” MS4s (i.e., those 

located in areas with populations of 100,000 or greater). There are no 

Phase 1 MS4s in the Upper East Coast Basin. Under Phase 2, the program regulates discharges from certain MS4s that are not regulated under 

Phase 1, and that meet criteria set forth in Rule 62-624, F.A.C. Regulated 

MS4 operators must obtain an NPDES stormwater permit and implement a 

comprehensive stormwater management program to reduce the contamination of stormwater runoff and prohibit illicit discharges to the MS4.

MS4s in the Tolomato and Matanzas Planning Units that are covered 

under Phase 2 of Florida’s NPDES stormwater program are the Florida 

Department of Transportation (DOT), District 2; St. Johns County; the 

city of St. Augustine; and the city of St. Augustine Beach.

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects

Waters will not be placed on the Verifi ed List if the Department 

receives reasonable assurance that existing or proposed projects and/or 

 programs are expected to result in the attainment of water quality standards or consistently improve water quality over time. Chapter 4 and 

Appendix B contain additional information on the requirements for 

 reasonable assurance.

For this planning unit, no management plans or projects complying with the Department’s guidance for reasonable assurance have been 

 provided for the list of impaired waters.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 61
Environmental remediation 

activities cover a broad spectrum 

of cleanup programs. These 

include state-managed hazardous waste, dry cleaning, and 

petroleum cleanup programs, 

as well as the federal Superfund 

and Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) programs. 

These programs are designed 

to remediate ground water and 

soil contamination that pose a 

Rainfall generates stormwater 

runoff. As it flows over the land 

and through the ground, runoff 

may carry nonpoint source pollutants from many different sources 

Information on Point Sources in Planning Units

Point sources discharging pollutants to surface water or ground 

water originate from discrete, 

well-defined areas such as a facility discharge from the end of a 

pipe, a disposal well, or a wastewater sprayfield. Point sources 

generally fall into two major 

types: domestic wastewater 

sources (which consist of sewage 

from homes, businesses, and 

Environmental Remediation

institutions) and industrial wastewater sources (which include 

wastewater, runoff, and leachate 

from industrial or commercial 

storage, handling, or processing 

facilities). Landfills, hazardous 

waste sites, dry cleaning solvent 

cleanup program sites, and petroleum facility discharges are also 

considered point sources. These 

sites have the potential to leach 

contaminants into ground water 

and surface water.

Identifying the source of waterbody impairment is an important 

part of assessing water quality and developing TMDLs. As 

part of this report, information 

is presented on point sources, 

including permitted facilities 

that discharge wastewater and 

landfills.

Nonpoint Sources and Land Uses

to lakes, rivers, and estuaries in a 

watershed, and into ground water 

supplies. Nonpoint sources also 

include atmospheric deposition 

and leaching from agricultural 

lands, urban areas, and unvegetated lands. The pollutants in 

runoff often include fertilizers, 

bacteria, metals, sediments, and 

petroleum compounds.

threat to public health and the 

environment.

The National Priorities List 

(NPL) is a consolidated list of the 

uncontrolled hazardous waste 

sites that pose the greatest threat 

to public health or the environment. Sites are listed on the NPL 

upon the completion of a preliminary assessment, site inspection, 

and hazardous ranking system 

evaluation to determine their 

potential for adverse impacts and 

priority for corrective action. The 

EPA Superfund program administers the cleanup of NPL sites.

The Department’s state-funded 

cleanup program administers the 

cleanup of contaminated hazardous waste sites when enforcement action taken against a 

responsible party is unsuccessful 

or when no responsible party is 

identified.

62 Noteworthy Water Quality Assessment Report: 

Upper East Coast
• Pellicer Creek Planning Unit

General Description

The Pellicer Creek Planning Unit covers about 161 square miles and 

contains 24 segments with WBIDs. Located south of St. Augustine, it 

includes southern St. Johns County and northern Flagler County. Pellicer 

Creek, which forms the boundary between St. Johns and Flagler Counties, 

is the only natural watershed drainage feature in the planning unit. Connections to the Halifax River to the south and the Matanzas River estuary 

to the north are through the ICWW. This area consists of vast wetlands, 

many miles of which were drained for pine plantations or real estate development, and to reduce mosquito breeding sites (SJRWMD, 2003). 

Local municipalities and residential areas in the planning unit include 

the towns of Marineland and Beverly Beach, the city of Palm Coast, and 

the northern portions of Flagler Beach. 

Commercial shellfi shing for oysters and clams has historically occurred 

in the southern St. Johns County portion of the planning unit. Although 

some areas remain “conditionally approved” for shellfi sh harvesting, others 

have been reclassifi ed as “conditionally restricted.”

Based on current growth and the future land use plan for Pellicer 

Creek, residential areas could potentially increase from the current 

7 percent to 22 percent of the planning unit’s total area by the year 2020 

(SJRWMD, 2003). Most of the western portions of the planning unit 

remain under silvicultural use.

Water Quality Summary

Three waterbody segments (WBIDs) in the planning unit were previously identifi ed as impaired on the 1998 303(d) list: Pellicer Creek, 

Cracker Branch, and Palm Coast. Figure 3.5, a composite map of the 

planning unit, shows waters on the 1998 303(d) list, the Planning List 

and Verifi ed List, and potential pollution sources. Table 3.7 summarizes 

the water quality assessment status of all waterbody segments in the planning unit. The table and fi gure show that four estuarine and freshwater 

waterbody segments in the planning unit are potentially impaired. Coastal 

waterbodies are also impaired for mercury in fi sh.

High densities of on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems along 

the barrier island in northern Flagler County may contribute bacteria and 

nutrients to the narrow, channelized (ICWW) portion of the southern part 

of the planning unit. Wave energy due to boat traffi c causes the continuous 

resuspension of sediments, resulting in increases in total suspended solids 

(SJRWMD, 2003).

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses

Point Sources. Four facilities in the Pellicer Creek Planning Unit 

have active NPDES permits to discharge to surface waters. These consist 

of two domestic waste treatment plants and two no exposure certifi cation 

(NEX) facilities. The most signifi cant of the active facilities is the Palm 

Coast WWTF, with a design capacity of four mgd. In addition, there are 

nine active non-NPDES-permitted domestic waste facilities in the planning 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 63
Figure 3.5: Composite Map of the Pellicer Creek Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List, Planning 

List and Verified List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources

64 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Table 3.7: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Pellicer Creek Planning Unit

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 

303(d) List 

Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c) for Listed 

Parameters4

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

Parameters5

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for 

Listed 

Parameters

EPA’s 

305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment 

 Category for 

WBID6

2550 Unnamed 

Drain

Stream IIIF DO Fecal Coliforms, 

Turbidity

3c

2551 Lake Triplet Lake IIIF 3a

2553 Cracker 

Branch 

(Pellicer 

Creek)

Stream IIIF Biology Iron DO, Fecal Coliforms, Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a), 

Turbidity, Unionized Ammonia

2

2566 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF 3a

2573 Unnamed 

Drain

Stream IIIF 3a

2577 Stevens 

Branch

Stream IIIF Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a)

2

2595 Styles 

Creek

Stream IIIF 3a

2597 Hulett 

Branch

Stream IIIF 3a

2598 Dave 

Branch

Stream IIIF 3a

2609 St. Joe 

Canal

Stream IIIF 3a

8120 Pellicer 

Creek 

Ocean 1

Coastal IIIM Fecal Coliforms 5*

8121 Pellicer 

Creek 

Ocean 2

Coastal IIIM Fecal Coliforms 5*

2363E1 ICWW Estuary IIIM 3a

2363D Palm Coast Estuary IIIM Cadmium Mercury in Fish Cadmium, DO, 

Fecal Coliforms, 

Lead, Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a), 

Selenium, Thallium, Turbidity

5

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 65
Table 3.7 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 

303(d) List 

Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c) for Listed 

Parameters4

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

Parameters5

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for 

Listed 

Parameters

EPA’s 

305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment 

 Category for 

WBID6

2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM Arsenic, Iron, 

 Mercury in Fish

Aluminum, Cadmium, Chromium 

3, Copper, DO, 

Fecal Coliforms, 

Lead, Manganese, 

Nickel, Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a), 

Nutrients (Historical Chlorophyll), Selenium, 

Turbidity, Zinc

5

2363F ICWW Estuary II DO Coliform (Shellfish Harvesting 

Downgrade), 

 Mercury in Fish

Fecal Coliforms, 

Nutrients (Chlorophyll a), Turbidity

5

2551A Lake Triplet 

Drain

Lake IIIF 3a

2580A Pellicer 

Creek

Stream IIIF DO, Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a), 

Turbidity

2

2580B Pellicer 

Creek

Stream IIIF DO, Silver Fecal Coliforms, 

Iron

Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium 

3, Copper, Lead, 

Nickel, Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a), 

Nutrients (Historical Chlorophyll), 

Selenium, Turbidity, Unionized 

Ammonia, Zinc

5

2580C Pellicer 

Creek

Stream IIIF 3a

8998 

(Includes 

WBIDs 

8120, 

8120A–B, 

8121, 

8121A–C)

Florida 

Atlantic 

Coast

Coastal IIIM Mercury in Fish 5

66 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Table 3.7 (continued)

5* = The overall Category 5 call for this WBID is based on a mercury in fi sh listing. All of the coastal listings (8000 series) for 

 mercury in fi sh were combined into WBID 8998; individual entries have been removed from the list.

Notes:

1

The designation “stream” includes canals, rivers, and sloughs. The designation “lake” includes some marshes.

2

The state’s surface water classifi cations are 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

Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class) 3

The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 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 impaired for one or more designated uses;

3d—Meets Verified List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses;

4a—Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete;

4b—Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because an existing or proposed pollutant 

control mechanism provides reasonable assurance that the water will attain standards in the future; 

4c—Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because the impairment is not caused by a 

pollutant; and

5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required. 4

Parameters in bold meet the Verifi ed List evaluation criteria, Section 62-303.400, F.A.C. 5

Parameters in italics are in Category 4 (a, b, or c) waters that do not require TMDL development. 6

The assessment categories listed in this column represent the status of each WBID as a whole, based on multiple parameters. 

The hierarchy for assigning these categories is Category 5, then 4, then 3c, then 2, and then 3b, i.e., each WBID is assigned a 

category based on the highest category assigned to an individual parameter. For example, if WBID 9999 has total coliforms 

as Category 5, fecal coliforms as Category 3c, and coliform–shellfi sh as Category 2, the single assessment call for the WBID is 

 Category 5.

DO = Dissolved oxygen

F = Fresh water

M = Marine

WBID = Waterbody identifi cation number

unit. There are no designated Superfund sites, and there is one active and 

one closed landfi ll.

Figure 3.5 shows permitted wastewater treatment facilities, landfi lls, 

and delineated ground water contamination areas in the planning unit. 

Appendix E lists the basin’s domestic and industrial surface discharge 

facilities, along with their permitted fl ows, by planning unit. It also lists 

landfi lls or solid waste facilities, by planning unit.

Nonpoint Sources. Upland forests, wetlands, and surface waters 

comprise about 74 percent of the planning unit’s area. Approximately 

19 percent of the area is urbanized, and about 5 percent is used as agricultural land or rangeland. Other land uses include transportation, communication, and utilities (1.2 percent) and barren land (0.8 percent). These 

human land uses can be associated with the nonpoint discharges of pollutants and eroded sediments. Appendix F provides summary information on 

Level I land uses in the basin, by planning unit.

MS4s in the Pellicer Creek Planning Unit that will be covered under 

Phase 2 of Florida’s NPDES stormwater program and will be required to 

obtain an NPDES stormwater permit are the DOT (potential), St. Johns 

County, and Flagler Beach.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 67
Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects

Waters will not be placed on the Verifi ed List if the Department 

receives reasonable assurance that existing or proposed projects and/or 

 programs are expected to result in the attainment of water quality standards or consistently improve water quality over time. Chapter 4 and 

Appendix B contain additional information on the requirements for 

reasonable assurance.

For this planning unit, no management plans or projects complying with the Department’s guidance for reasonable assurance have been 

 provided for the list of impaired waters.

• Halifax River Planning Unit

General Description

The Halifax River Planning Unit covers about 331 square miles and 

contains 53 segments with WBIDs. The planning unit includes portions 

of Flagler and Volusia Counties. Local municipalities and residential areas 

in the planning unit include southern portions of Flagler Beach, Holly 

Hill, Ormond Beach, Port Orange, Daytona Beach, South Daytona, and 

Ponce Inlet.

Major drainage comes from Bulow Creek, the Tomoka River, and 

Spruce Creek, and their natural tributaries. Rose Bay, a large embayment 

partially isolated from the main part of the Halifax River by an abandoned 

causeway and the current U.S. 1 causeway, also contributes drainage to the 

Halifax River. Tidal fl ow primarily originates through the Ponce de Leon 

Inlet to the south. There is also tidal exchange through the ICWW to the 

north, connecting with the Matanzas Inlet through the Matanzas River.

Mosquito impoundments, residential development, or silviculture have 

altered a majority of the estuary’s historical watershed drainage. A 1,100-

acre mosquito impoundment is still located west of the ICWW and north 

of the Tomoka River Basin, though the dike wall has been breached in 

several places, and active management of the impoundment ended in the 

early 1980s.

There are 6 causeways crossing the Halifax River Estuary within 

a distance of 10.5 miles, inhibiting circulation within the area 

(SJRWMD, 2003).

Water Quality Summary

Eight waterbody segments (WBIDs) in the planning unit were previously identifi ed as impaired on the 1998 303(d) list. These comprise 

2 sections of the Halifax River, Rose Bay, 2 sections of Spruce Creek, 

including the Outstanding Florida Waters portion, 2 sections of the 

Tomoka River, and an unnamed ditch (B-19 Canal). Figure 3.6, a composite map of the planning unit, shows waters on the 1998 303(d) list, the 

Planning List and Verifi ed List, and potential pollution sources. Table 3.8

summarizes the water quality assessment status of all waterbody segments 

in the planning unit. The table and fi gure show that 16 fresh water 

and estuarine waterbody segments in the planning unit are potentially 

impaired. Three additional coastal WBIDs are verifi ed for beach closures 

due to bacteria.

68 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Figure 3.6: Composite Map of the Halifax River Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List, 

Planning List and Verified List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 69
Table 3.8: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Halifax River Planning Unit

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 

303(d) List 

Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c) for Listed 

Parameters4

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

 Parameters5

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for

Listed 

Parameters

EPA’s 

305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment 

 Category for 

WBID6

2620 Bulow Creek Stream IIIM DO, Iron Aluminum, 

Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, 

Lead, Nickel, 

Nutrients (Chlorophyll a), Nutrients 

(Historical Chlorophyll), Selenium, 

Turbidity, Zinc

5

2631 Unnamed 

Ditch

Stream IIIF 3a

2634 Tomoka 

River

Stream IIIF Copper, DO, 

Lead

 Arsenic, Biology, 

Fecal Coliforms, 

Fluoride, Iron, 

Nutrients (Chlorophyll a), Nutrients 

(Historical Chlorophyll), Turbidity, Unionized 

Ammonia, Zinc

3c

2635 Grover 

Branch

Stream IIIF Biology, DO Turbidity 3c

2640 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF 3a

2641 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF DO Fecal Coliforms 5

2642 Unnamed 

Branch

Estuary IIIM Saxitoxin Mercury in Fish 5

2643 Unnamed 

Ditches

Stream IIIF 3a

2645 Mizners 

Branch

Stream IIIF DO Biology, Iron, 

Turbidity

3c

2646 Little 

Tomoka 

River

Stream IIIF DO Biology, 

Turbidity

3c

2647 Holly Hill 

Ditch

Stream IIIF Biology DO 5

2649 Priest 

Branch

Stream IIIF 3a

2650 Unnamed 

Slough

Stream IIIF 3a

2652 Unnamed 

Ditch

Stream IIIF 3a

70 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Table 3.8 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 

303(d) List 

Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c) for Listed 

Parameters4

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

 Parameters5

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for

Listed 

Parameters

EPA’s 

305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment 

 Category for 

WBID6

2653 Unnamed 

Drain

Stream IIIF 3a

2654 Drainage 

Canals

Stream IIIF 3a

2655 Unnamed 

Ditch

Stream IIIF 3a

2656 Unnamed 

Ditch

Stream IIIF 3a

2657 Int 

Speedway 

Ditch

Stream IIIF 3a

2664 Reed Canal Stream IIIF DO Fecal Coliforms, 

Turbidity

3c

2665 Unnamed 

Ditch

Stream IIIF 3a

2666 Unnamed 

Ditch (B-19 

Canal)

Stream IIIF DO DO, Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a)

 3c

2668 Port Orange 

Canal

Stream IIIF 3a

 2670 Halifax 

Canal

Stream IIIM Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a)

Fecal Coliforms DO, Turbidity 5

 2672 Rose Bay Estuary IIIM DO Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a), 

Saxitoxin

DO, Mercury in 

Fish

Fecal Coliforms, 

Nutrients (Historical Chlorophyll), 

Turbidity

5

2673 Unnamed 

Drain

Stream IIIF DO Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a), 

Turbidity

3c

2674 Spruce 

Creek

Stream IIIF Biology Fecal Coliforms, 

Iron

Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium 

3, Copper, DO, 

Lead, Nickel, 

Nutrients (Chlorophyll a), Nutrients 

(Historical Chlorophyll), Selenium, 

Turbidity, Unionized Ammonia, 

Zinc

5

2675 Sand Creek Stream IIIF DO Biology, 

Turbidity

5

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 71
Table 3.8 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 

303(d) List 

Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c) for Listed 

Parameters4

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

 Parameters5

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for

Listed 

Parameters

EPA’s 

305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment 

 Category for 

WBID6

2678 Turnbull Bay Estuary IIIM Saxitoxin, 

Biology

DO, Mercury in 

Fish, Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a)

 5

2679 Unnamed 

Drain

Stream IIIF DO Turbidity 3c

2681 Glencoe 

Ditches

Stream IIIF DO Turbidity 3c

2683 Turnbull 

Creek

Stream IIIF 3a

8117 Halifax

River 

Ocean 1

Coastal IIIM Saxitoxin Fecal Coliforms 5*

8118 Halifax

River 

Ocean 2

Coastal IIIM Saxitoxin Fecal Coliforms 5*

8119 Halifax

River 

Ocean 3

Coastal IIIM Saxitoxin Fecal Coliforms 5*

2363A Halifax 

River

Estuary IIIM Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a), 

Saxitoxin

Mercury in Fish DO, Fecal Coliforms, Nutrients 

(Historical Chlorophyll), Turbidity

5

2363B Halifax 

River

Estuary IIIM Saxitoxin Copper, Iron, 

 Mercury in Fish

Aluminum, 

Arsenic, Cadmium, DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, Lead, 

Nickel, Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a), 

Nutrients (Historical Chlorophyll), Selenium, 

Turbidity, Zinc

5

2363C Tomoka 

Basin

Estuary IIIM Saxitoxin Mercury in Fish DO, Fecal Coliforms, Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a), 

Nutrients (Historical Chlorophyll), 

Turbidity

5

2363J Palm Coast Estuary IIIM Saxitoxin Mercury in Fish DO, Fecal Coliforms, Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a), 

Turbidity

5

72 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 

303(d) List 

Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c) for Listed 

Parameters4

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

 Parameters5

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for

Listed 

Parameters

EPA’s 

305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment 

 Category for 

WBID6

2634A Tomoka 

River

Estuary IIIM DO, Saxitoxin Iron, Mercury in 

Fish

Aluminum, 

Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, 

Fecal Coliforms, 

Lead, Nickel, 

Nutrients (Chlorophyll a), Nutrients 

(Historical Chlorophyll), Selenium, 

Turbidity, Zinc

5

2666A Sweetwater 

Creek

Stream IIIF Biology, DO Nutrients (Chlorophyll a), Turbidity3c

2674A Spruce 

Creek

Estuary IIIM Saxitoxin Copper, DO, 

Fecal Coliforms, 

Iron, Mercury in 

Fish, Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a)

Nutrients (Chlorophyll a), Turbidity5

2674B Strickland 

Bay

Estuary IIIM Saxitoxin Fecal Coliforms, 

Mercury in Fish

DO, Turbidity 5

8117A Toronita Coastal IIIM Saxitoxin 5*

8117B Dunlawton Coastal IIIM Saxitoxin Coliforms (Beach 

Advisory)

 5

8117C Hilton Coastal IIIM Saxitoxin Coliforms (Beach 

Advisory)

 5

8117D Silver Beach Coastal IIIM Saxitoxin Coliforms (Beach 

Advisory)

 5

8117E Main Street Coastal IIIM Saxitoxin 5*

8117F Seabreeze 

Blvd

Coastal IIIM Saxitoxin 5*

8118A Granda Blvd Coastal IIIM Saxitoxin 5*

8118B Bicentennial 

Park

Coastal IIIM Saxitoxin 5*

8998 

(Includes 

WBIDs 

8117, 

8117A, 

8118, 

8118A–B, 

8119, 

8119A–B)

Florida 

Atlantic 

Coast

Coastal IIIM Mercury in Fish 5

Table 3.8 (continued)

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 73
Table 3.8 (continued)

5* = The overall Category 5 call for this WBID is based on a mercury in fi sh listing. All of the coastal listings (8000 series) for 

 mercury in fi sh were combined into WBID 8998; individual entries have been removed from the list.

Notes:

1

The designation “stream” includes canals, rivers, and sloughs. The designation “lake” includes some marshes.

2

The state’s surface water classifi cations are 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

Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class) 3

The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 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 impaired for one or more designated uses;

3d—Meets Verified List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses;

4a—Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete;

4b—Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because an existing or proposed pollutant 

control mechanism provides reasonable assurance that the water will attain standards in the future; 

4c—Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because the impairment is not caused by a 

pollutant; and

5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required. 4

Parameters in bold meet the Verifi ed List evaluation criteria, Section 62-303.400, F.A.C. 5

Parameters in italics are in Category 4 (a, b, or c) waters that do not require TMDL development. 6

The assessment categories listed in this column represent the status of each WBID as a whole, based on multiple parameters. 

The hierarchy for assigning these categories is Category 5, then 4, then 3c, then 2, and then 3b, i.e., each WBID is assigned a 

category based on the highest category assigned to an individual parameter. For example, if WBID 9999 has total coliforms 

as Category 5, fecal coliforms as Category 3c, and coliform–shellfi sh as Category 2, the single assessment call for the WBID is 

 Category 5.

DO = Dissolved oxygen

F = Fresh water

M = Marine

WBID = Waterbody identifi cation number

The Volusia County Health Department has identifi ed a number of 

areas in the planning unit as having potential septic tank problems. These 

include the barrier island Ormond by the Sea, neighborhoods around 

Ormond Beach along the Tomoka River, Port Orange, Rose Bay, and along 

Spruce Creek (SJRWMD, 2003).

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses

Point Sources. There are 16 facilities in the Halifax River Planning 

Unit with active NPDES permits to discharge to surface waters. These 

consist of 6 domestic waste treatment plants, 2 industrial waste facilities, 

5 NEX facilities, 2 concrete batch plants, and 1 petroleum cleanup facility. 

The most signifi cant of the active facilities are the Daytona Beach/Bethune 

Point WWTF, with a design capacity of 13 mgd; the New Smyrna Beach 

Water Reclamation facility, with a design capacity of 7 mgd; the Ormond 

Beach WWTF, at 6.0 mgd; the city of Holly Hill domestic waste facility, 

at 2.4 mgd; and the Flagler Beach WWTF, at 1 mgd. In addition, there 

are 73 active non-NPDES-permitted facilities, including 62 domestic waste 

facilities, 7 industrial waste facilities, 2 residuals/septage management 

74 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
facilities, and 2 concrete batch plants. The planning unit has no designated 

Superfund sites, and there are 11 active, 6 inactive, and 7 closed landfi lls.

Figure 3.6 shows permitted wastewater treatment facilities, landfi lls, 

and delineated ground water contamination areas in the planning unit. 

Appendix E lists the basin’s domestic and industrial surface discharge 

facilities, along with their permitted fl ows, by planning unit. It also lists 

landfi lls or solid waste facilities, by planning unit.

Nonpoint Sources. Upland forests, wetlands, and surface waters 

comprise about 61 percent of the planning unit’s area. Approximately 

26 percent of the area is urbanized, and about 9 percent is used as agricultural land or rangeland. Other land uses include transportation, communication, and utilities (3.4 percent) and barren land (0.6 percent). These 

human land uses can be associated with the nonpoint discharges of pollutants and eroded sediments. Appendix F provides summary information 

on Level I land uses in the basin, by planning unit.

MS4s in the planning unit that will be covered under Phase 2 of 

Florida’s NPDES stormwater program and will be required to obtain an 

NPDES stormwater permit are Volusia County, Daytona Beach, Daytona 

Beach Shores, Flagler Beach, Holly Hill, New Smyrna Beach, Ormond 

Beach, Port Orange, South Daytona, and the Town of Ponce Inlet.

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects

Waters will not be placed on the Verifi ed List if the Department 

receives reasonable assurance that existing or proposed projects and/

or programs are expected to result in the attainment of water quality 

 standards or consistently improve water quality over time. Chapter 4 

and Appendix B contain additional information on the requirements for 

 reasonable assurance.

For this planning unit, no management plans or projects complying with the Department’s guidance for reasonable assurance have been 

 provided for the list of impaired waters.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 75

Chapter 4: Evaluation of Ground Water/ 

Geologic Influences on Impaired Waterbodies

This chapter evaluates the potential infl uences of ground water and 

natural geologic, soil, and ground water chemistry on surface water quality 

in the Upper East Coast Basin, focusing on surface waters on the Planning 

and Verifi ed Lists. It contains a general and by-planning-unit discussion 

and presentation of information. The chapter also recommends an alternative listing status for waterbodies that exceed Impaired Surface Waters 

Rule listing thresholds due to natural conditions. The parameters assessed 

include nutrients (identifi ed as chlorophyll a in streams and canals), dissolved oxygen (DO), and metals (iron, copper, lead, nickel, and arsenic). 

Geology, Soil, and Ground Water

Setting

As discussed in Chapter 2, there are three principal aquifer systems 

in the basin: the surfi cial aquifer, the intermediate aquifer (functioning mainly as a confi ning unit), and the Floridan aquifer. Of these, the 

surfi cial aquifer interacts most freely with surface water and constitutes 

the main source of ground water that discharges to surface waterbodies. 

However, the upward leakage of water from the Floridan aquifer is possible 

in areas where its upper confi ning unit is thin or has less clay. The overall 

actual discharge of ground water has been evaluated as basefl ow into several 

stream segments in the basin (Florida Department of Environmental Protection [Department], 2007a–c). Using U.S. Geological Survey fl ow data 

for 14 streams in the basin and the Watershed-based Hydrographic Analysis 

Tool developed at Purdue University (Lim et al., 2005), an average stream 

basefl ow contribution of 52 percent was calculated for the streams that were 

evaluated.

In addition to providing a mechanism for conveying pollutants to 

surface waters, the ground water media can infl uence surface water quality. 

The natural chemical makeup of soils and aquifer material and ambient 

ground water chemistry should also be evaluated when assessing surface 

water quality infl uences.

Nutrients

The pollutants responsible for excessive chlorophyll growth, measured 

as high chlorophyll a levels in streams, canals, and estuaries, are phosphorus 

and nitrogen. Both of these nutrients exist naturally in the environment, 

but both can be pollutants released by anthropogenic activities. 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 77
Phosphorus occurs naturally in clayey geologic material and in ground 

water that is in contact with phosphatic material. Statewide, however, the 

highest phosphorus levels occur in organic soils (Chen and Ma, 2001), 

where phosphorus has an affi nity for organic carbon, iron, and aluminum. 

These organic soils occur as peat and muck deposits in lake beds and wetlands, and along riverbeds and streambeds. The high phosphorus content 

(350 milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg] geometric mean value) in undisturbed organic soils (Histosols) can be from natural historical accumulations, or more recent anthropogenic sources, or a combination. 

Land use in the vicinity may dictate the extent to which these accumulations are characterized as naturally occurring. Activities that drain or 

disturb phosphorus-containing peat and muck may also release phosphorus 

into surface water.

Ground water data available for this assessment include dissolved phosphorus and dissolved orthophosphate. Figure 4.1 shows the distribution 

of orthophosphate in the surfi cial aquifer. Orthophosphate is the soluble, 

inorganic form of phosphorus that is most typical of ground water and can 

be derived from natural geologic material, mineralized and released from 

peat and muck, or leached from inorganic fertilizers. 

Nitrogen also occurs naturally in both organic and inorganic forms, 

but elevated detections of inorganic nitrogen in ground water (nitrate, 

nitrite, and sometimes ammonia) are typically associated with pollutant 

sources such as inorganic fertilizers, animal waste, and human wastewater. 

Nitrate or nitrate+nitrite is associated with a pollutant source when present 

at elevated levels. Ammonia-nitrogen is not typically found at high concentrations in ground water except near a source (which could be anthropogenic or natural), particularly in poorly drained areas with a high water 

table. Sources of elevated ammonia can be fertilizers, livestock waste, and 

domestic wastewater, but they can also include decayed plant matter in an 

anaerobic environment, such as a swamp or marsh. 

Metals

Iron is the metal most typically identified with a natural source, and 

elevated iron concentrations are common in the surfi cial aquifer throughout the state. Iron oxides leached from clay by slightly acidic rainwater 

occur naturally in the environment. Iron solubility and mobility are 

enhanced where ground water pH and DO are low. In soil, elevated iron 

concentrations can be associated with iron-rich, clayey subsoil or with 

organic material. In both cases, conditions are acidic.

Like phosphorus, iron accumulates in peat and organic material under 

certain conditions and, statewide, organic soils and sediments (Histosols) 

have the highest iron concentrations (3.19 grams per kilogram [g/kg], in 

Chen and Ma, 2001). Iron is bound to organic material through chelation 

and can concentrate within organic material as it migrates from iron-rich 

sources, primarily mineral soils containing iron oxide. In both ground 

water and surface water, elevated iron coincides with reductive conditions 

(low DO), lower than neutral pH, high organic content, and high color. 

For example, blackwater streams typically have high iron. The coincidence 

78 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Figure 4.1: Orthophosphate Concentrations in Surficial Aquifer Monitoring Wells, Upper East Coast Basin

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 79
of iron in surface water with potentially iron-rich soil/organic material also 

often correlates with elevated concentrations in ground water. 

Copper, lead, and nickel can occur naturally at low concentrations in 

soil and ground water in Florida, but if present in ground water samples at 

higher concentrations, they may be associated with pollutant sources. In 

the sedimentary cycle, copper is concentrated in clay minerals and organic 

material and can be released under low pH conditions (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency [EPA], 2006). Like copper and iron, lead and nickel 

can also bind to clays and organic material in soils and sediment and can 

be released where conditions are favorable.

Arsenic is an anion and behaves differently in the environment than 

other metals. It can occur naturally but is more commonly associated with 

anthropogenic sources. Over the years, arsenic has been used as an active 

ingredient in pesticides.

Dissolved Oxygen

DO levels can be depressed in surface water systems because of nutrient enrichment and/or biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Low DO can 

also be attributed to poor water circulation caused by stream channelization or disruption in fl ows. In addition, ground water infl ows, where signifi cant, can lower DO levels in surface water systems. This may be more 

likely to occur in canals that have been excavated to lower ground water 

levels and thus have a signifi cant ground water component. DO levels in 

ground water are always much lower than the surface water standard. As 

discussed previously, low DO (reducing conditions) could also correspond 

with elevated iron and phosphorus.

Evaluations by Planning Unit

This section summarizes, for each planning unit, ground water chemical characteristics that may be related to waterbodies on the draft Verifi ed 

List, evaluates ground water fl ow, reviews pertinent geologic and soil information, and evaluates land use and anthropogenic sources.

Overview of Ground Water Quality

Table 4.1 summarizes the ground water quality statistics for all of the 

basin’s planning units, based on available data. The data were obtained 

from the Department’s Oracle Generalized Water Information System 

(OGWIS) ambient monitoring database. Data were retrieved from 

OGWIS for the surfi cial aquifer system and the Floridan aquifer system. 

According to Table 4.1, median values for all planning units with data 

indicate that phosphorus concentrations in ground water are signifi cant, 

with medians for orthophosphate in the surfi cial aquifer ranging as high as 

0.438 mg/L. (In the Tolomato River Planning Unit, levels are much lower.) 

In addition, the median ground water values in all of the planning units are 

comparable with the total phosphorus medians for waterbodies listed for 

nutrients and DO, suggesting a common source of phosphorus. Because 

the majority of the wells used in this analysis were selected to represent 

background conditions, it appears that the phosphorus in these surface 

80 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Table 4.1: Ground Water Statistics for Planning Units in the Upper East Coast Basin

Halifax River 

Planning Unit

Matanzas River 

Planning Unit

Pellicer Creek 

Planning Unit

Tolomato River 

Planning Unit

# wellsMedian# wellsMedian# wellsMedian# wellsMedian

Surficial Aquifer

Arsenic, Total 4 0.75 2 0.5 4 0.88 3 2.75

Copper, Total 5 5 2 2.5 5 5 3 5

Iron, Total 5 1,300 2 460 5 7,800 3 810

Lead, Total 5 16 2 3 4 3 3 5

Nickel, Total 4 4.25 2 5 3 5 2 22.5

Ammonia, 

Dissolved (as N)

 5 0.28 3 0.26 6 0.14 3 0.55

Nitrate+Nitrite, 

Dissolved (as N)

 5 0.029 3 0.01 6 0.017 3 0.01

Orthophosphate, 

Dissolved (as P)

 5 0.055 2 0.438 6 0.135 3 0.034

Phosphorus, 

Dissolved (as P)

 4 0.106 3 0.4 6 0.137 3 0.07

Dissolved Oxygen 3 0.25 2 0.49 6 0.25 4 1.61

pH 6 7.19 3 7.12 7 6.75 4 6.01

Floridan Aquifer

Arsenic, Total 9 0.75 1 0.5 3 1.1 2 0.5

Copper, Total 12 2 1 5 3 8 2 6

Iron, Total 12 170 1 193 3 480 2 109

Lead, Total 12 5 1 6 3 0.71 2 0.85

Nickel, Total 9 3.5 1 5 3 5 2 5

Ammonia, 

Dissolved (as N)

 9 0.4 1 0.22 3 0.33 2 0.23

Nitrate+Nitrite, 

Dissolved (as N)

 11 0.011 1 0.1 3 0.01 2 0.01

Orthophosphate, 

Dissolved (as P)

 11 0.12 1 0.008 2 0.012 2 0.011

Phosphorus, 

Dissolved (as P)

 9 .105 1 0.009 3 0.02 2 0.010

Dissolved Oxygen 9 0.15 1 0.22 2 2.97 2 2.31

pH 13 7.24 1 7.34 3 7.31 2 7.49

Notes:

Department data were obtained from the OGWIS database using the Hydroport retrieval system; medians 

are based on maximum value per well. All parameter concentrations are reported in milligrams per liter 

(mg/L), except for copper, iron, and nickel, which are reported in micrograms per liter (μg/L), and pH, which is 

reported in standard units (su). 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 81
waterbodies may also be somewhat attributable to its natural abundance in 

the aquifer media or to phosphorus that is mineralized and released from 

organic material. Figure 4.1 shows the distribution of orthophosphate in 

the surfi cial aquifer of the basin.

Nitrate (and nitrate+nitrite) values for ground water are relatively low; 

however, ammonia median concentrations in the surfi cial aquifer are somewhat high compared with the statewide surface water medians. Ammonia 

medians for the surfi cial aquifer in Table 4.1 are at least an order of magnitude higher than the typical values for streams. However, compared with 

the total nitrogen values recorded for surface water samples, the contribution of ammonia from ground water does not appear to be appreciable. 

For iron, median values in the surfi cial aquifer wells are high in all 

of the basin’s planning units (Table 4.1). The wells used in this evaluation should represent background conditions, but the median iron levels 

are higher than Florida’s secondary ground water maximum contaminant 

level (MCL) as well as the typical median value for streams in Florida 

(200 mg/L, in Department, 2004). High iron medians suggest that where 

ground water to surface water pathways exist, iron in ground water could 

also be a source of elevated iron in surface waterbodies. Figure 4.2 shows 

the distribution of iron in the basin’s surfi cial aquifer.

Median concentrations of copper in the basin’s ground water are also 

higher than the secondary ground water MCL and, in addition, are slightly 

higher than medians for the ground water in surrounding basins and 

the typical medians for streams and coastal waters (1.37 and 2.00 mg/L, 

respectively [Department, 2004]). Table 4.1 lists median copper values for 

ground water in the Upper East Coast Basin.

Lead, nickel, and arsenic were also identifi ed as causing potential 

impairments of surface waters in the basin. In ground water, these metal 

concentrations were lower than the surface water thresholds used to list 

these waters in most of the planning units. However, medians in the 

surfi cial aquifer for lead in the Halifax River Planning Unit and nickel in 

the Tolomato River Planning Unit were higher than surface water criteria. 

Table 4.1 lists median concentrations for these metals in ground water in 

the basin.

Low DO is a natural condition in ground water and is documented 

as such in all the basin’s planning units. The ground water medians 

in Table 4.1 are much lower than the typical medians for streams and 

estuarine waters (5.53 and 7.20 mg/L, respectively [Department, 2004]); 

therefore, signifi cant inputs of ground water could depress DO levels in 

poorly mixed surface waters. 

Inspecting ground water data in each planning unit, comparing this 

information with data on surface waters on the draft Verifi ed List, and 

analyzing other planning-unit-specifi c characteristics may help to determine more instances where naturally occurring conditions infl uence surface 

water quality.

82 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Figure 4.2: Iron Concentrations in Surficial Aquifer Monitoring Wells, 

Upper East Coast Basin

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 83
Evaluation by Planning Unit

Halifax River Planning Unit

Surface waters in the planning unit include the Halifax River, the 

Tomoka River, their tributaries, and estuarine and coastal waters. Eight 

stream and estuarine waterbodies are on the draft Verifi ed List because of 

low DO; one stream is on the draft list for nutrients (chlorophyll a); fi ve 

streams or estuarine segments are on the draft list for iron; and two estuarine stream segments are on the draft list for copper.

Of the waterbodies verifi ed as impaired by low DO and/or high 

nutrients in the planning unit, median phosphorus concentrations were all 

elevated, which is consistent with the planning unit median for the surfi cial 

aquifer and apparently an ambient condition. In these instances, nitrogen 

appears to be the limiting nutrient. The available ground water concentrations for nitrogen (nitrate+nitrite and ammonia) are much lower than total 

nitrogen levels in the surface water samples; this may or may not suggest 

that ground water plays a role in nitrogen enrichment. Sources of nitrogen, 

such as septic tanks, are often localized and would not be picked up in an 

ambient ground water monitoring program.

Iron is ubiquitous throughout many of the low-energy streams in much 

of Florida, and naturally occurring iron is a major source of the surface 

waters in the planning unit with potential impairments for iron. Median 

iron concentrations in the planning unit’s surfi cial aquifer are higher than 

both the estuarine and freshwater surface water standards, and ground 

water basefl ow to streams in the planning unit is about 50 percent of the 

total fl ow. In reports prepared by the Ground Water Protection Section 

to address elevated iron in the Tomoka River (WBID 2634A) and two 

segments of Spruce Creek (WBIDs 2674 and 2674A), natural sources 

and the delivery of iron via ground water seepage were identifi ed, and 

alternative listings for these streams were recommended (Department, 

2007b and 2007c). The other two waters listed for iron also likely have 

 natural sources.

The two waters listed for copper, Halifax River (WBID 2363B) and 

Spruce Creek (WBID 2674A), have median copper concentrations similar 

to the median ground water values for the surfi cial aquifer. These waters 

are also listed for iron. If these two metals correlate in terms of concentrated sources (organic material) and ground water contribution, it is 

 possible that some elevation of copper is also a natural condition. 

Matanzas River Planning Unit

In this planning unit, which includes the Matanzas River, tributaries, 

and estuarine and coastal waters, one estuarine segment of the river is listed 

for iron and lead, one coastal segment is impaired by low DO, and one 

tributary is listed for iron.

As with the Halifax River Planning Unit, ground water in the planning unit is high in iron, but there are fewer wells with data (Table 4.1). 

Also, basefl ow from ground water is signifi cant, ranging from 43 to 

55 percent in Moultrie Creek and nearby streams. In a report prepared by 

the Ground Water Protection Section for Moultrie Creek (WBID 2493) 

84 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
 (Department, 2007b), elevated iron was identifi ed as a natural condition that was linked to ground water. The elevated iron in the estuarine 

 segment of the Matanzas River (WBID 2363G) is also due to natural 

conditions.

The estuarine Matanzas River (WBID 2363G) is listed as impaired 

for lead because of elevated lead concentrations. The median ground 

water concentrations for lead in both the surfi cial and Floridan aquifers 

(Table 4.1) are much lower compared with the elevated detections in the 

river, and so there is no obvious subregional elevation in ground water. 

Without additional data, it is impossible to identify a localized source of 

lead near the river, if there is one.

The causative pollutant for low DO in an offshore area, Matanzas 

River Ocean (WBID 8122), is not currently identifi ed. Considering the 

mixing that occurs in offshore waters, it is unlikely that ground water 

 discharge could signifi cantly lower DO. 

Pellicer Creek Planning Unit

The planning unit includes Pellicer Creek, tributaries, and estuarine 

and coastal waters. Pellicer Creek (WBID 2580B) is listed for iron, as is 

a segment of the Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW) (WBID 2363E). The 

same segment of the ICWW is also listed for arsenic. In addition, an 

unnamed drain (WBID 2550) is listed for low DO.

The Ground Water Protection Section’s evaluation (Department, 

2007b) found that the elevated iron conditions in Pellicer Creek were 

caused by natural conditions. Iron concentrations in ground water in the 

planning unit are high (Table 4.1), and base fl ow in the upper segment of 

Pellicer Creek is 44 percent. 

Based on available data, arsenic concentrations in ground water in the 

basin are much lower than the elevated detections in the ICWW segment. 

Ground water seepage from a localized source could be responsible, but this 

cannot be determined with available data.

When low DO occurs but there are no obvious causative pollutants, ground water infl ows (particularly where the waterbody is poorly 

mixed) may be the cause. This could be the case with the unnamed drain 

(WBID 2550). For the segment of the ICWW that is listed for DO 

with no causative pollutant, ground water contribution could play a role. 

 However, this cannot be determined without a more detailed evaluation.

Tolomato River Planning Unit

In this planning unit, two estuarine waters are listed for nutrients 

(chlorophyll a) and low DO: Guana River (WBID 2320) and Lake Vedra 

(WBID 2320A). One waterbody, the estuarine segment of the Tolomato 

River (WBID 2363I), is listed for iron, copper, nickel, and arsenic. Additional waterbodies are impaired for mercury in fi sh, fecal coliforms, and 

coliforms in shellfi sh.

Nutrient contribution via ground water discharge can enhance algal 

growth in the impaired estuarine segments; however, based on the limited 

ground water data available for the planning unit (Table 4.1), it cannot be 

determined if ground-water-related nitrogen or phosphorus is an issue.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 85
Available data were reviewed for metals. For the wells with data in 

the planning unit, median ground water concentrations in the surfi cial 

aquifer for iron, copper, and nickel are higher than their respective surface 

water thresholds, and the median for arsenic was lower than its threshold (Table 4.1). On review of the metals data for the Tolomato River, it 

appears that nickel and arsenic concentrations were reduced markedly in 

2000, from levels much higher than those reported for the surfi cial aquifer to levels similar to those reported for the aquifer. On the other hand, 

iron and copper concentrations in the Tolomato River remained consistent 

throughout the monitoring period and were similar to the levels reported 

for the surfi cial aquifer. This may indicate that ground water is an ambient 

source of both iron and copper to the river, assuming a basefl ow of 40 to 

60 percent, which is similar to other streams in the basin. The pattern of 

detection of arsenic and nickel in the 1990s in samples from the Tolomato 

River may indicate that they were associated with a pollutant source that is 

no longer active. 

Recommendations 

As is the case elsewhere in the state, ground water seepage provides 

water to the basin’s streams, canals, and coastal waterbodies and can 

infl uence surface water quality. Phosphorus, iron, and possibly copper are 

elevated in the surfi cial aquifer and could affect surface water quality to 

varying extents via ground water infl ows. The following recommendations 

apply to ground water as a contributing factor to surface waters listed as 

impaired in the basin:

• Natural sources of phosphorus are present, and ground-water-related 

phosphorus inputs should be considered in the Total Maximum 

Daily Loads (TMDLs) developed for DO-listed surface waters, particularly in the Halifax River Planning Unit.

• Both surface water and ground water of the Upper East Coast Basin 

are enriched in iron. Natural sources of iron are the major cause of 

impairment in the waterbodies listed for iron, and ground-water-delivered iron is signifi cant. TMDLs should not be developed for surface waters in the basin that are listed for iron unless direct evidence 

of an anthropogenic source is provided.

• Copper concentrations in the surfi cial aquifer of the Halifax River 

and Tolomato River Planning Units are similar to those in the 

surface waters listed for copper in those two planning units. Copper 

may be contributed to these waters via ground water. This should be 

further evaluated before TMDLs are developed for these waters.

• Ground water contributions of low DO may be further evaluated for 

waterbodies that have been listed as potentially impaired because of 

low DO but have no identifi ed causative pollutant.

86 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Chapter 5: The Verified List of Impaired 

Waters

Public Participation

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) 

has worked with a variety of stakeholders and held public meetings on 

developing and adopting the Verifi ed Lists of impaired waters for the fi ve 

Group 5 basins across the state. Table 5.1 lists the statewide schedule for 

the development and adoption of the Group 5 Verifi ed Lists, including the 

public meetings. The schedule for the Upper East Coast Basin is highlighted in boldface type. Appendix G contains documentation provided 

during the public comment period.

Basin-specifi c draft Verifi ed Lists of waters that met the requirements of 

the Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) were made available to the public. 

The lists were placed on the Department’s Total Maximum Daily Load 

(TMDL) Program Web site, at http://www.dep.state.fl .us/water/tmdl, and 

were also sent on request to interested parties by mail or e-mail.

Citizens were given the opportunity to comment on the draft lists 

in person and/or in writing. Two public meetings were held in 2006 to 

encourage public participation on the draft list of verifi ed impaired waters 

for the Upper East Coast Basin. These meetings were both held on July 27, 

2006, one at the Public Library in Edgewater (9 a.m.) and the other at the 

Main Library in St. Augustine (2 p.m.).

Following the public meetings for the Group 5 basins, revised draft 

lists were made available to the public. Comments on the Upper East 

Coast Verifi ed List were used to revise the original draft list. The public 

had the opportunity to comment on these revised lists either in writing and/or at the fi nal two public meetings held on October 4, 2007, in 

 Tallahassee and Orlando, respectively. 

Table 5.1: Schedule for Development and Adoption of the Upper East Coast Verified List

Date Scheduled Activity

July 2006 Publication of Draft Verified Lists for the Group 5 Basins and Beginning of Public 

Comment Period

July 27, 2006 Public Meeting in Edgewater on the Upper East Coast Basin

July 27, 2006 Public Meeting in St. Augustine on the Upper East Coast Basin

October 2007 Public Meeting in Tallahassee on Revised Draft Verified Lists for All Basins, and Public 

Comments and Input from Prior Public Meetings

October 2007 Public Meeting in Orlando on Revised Draft Verified Lists for All Basins, and Public 

Comments and Input from Prior Public Meetings

October 22, 2007 Final Deadline for Receiving Public Comments

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 87
Identification of Impaired Waters

As discussed in Chapter 2, waters on the Verifi ed and Planning Lists 

must meet specifi c thresholds and data suffi ciency and data quality requirements in the IWR (Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]). 

Appendix A describes the legislative and regulatory background for the 

development of the Planning and Verifi ed Lists. Appendix C contains a 

methodology that describes the criteria and thresholds required for both 

lists under the IWR.

Any waters that do not have suffi cient 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 U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (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 verifi ed.

The Verified List of Impaired Waters

Table 5.2 contains the Verifi ed List of impaired waters for the Upper 

East Coast Basin, based on the water quality assessment performed using 

IWR Run 29z.2. Figure 5.1 shows waters on the Verifi ed List for the 

entire basin as of October 2007 and the projected year for TMDL development. For presentation purposes, the entire watershed for the listed water is 

highlighted. However, only the main waterbody in the assessment unit has 

been assessed, and other waters in the watershed may not be impaired.

Table D.1 in Appendix D contains the Master List of all assessed 

waters in the basin as of October 2007. The next administrative steps in 

adoption of the Verifi ed List include completion of the public comment 

period and submittal to the Department Secretary for adoption by Secretarial Order. When the order is offi cially noticed in the Florida Administrative Weekly, this will start a 21-day period to fi le a petition challenging 

the order and a 30-day period to appeal the order.

Pollutants Causing Impairments

Forty-six waterbody segments are on the Upper East Coast Basin 

 Verifi ed List. Table 5.3 summarizes the major parameters for which 

impairments were identifi ed, relative to the 1998 303(d) list.

Table 5.3 shows that fi sh consumption advisories for mercury in fi sh 

are the primary cause of impairment in the basin, mostly in coastal areas. 

The table also shows that dissolved oxygen (DO) levels exceeding criteria 

are a major potential cause of impairment in individual waterbody segments. As previously mentioned, low DO levels are often natural and 

not always attributable to pollutants. For this reason, additional work 

was conducted to differentiate between pollutant-related and other causes 

of low DO. It was determined that all of the DO impairments in the 

basin were attributable to elevated levels of total nitrogen (TN), biological oxygen demand (BOD), and chlorophyll a, as well as a combination of 

these parameters. 

88 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Table 5.2: The Verified List of Impaired Waters for the Upper East Coast Basin

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type

Waterbody 

Class1

1998 303(d) 

Parameter 

of Concern

Parameters 

Identified Using 

the Impaired 

 Surface 

Waters Rule

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development2

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development2

Comments3

(# of Exceedances / # of Samples)

2620 Bulow 

Creek

Stream IIIM DO Medium 2012 Planning period: 17/60; verified 

period: 21/70. DO met verification 

threshold of IWR, and TN was identified as a causative pollutant. Planning 

period median TN = 1.1105 mg/L (n = 

74), median TP = 0.108 mg/L (n = 75), 

No BOD data. Verified period median 

TN = 1.0762 mg/L (n = 66), median 

TP = 0.109 mg/L (n = 67), median 

BOD = 2 mg/L (n = 25). 

2620 Bulow 

Creek

Stream IIIM Iron Medium 2012 Planning period: 49/60; verified 

period: 41/48.

2634A Tomoka 

River

Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

2641 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF Fecal 

Coliforms

Low 2017 Planning period: 1/1; verified 

period: 7/14.

2642 Unnamed 

Branch

Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

2647 Holly Hill 

Ditch

Stream IIIF DO Medium 2012 Planning period: 1/1; verified period: 

13/17. DO met verification threshold 

of IWR, and BOD was identified as a 

causative pollutant. Planning period 

median TN = 0.76 mg/L (n = 1), 

median TP = 0.14 mg/L (n = 1), BOD 

= No Data. Verified period median 

TN = 0.95 mg/L (n = 13), median TP 

= 0.18 mg/L (n = 13), median BOD = 

2.3 mg/L (n = 18). 

2363A Halifax 

River

Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

2363B Halifax 

River

Estuary IIIM Copper Copper Low 2011 Planning period: 22/48; verified 

period: 9/50.

2363B Halifax 

River

Estuary IIIM Iron Iron Low 2011 Planning period: 39/51; verified 

period: 46/65.

2363B Halifax 

River

Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

2363C Tomoka 

Basin

Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

2363J Palm 

Coast

Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 89
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type

Waterbody 

Class1

1998 303(d) 

Parameter 

of Concern

Parameters 

Identified Using 

the Impaired 

 Surface 

Waters Rule

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development2

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development2

Comments3

(# of Exceedances / # of Samples)

2670 Halifax 

Canal

Stream IIIM Fecal 

Coliforms

Low 2017 Planning period: 14/26; verified 

period: 14/35.

2672 Rose Bay Estuary IIIM DO DO Low 2011 Planning period: 7/99; verified 

period: 13/43. DO met verification 

threshold of IWR, and TN was identified as a causative pollutant. Planning period median TN = 0.74 mg/L 

(n = 229); median TP = 0.14 mg/L (n 

= 231); no BOD data. Verified period 

median TN = 1.119 mg/L (n = 9); 

median TP = 0.11 mg/L (n = 9); no 

BOD data.

2672 Rose Bay Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

2674 Spruce 

Creek

Stream IIIF Coliforms Fecal 

Coliforms

High 2006 Planning period: 8/20; verified 

period: 5/24. 

2674A Spruce 

Creek

Estuary IIIM Copper Medium 2012 Planning period: 6/9; verified 

period: 6/20.

2674A Spruce 

Creek

Estuary IIIM DO DO High 2006 Planning period: 96/285; verified 

period: 40/137. DO met verification threshold of IWR and linked to 

nutrients.

2674A Spruce 

Creek

Estuary IIIM Fecal 

Coliforms

Low 2017 Planning period: 69/305; verified 

period: 33/123.

2674A Spruce 

Creek

Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

2674A Spruce 

Creek

Estuary IIIM Nutrients Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a)

High 2006 Annual average Chlorophyll a values 

for 1996 and 2003 exceeded the 

threshold of 11 μg/L for estuaries. 

Annual averages: 1994–6.04 μg/L; 

1995–5.46 μg/L; 1996–11.74 μg/L; 

1997–4.16 μg/L; 1998–9.80 μg/L; 

1999–5.30 μg/L; 2000–3.82 μg/L; 

2001–5.96 μg/L; 2003–12.05 μg/L; 

2005–2.95 μg/L. Nitrogen was identified as the limiting nutrient based on 

80% of the TN/TP ratios, which were 

less than 10.

2674B Strickland 

Bay

Estuary IIIM Fecal 

Coliforms

Low 2017 Planning period: 0/1; verified 

period: 9/24.

2674B Strickland 

Bay

Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

Table 5.2 (continued)

90 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type

Waterbody 

Class1

1998 303(d) 

Parameter 

of Concern

Parameters 

Identified Using 

the Impaired 

 Surface 

Waters Rule

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development2

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development2

Comments3

(# of Exceedances / # of Samples)

2675 Sand 

Creek

Stream IIIF DO Medium 2012 Planning period: 1/1; verified period: 

10/26. DO met verification threshold 

of IWR, and TN and BOD were identified as causative pollutants. Planning 

period median TN = 1.604 mg/L (n 

= 1); no TP or BOD data. Verified 

period median TN = 1.313 mg/L (n = 

16); median TP = 0.045 mg/L (n = 15); 

median BOD = 2.3 mg/L (n = 25). 

2678 Turnbull 

Bay

Estuary IIIM DO Medium 2012 Planning period: 10/13; verified 

period: 12/45. DO met verification 

threshold of IWR, and TN and BOD 

were identified as causative pollutants. Planning period median TN 

= 0.996 mg/L (n = 8), median TP = 

0.1925 mg/L (n = 12), no BOD data. 

Verified period median TN = 1.295 

mg/L (n = 12), median TP = 0.1755 

mg/L (n = 16), median BOD = 2.5 

mg/L (n = 25). 

2678 Turnbull 

Bay

Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

2678 Turnbull 

Bay

Estuary IIIM Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a)

Medium 2012 Annual average Chlorophyll a value 

for 2003 exceeded the 11 μg/L threshold for estuaries. Only annual average is from 2003–17.17 μg/L. 

8117B Dunlawton Coastal IIIM Coliforms 

(Beach 

Advisory)

Low 2017 Beach advisories posted for a total of 

36 days in 2003.

8117C Hilton Coastal IIIM Coliforms 

(Beach 

Advisory)

Low 2017 Beach advisories posted for a total of 

73 days in 2003 and 23 days in 2004.

8117D Silver 

Beach

Coastal IIIM Coliforms 

(Beach 

Advisory)

Low 2017 Beach advisories posted for a total of 

33 days in 2003.

2472 Red House 

Branch

Stream IIIF Fecal 

Coliforms

Low 2017 Planning period: 0/0; verified 

period: 5/22. 

2493 Moultrie 

Creek

Stream II Fecal 

Coliforms

Low 2017 Planning period: 23/68; verified 

period: 52/90. The creek exceeded 

two different parts of the fecal coliforms criteria for Class II waters. The 

statistics shown are for exceedances 

of 43 counts/100 ml. The median 

value exceeded 14 counts/100 ml.

Table 5.2 (continued)

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 91
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type

Waterbody 

Class1

1998 303(d) 

Parameter 

of Concern

Parameters 

Identified Using 

the Impaired 

 Surface 

Waters Rule

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development2

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development2

Comments3

(# of Exceedances / # of Samples)

2502 Salt Run Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

2510 Quarry 

Creek

Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

2513 Unnamed 

Bayou

Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

2519 East Creek Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

2529 San Julian 

Creek

Estuary II Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

2363G Matanzas 

River

Estuary II Iron Medium 2012 Planning period: 28/58 verified 

period: 32/57. 

2363G Matanzas 

River

Estuary II Lead Medium 2012 Planning period: 5/53 verified 

period: 9/33. 

2363G Matanzas 

River

Estuary II Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

2363H St. 

Augustine 

Inlet

Estuary II Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

2363D Palm 

Coast

Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

2363E ICWW Estuary II Arsenic Medium 2012 Planning period: 23/60; verified 

period: 10/61.

2363E ICWW Estuary II Iron Medium 2012 Planning period: 33/57; verified 

period: 35/59. 

2363E ICWW Estuary II Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

2363F ICWW Estuary II Coliform 

(Shellfish 

Harvesting 

Classification)

Low 2017 Area(s) within the WBID have been 

downgraded from the 1979 approved 

classification to prohibited in 1985 

and from conditionally approved to 

conditionally restricted in 1997.

2363F ICWW Estuary II Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

Table 5.2 (continued)

92 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type

Waterbody 

Class1

1998 303(d) 

Parameter 

of Concern

Parameters 

Identified Using 

the Impaired 

 Surface 

Waters Rule

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development2

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development2

Comments3

(# of Exceedances / # of Samples)

2580B Pellicer 

Creek

Stream IIIF Coliforms Fecal 

Coliforms

Low 2011 Planning period: 1/1; verified 

period: 7/22. 

2320 Guana 

River

Estuary II Coliform 

(Shellfish 

Harvesting 

Classification)

Medium 2012 Area(s) included in the WBID have 

been downgraded from the 1979 

approved classification to prohibited 

in 1985.

2320 Guana 

River

Estuary II DO DO Low 2011 Planning period: 44/415; verified 

period: 40/238. Both nutrients 

and BOD were identified as causative pollutants. The median BOD 

concentration = 4 mg/L (19 values). 

2320 Guana 

River

Estuary II Coliforms Fecal 

Coliforms

Low 2011 Planning period: 100/ 500; verified 

period: 35/230.

2320 Guana 

River

Estuary II Fecal 

Coliforms

Medium 2012 Median value exceeds the 14 #/100 

ml criterion.

2320 Guana 

River

Estuary II Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

2320 Guana 

River

Estuary II Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a)

Medium 2012 Annual average Chlorophyll a values 

exceeded the IWR threshold for 

estuaries (11 μg/L) in 2001, 2002, 

2003, 2004, and 2005. Annual averages: 1997–4.79 μg/L, 1998–5.34 

μg/L, 1999–2.99 μg/L, 2000–4.39 μg/L, 

2001–29.91 μg/L, 2002–13.81 μg/L, 

2003–19.49 μg/L, 2004–13.08 μg/L, 

and 2005–18.34 μg/L. Nitrogen was 

the limiting nutrient based on 70% of 

the TN/TP ratios during the verified 

period, which were less than 10.

2435 Capo 

Creek

Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

2451 Stokes 

Creek

Estuary II Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

2468 Casa Cola 

Creek

Estuary II Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

2470 Sombrero 

Creek

Estuary II Fecal 

Coliforms

Low 2017 Planning period: 27/143; verified 

period: 16/78.

2470 Sombrero 

Creek

Estuary II Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

Table 5.2 (continued)

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 93
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type

Waterbody 

Class1

1998 303(d) 

Parameter 

of Concern

Parameters 

Identified Using 

the Impaired 

 Surface 

Waters Rule

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development2

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development2

Comments3

(# of Exceedances / # of Samples)

2477 Ximanies 

Creek

Estuary IIIM Coliform 

(Shellfish 

Harvesting 

Classification)

Low 2017 Area(s) within the WBID have been 

downgraded from the 1979 approved 

classification to conditionally 

restricted in 1996.

2477 Ximanies 

Creek

Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

2483 Pancho 

Creek

Estuary II Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

2487 Robinson 

Creek

Estuary II Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

2320A Lake Vedra Estuary IIIM DO Medium 2012 Planning period: 7/16; verified 

period: 8/26. The DO impairment 

was linked to nutrients (Chlorophyll a). 

The median TN (1.30 mg/L, 23 values) 

and TP (0.22 mg/L, 23 values) during 

the verified period also exceeded 

thresholds.

2320A Lake Vedra Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

2320A Lake Vedra Estuary IIIM Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a)

Medium 2012 Annual average Chlorophyll a for 

2005 exceeded the 11 μg/L threshold for estuaries. Annual average: 

2005–23.71 μg/L. Nitrogen is the 

limiting nutrient based on 80% of 

the TN/TP ratios during the verified 

period, which were less than 10.

2363I Tolomato 

River

Estuary II Arsenic Medium 2012 Planning period: 22/62; verified 

period: 10/45.

2363I Tolomato 

River

Estuary II Coliform 

(Shellfish 

Harvesting 

Classification)

Low 2017 Area(s) within the WBID have been 

downgraded from the 1979 approved 

classification to prohibited in 1985 

and from conditionally approved to 

conditionally restricted in 1996.

2363I Tolomato 

River

Estuary II Copper Medium 2012 Planning period: 2/58; verified 

period: 6/30.

2363I Tolomato 

River

Estuary II Iron Medium 2012 Planning period: 42/58; verified 

period: 27/38.

2363I Tolomato 

River

Estuary II Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

Table 5.2 (continued)

94 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type

Waterbody 

Class1

1998 303(d) 

Parameter 

of Concern

Parameters 

Identified Using 

the Impaired 

 Surface 

Waters Rule

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development2

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development2

Comments3

(# of Exceedances / # of Samples)

2363I Tolomato 

River

Estuary II Nickel Medium 2012 Planning period: 23/55; verified 

period: 6/28.

2406A Deep 

Creek 

Lower

Estuary II Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

2457A St. Marks 

Pond 

Estuary

Estuary II Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Listed based on king mackerel and 

bull shark concentrations exceeding 

0.43 mg/kg; collected in 2002–2004. 

8998 Florida 

Atlantic 

Coast

Coastal IIIM Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 This listing applies to all coastal 

WBIDs (8117, 8117A–F, 8118, 8118A, 

8118B, 8119, 8119A, 8119B, 8120, 

8120A, 8120B, 8121, 8121A–C, 8122, 

8122 A–D, 8123, 8123A, 8124, 8125, 

8125A, and 8125B). Listed based on 

king mackerel and bull shark concentrations exceeding 0.43 mg/kg; 

collected in 2002–2004. 

Notes:

1

Florida’s waterbody classifications are defined 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

Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class) 2Priority and schedule reflect the priority established for the WBID in the 1998 303(d) list. Where a parameter was 1998 303(d)

listed, the priority shown in the 1998 303(d) list was retained if it was originally high, or changed to medium if it was originally 

low. In the case of mercury in fish, the priority remains low. Where a parameter was only identified as impaired under the IWR, 

priorities of high, medium, or low were used. 

3Planning period = January 1, 1994, through December 31, 2003; Verified period = January 1, 1999, through June 30, 2006.

BOD = Biological oxygen demand

DO = Dissolved oxygen

IWR = Impaired Surface Waters Rule

mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram

mg/L = Milligrams per liter

ml = Milliliter

TN = Total nitrogen

TP = Total phosphorus

μg/L = Micrograms per liter

WBID = Waterbody identification number

Table 5.2 (continued)

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 95
Figure 5.1: Waters on the Verified List, with Projected Year for TMDL 

Development

96 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Table 5.3: Parameters Causing Potential Impairments in the Upper East Coast Basin 

Parameter

Potential Waterbody Segment Impairments

Identified

Only by the IWR 

Evaluation

Identified on Both 

the 1998 303(d) 

List and by the IWR 

Evaluation

Total

Potential

Impairments

Arsenic 2 0 2

Coliforms (Shellfish Harvesting Downgrade) 3 0 3

Coliforms (Beach Advisory) 3 0 3

Copper 2 1 3

DO 5 3 8

Fecal Coliforms (based on two different parts of the 

fecal coliform criteria for Class II waters)

8 311

Iron 1 4 5

Mercury in Fish 33 0 33

Nickel 1 0 1

Nutrients (Chlorophyll a) 3 1 4

Coliform bacteria is another parameter indicating the potential 

impairment of waterbody segments in the basin. A total of 16 WBIDs are 

potentially impaired based on high levels of coliform bacteria, resulting in 

shellfi sh harvesting area downgrades and beach advisories in several of these 

WBIDs.

Five waterbodies with elevated iron concentrations have been identifi ed 

as potentially impaired. In addition, six waterbodies have been assigned 

an EPA Integrated Report Category of 4c, as the elevated levels of iron in 

these WBIDs are likely a natural condition. (See the Department’s documents titled Spruce Creek [WBIDs 2674 and 2674A], Upper East Coast 

Basin: Evaluation of Potential Ground Water/Geologic Infl uences on Surface 

Water Quality [Department, 2007c] and Moultrie Creek [WBID 2493] 

and Pellicer Creek [WBID 2580B], Upper East Coast Basin: Evaluation 

of Potential Ground Water/Geologic Infl uences on Surface Water Quality

 [Department, 2007b].)

As required by the IWR, the Department must identify the pollutants causing or contributing to DO exceedances in order to place DO 

on the Verifi ed List. If a water segment is on the Verifi ed List for both 

DO and nutrients, nutrients are identifi ed as a pollutant contributing to 

DO exceedances. The Department also applies the following analysis to 

 identify the pollutant(s) contributing to DO exceedances:

1. The waterbody segment median values for BOD, TN, and total 

 phosphorus (TP) are determined for the verifi ed period (i.e., 

 January 1, 1999, to June 30, 2006).

2. The median values are then compared with the screening levels 

for the appropriate waterbody type. The screening levels represent 

the 70th percentile value of data collected from streams, lakes, and 

estuaries (Table 5.4). 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 97
3. If a waterbody segment’s median value exceeds the screening 

level, the parameter is identifi ed as a pollutant contributing to the 

exceedances.

Table 5.5 provides the median values for waterbody segments where 

there is a suffi cient number of DO exceedances to place the water on the 

Verifi ed List. If a water has a suffi cient number of exceedances for placement on the Verifi ed List but the median values are less than the screening 

levels, the DO for that segment is included on the Planning List.

Additionally, to place a waterbody segment on the Verifi ed List for 

nutrients, the Department must identify the limiting nutrient or nutrients 

on the Verifi ed List, as required by the IWR. The following method is 

used to identify the limiting nutrient(s) in streams and lakes:

1. The ratios of TN to TP are calculated for each paired value of TN 

and TP (per sampling event) collected during the verifi ed period.

2. The individual ratios over the entire verifi ed period are evaluated to 

determine the limiting nutrient(s). If all the sampling event ratios 

are less than 10, nitrogen is identifi ed as the limiting nutrient, and 

if all the ratios are greater than 30, phosphorus is identifi ed as the 

limiting nutrient. Both nitrogen and phosphorus are identifi ed as 

limiting nutrients if the ratios are between 10 and 30. 

Table 5.4: Screening Level Values (70th Percentile) Based on 

STORET Data, 1970–87

Waterbody Type BOD (mg/L) TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L)

Streams 2.0 1.6 0.22

Lakes 2.9 1.7 0.11

Estuaries 2.1 1.0 0.19

Source: Friedemann and Hand, 1989.

Table 5.5: Upper East Coast Basin Median Values for the 

Verified Period

WBID Waterbody Segment

Waterbody 

Type

BOD 5 Day 

(mg/L)

TN

(mg/L)

TP

(mg/L)

2620 Bulow Creek Stream 2 1.0762 0.109

2647 Holly Hill Ditch Stream 2.3 0.95 0.18

2672 Rose Bay Estuary ND 1.119 0.11

2674A Spruce Creek Estuary 1.8 0.848 0.15

2675 Sand Creek Stream 2.3 1.313 0.045

2678 Turnbull Bay Estuary 2.5 1.295 0.1755

2320 Guana River Estuary 4 0.918 0.1101

2320A Lake Vedra Estuary 2 1.30 0.22

ND = No data

98 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Table 5.6 displays the nitrogen to phosphorus ratios for estuarine 

 segments potentially impaired by nutrients.

Adoption Process for the Verified List of Impaired Waters

The Verified List must be submitted in a specifi c format (Section 

62-303.710, F.A.C.) before being approved by order of the Department’s 

Secretary. The list must specify the pollutant and concentration causing 

the impairment. If a waterbody segment is listed based on water quality 

 criteria exceedances, then the list must provide the applicable criteria. 

However, if the listing is based on narrative or biological criteria, or impairment of other designated uses, and the water quality criteria are met, the 

Verifi ed List is required to specify the concentration of the pollutant relative 

to the water quality criteria and explain why the numeric criterion is not 

adequate.

For waters with exceedances of the DO criteria, the Department must 

identify the pollutants causing or contributing to the exceedances and list 

both the pollutant and DO in the Verifi ed List.

For waters impaired by nutrients, the Department is required to identify whether nitrogen or phosphorus, or both, are the limiting nutrients, 

and specify the limiting nutrient(s) in the Verifi ed List.

The Verifi ed List must also include the priority and schedule for 

TMDL development established for a waterbody segment and note any 

waters that are being removed from the current Planning List. In future 

watershed management cycles, the list must also note waters that are being 

removed from any previous Verifi ed List for the basin. 

Table 5.6: Upper East Coast Basin Nitrogen to Phosphorus Ratios for the Verified Period

WBID

Waterbody 

 Segment

Waterbody 

Type

Total 

Nitrogen 

Median (mg/L)

Total 

Phosphorus 

Median (mg/L)

Nitrogen to 

Phosphorus 

Ratio Median

Nitrogen to 

Phosphorus 

Ratio Minimum

Nitrogen to 

 Phosphorus 

Ratio Maximum

2674A Spruce Creek Estuary 0.848 0.15 5.4 0.64 34

2678 Turnbull Bay Estuary 0.918 0.1101 7.672 0.848 28.22

2320 Guana River Estuary 0.996 0.1925 3.8824 3.278 6.546

2320A Lake Vedra Estuary 1.304 0.22 5.6957 2.349 75.63 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 99

Chapter 6: TMDL Development, Allocation, 

and Implementation

Prioritization of Listed Waters

Following the identifi cation of impaired waters on the 303(d) list, the 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) determines 

priorities for developing total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) in Phase 3 of 

the watershed management cycle. When TMDLs are established, general 

allocations of pollutant load reductions are identifi ed, at least to the level of 

point and nonpoint source categories.

Because TMDLs cannot be developed for all listed waters during a 

single watershed management cycle, waterbodies will be prioritized using 

the criteria in the Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) (Rule 62-303, 

Florida Administrative Code). The rule states that when establishing the 

TMDL development schedule for waters on the Verifi ed List, the Department will prioritize impaired waterbody segments according to the severity of the impairment and each waterbody’s designated uses, taking into 

account the most serious water quality problems, the most valuable and 

threatened resources, and the risk to human health and aquatic life.

Under the IWR, the determination of high-, low-, and medium-

 priority waters is based on the following criteria.

High-priority waters:

• Waterbody segments where the impairment poses a threat to potable 

water supplies or human health;

• Waterbody segments where the impairment is due to a pollutant 

regulated by the Clean Water Act and the pollutant has contributed to the decline or extirpation of a federally listed threatened or 

endangered species, as indicated in the Federal Register listing the 

species; or 

• Waterbody segments verifi ed as impaired that are included on the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 1998 303(d) list as 

high priority.

Low-priority waters:

• Waterbody segments that are listed before 2010 because of fi sh 

 consumption advisories for mercury in fi sh (due to the current insuffi cient understanding of how mercury cycles in the 

 environment);

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 101
• Canals, urban drainage ditches, and other artifi cial waterbody segments that are listed only due to exceedances of dissolved oxygen 

criteria; or 

• Waterbody segments that were not on the Planning List but were 

identifi ed as impaired during Phase 2 of the watershed management 

cycle and were included on the Verifi ed List, unless the segment 

meets the second high-priority criterion.

• The EPA has also proposed assigning to this category the list of additional waterbody segments that the agency developed using its own 

evaluation methodology, until the Department has had the opportunity to investigate these waterbodies further.

All segments not designated high or low priority are medium priority, 

and are prioritized based on the following factors:

• The presence of Outstanding Florida Waters;

• The presence of waterbody segments that fail to meet more than one 

designated use, i.e., aquatic life, primary contact and recreation, fi sh 

and shellfi sh consumption, drinking water, and the protection of 

human health;

• The presence of waterbody segments that exceed an applicable water 

quality criterion or alternative threshold with a frequency of greater 

than 25 percent at a minimum confi dence level of 90 percent;

• The presence of waterbody segments that exceed more than one 

applicable water quality criterion; or

• Administrative needs of the TMDL Program, including meeting a 

TMDL development schedule agreed to with the EPA, basin priorities related to the Department’s watershed management approach, 

and the number of administratively continued permits in the basin.

The Department is adhering to the TMDL schedule established in the 

Consent Decree between the EPA and Earthjustice for waters on the 1998 

303(d) list that are also identifi ed as impaired under the IWR.

Table 6.1 lists the high-priority waters for TMDL development in the 

Upper East Coast Basin. Figure 6.1 shows the locations of these waters 

and their watersheds. Waters listed in the table were also high priorities on 

the 1998 303(d) list. Of these, 46 segments had suffi cient water quality 

information to verify water quality impairment. The remaining impairments could not be verifi ed by the Department, and the establishment of 

those TMDLs will be the responsibility of the EPA.

102 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Table 6.1: TMDL Development Timeline in the Upper East Coast Basin

Planning Unit WBID

Waterbody 

 Segment

Waterbody 

Type

Parameters Identified 

Under the Impaired 

Surface Waters Rule

TMDL 

Year

Agency to 

Develop TMDL 

(Anticipated)*

DEP EPA 

Halifax River 2674 Spruce Creek Stream Fecal Coliforms 2006 X

Halifax River 2674A Spruce Creek Estuary DO 2006 X

Halifax River 2674A Spruce Creek Estuary Nutrients (Chlorophyll a) 2006 X

Halifax River 2634 Tomoka River Stream DO 2011 X

Halifax River 2634 Tomoka River Stream Lead 2011 X

Halifax River 2642 Unnamed Branch Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Halifax River 2666 Unnamed Ditch 

(B-19 Canal)

Stream DO 2011 X

Halifax River 2666 Unnamed Ditch 

(B-19 Canal)

Stream Nutrients (Chlorophyll a) 2011 X

Halifax River 2672 Rose Bay Estuary DO 2011 X

Halifax River 2672 Rose Bay Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Halifax River 2672 Rose Bay Estuary Nutrients (Chlorophyll a) 2011 X

Halifax River 2678 Turnbull Bay Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Halifax River 2363A Halifax River Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Halifax River 2363A Halifax River Estuary Nutrients (Chlorophyll a) 2011 X

Halifax River 2363B Halifax River Estuary Copper 2011 X

Halifax River 2363B Halifax River Estuary Iron 2011 X

Halifax River 2363B Halifax River Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Halifax River 2363C Tomoka Basin Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Halifax River 2363J Palm Coast Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Halifax River 2634A Tomoka River Estuary Iron 2011 X

Halifax River 2634A Tomoka River Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Halifax River 2674A Spruce Creek Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Halifax River 2674B Strickland Bay Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Matanzas River 2502 Salt Run Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Matanzas River 2510 Quarry Creek Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Matanzas River 2513 Unnamed Bayou Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Matanzas River 2519 East Creek Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Matanzas River 2529 San Julian Creek Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Matanzas River 2363G Matanzas River Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Matanzas River 2363H St. Augustine 

Inlet

Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Pellicer Creek 2553 Cracker Branch 

(Pellicer Creek)

Stream Iron 2011 X

Pellicer Creek 2363D Palm Coast Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Pellicer Creek 2363D Palm Coast Estuary Silver 2011 X

Pellicer Creek 2363E ICWW Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Pellicer Creek 2363F ICWW Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 103
Planning Unit WBID

Waterbody 

 Segment

Waterbody 

Type

Parameters Identified 

Under the Impaired 

Surface Waters Rule

TMDL 

Year

Agency to 

Develop TMDL 

(Anticipated)*

DEP EPA 

Pellicer Creek 2580B Pellicer Creek Stream DO 2011 X

Pellicer Creek 2580B Pellicer Creek Stream Fecal Coliforms 2011 X

Tolomato River 2320 Guana River Estuary DO 2011 X

Tolomato River 2320 Guana River Estuary Fecal Coliforms 2011 X

Tolomato River 2320 Guana River Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Tolomato River 2435 Capo Creek Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Tolomato River 2451 Stokes Creek Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Tolomato River 2468 Casa Cola Creek Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Tolomato River 2470 Sombrero Creek Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Tolomato River 2477 Ximanies Creek Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Tolomato River 2483 Pancho Creek Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Tolomato River 2487 Robinson Creek Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Tolomato River 2320A Lake Vedra Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Tolomato River 2363I Tolomato River Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Tolomato River 2406A Deep Creek 

Lower

Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Tolomato River 2457A St. Marks Pond 

Estuary

Estuary Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Upper East Coast 8998 Florida Atlantic 

Coast

Coastal Mercury in Fish 2011 X

Halifax River 2620 Bulow Creek Stream DO 2012 X

Halifax River 2620 Bulow Creek Stream Iron 2012 X

Halifax River 2641 Unnamed Branch Stream Fecal Coliforms 2012 X

Halifax River 2647 Holly Hill Ditch Stream DO 2012 X

Halifax River 2670 Halifax Canal Stream Fecal Coliforms 2012 X

Halifax River 2675 Sand Creek Stream DO 2012 X

Halifax River 2678 Turnbull Bay Estuary DO 2012 X

Halifax River 2678 Turnbull Bay Estuary Nutrients (Chlorophyll a) 2012 X

Halifax River 2674A Spruce Creek Estuary Copper 2012 X

Halifax River 2674A Spruce Creek Estuary Fecal Coliforms 2012 X

Halifax River 2674B Strickland Bay Estuary Fecal Coliforms 2012 X

Halifax River 8117B Dunlawton Coastal Coliforms (Beach 

Advisory)

2012 X

Halifax River 8117C Hilton Coastal Coliforms (Beach 

Advisory)

2012 X

Halifax River 8117D Silver Beach Coastal Coliforms (Beach 

Advisory)

2012 X

Matanzas River 2472 Red House 

Branch

Stream Fecal Coliforms 2012 X

Matanzas River 2493 Moultrie Creek Stream Fecal Coliforms 2012 X

Table 6.1 (continued)

104 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Table 6.1 (continued)

Planning Unit WBID

Waterbody 

 Segment

Waterbody 

Type

Parameters Identified 

Under the Impaired 

Surface Waters Rule

TMDL 

Year

Agency to 

Develop TMDL 

(Anticipated)*

DEP EPA 

Matanzas River 2493 Moultrie Creek Stream Fecal Coliforms 2012 X

Matanzas River 2363G Matanzas River Estuary Iron 2012 X

Matanzas River 2363G Matanzas River Estuary Lead 2012 X

Pellicer Creek 2363E ICWW Estuary Arsenic 2012 X

Pellicer Creek 2363E ICWW Estuary Iron 2012 X

Pellicer Creek 2363F ICWW Estuary Coliform (Shellfish 

Harvesting Downgrade)

2012 X

Tolomato River 2320 Guana River Estuary Coliform (Shellfish 

Harvesting Downgrade)

2012 X

Tolomato River 2320 Guana River Estuary Fecal Coliforms 2012 X

Tolomato River 2320 Guana River Estuary Nutrients (Chlorophyll a) 2012 X

Tolomato River 2470 Sombrero Creek Estuary Fecal Coliforms 2012 X

Tolomato River 2477 Ximanies Creek Estuary Coliform (Shellfish 

Harvesting Downgrade)

2012 X

Tolomato River 2320A Lake Vedra Estuary DO 2012 X

Tolomato River 2320A Lake Vedra Estuary Nutrients (Chlorophyll a) 2012 X

Tolomato River 2363I Tolomato River Estuary Arsenic 2012 X

Tolomato River 2363I Tolomato River Estuary Coliform (Shellfish 

Harvesting Downgrade)

2012 X

Tolomato River 2363I Tolomato River Estuary Copper 2012 X

Tolomato River 2363I Tolomato River Estuary Iron 2012 X

Tolomato River 2363I Tolomato River Estuary Nickel 2012 X

*Those parameters that could not be verified impaired will have TMDLs established for them by the EPA.

DO = Dissolved oxygen

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 105
Figure 6.1: Upper East Coast Basin Priority TMDL Priority Watersheds for 2005

106 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Total Maximum Daily Load Development

During Phase 3 of the watershed management cycle, TMDLs will be 

developed for both point and nonpoint sources of pollutants in impaired 

waterbodies and will be adopted by rule at the end of this phase.

TMDL development involves determining the maximum amount of 

a given pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate and still meet the applicable numeric or narrative water quality criterion for the pollutant. In 

most cases, this “assimilative” capacity will be determined using computer 

modeling (both hydrodynamic and water quality models) that predicts 

the fate and transport of pollutants in the receiving waters. Modeling for 

the typical TMDL will include model setup, calibration, and verifi cation, 

 followed by a variety of model runs that determine the assimilative capacity 

of the water under worst-case conditions.

State law and federal regulations require that TMDLs include a margin 

of safety (MOS) that takes into account “any lack of knowledge concerning 

the relationship between effl uent limitations and water quality” (Section 

303[d][1][C], Clean Water Act). The EPA has allowed states to establish 

either a specifi c MOS (typically some percentage of the assimilative capacity) or an implicit MOS based on conservative assumptions in the modeling. To date, the Department has elected to establish an implicit MOS 

based on predictive model runs that incorporate a variety of conservative 

assumptions. (They examine worst-case ambient fl ow conditions and worstcase temperature, and assume that all permitted point sources discharge at 

their maximum permitted amount.)

It is important to note that TMDLs will be developed only for the 

actual pollutants causing the impairment in the listed waterbody. These 

are called the “pollutants of concern.” In Florida, the most commonly 

listed pollutants of concern are nutrients, sediments, and coliform bacteria. TMDLs will not be developed for impairments not due to pollutant 

discharges—for example, natural conditions, physical alterations such as 

dams and channelization, or changes in the fl ow of water. In other cases, 

a waterbody may be deemed potentially impaired based on bioassessment 

data or toxicity data. In these cases, the Department must determine the 

actual pollutant causing the impairment before a TMDL can be developed.

Total Maximum Daily Load Allocation and 

Implementation

Initial Allocation of Pollutant Loadings

The Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA) requires that a 

TMDL include the “establishment of reasonable and equitable allocations 

. . . among point and nonpoint sources . . . .” The Department refers to 

this as the “initial allocation,” which is adopted by rule. For the purposes 

of allocating the required pollutant loadings, the term “point sources” 

 primarily includes traditional sources such as domestic and industrial 

wastewater discharges.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 107
Recent EPA guidance requires states to include as point sources those 

stormwater systems that are covered by a National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit. However, NPDES-

 permitted stormwater discharges are not subject to the same types of 

effl uent limitations, cannot be centrally collected and treated, and typically 

have not invested in treatment controls to the same degree as traditional 

point sources. Nonpoint sources include intermittent, rainfall-driven, 

diffuse sources of pollutants associated with everyday human activities, including runoff from urban land uses, agriculture, silviculture, and 

mining; discharges from failing septic systems; and atmospheric deposition.

These point and nonpoint defi nitions do not directly relate to whether 

a source is regulated. Some nonpoint sources such as stormwater systems 

are permitted under the regulatory programs of the Department or water 

management districts, while others, such as agricultural stormwater 

 discharges, are not. This distinction is important because the implementation of the allocations to nonpoint sources outside the authority of regulatory programs will require cooperation from dischargers to implement best 

management practices (BMPs) voluntarily.

While a “detailed allocation” will ultimately be necessary to implement 

a TMDL fully, a key goal of the initial allocation is to assign responsibility 

for pollutant load reductions between point and nonpoint sources. For 

point sources, allocations will be implemented through the Department’s 

NPDES wastewater and stormwater permitting programs. The implementation of nonpoint source load reductions will be done through a combination of regulatory and nonregulatory processes. 

Initial allocations of pollutant loadings will also be made to historical 

sources (e.g., the phosphorus-laden sediments at the bottom of a lake) and 

upstream sources (those entering into an impaired waterbody). Upstream 

sources include sources outside Florida, and these sources will receive 

reduced allocations similar to in-state sources.

The FWRA provided direction for the allocation of TMDLs and 

directed the Department to provide guidance on the allocation process by 

establishing an Allocation Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC), consisting of representatives of key stakeholder groups. The committee recommended a three-step process for developing initial allocations and addressed 

detailed allocations for nonpoint sources, stakeholder involvement, the use 

of BMPs, and other TMDL implementation issues (Department, 2001). 

Implementation Programs and Approaches 

The FWRA designates the Department as the lead agency in coordinating the implementation of TMDLs. Existing programs and approaches 

through which TMDLs may be carried out include the following:

• Permitting and other existing regulatory programs, such as NPDES 

permits, domestic and industrial wastewater permits, and stormwater/Environmental Resource Permits. Table 6.2 lists the municipal NPDES stormwater permittees in the Upper East Coast Basin;

108 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Table 6.2: Municipal NPDES Stormwater Permittees in the 

Upper East Coast Basin

Permittee

Municipal Stormwater 

Permit Type

St. Johns County Phase II

Volusia County Phase II

Daytona Beach Phase II

Daytona Beach Shores Phase II

South Daytona Phase II

Flagler Beach Phase II

Holly Hill Phase II

New Smyrna Beach Phase II

Ormond Beach Phase II

Port Orange Phase II

St. Augustine Phase II

St. Augustine Beach Phase II

Town of Ponce Inlet Phase II

Florida Department of Transportation Phase II

• Local land development codes;

• Nonregulatory and incentive-based programs, including BMPs, cost 

sharing, waste minimization, pollution prevention, new approaches 

to land use design and development, and public education; 

• Basin Management Action Plans (B-MAPs) developed under the 

FWRA;

• Other water quality management and restoration activities, for example, Surface Water Improvement and Management plans approved 

under Section 373.453, Florida Statutes;

• Pollutant trading or other equitable economically based agreements;

• Public works, including capital facilities; or

• Land acquisition.

These programs and approaches will be carried out at local, regional, 

state, and possibly federal levels. TMDL implementation will require 

extensive stakeholder involvement throughout the state and, in some cases, 

between Florida and other states. Appendix A provides additional details 

on the implementation programs and approaches listed here.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 109
Development of Basin Management Action 

Plans

The FWRA authorizes the Department to develop B-MAPs for implementing TMDLs. These plans are developed with extensive stakeholder 

input to build consensus on detailed allocations based on the initial general 

allocations to categories of discharges. A B-MAP is not required for every 

TMDL. These plans are developed on a prioritized basis throughout 

the state.

The B-MAPs will contain fi nal allocations, strategies for meeting the 

allocations, schedules for implementation, funding mechanisms, applicable 

local ordinances, and other elements. B-MAPs include a description of 

both regulatory and nonregulatory approaches to meeting specifi c TMDLs.

Once a B-MAP is developed, the Department will adopt it by 

 Secretarial Order, thus providing a formal comment period. 

110 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
References

Bermes, B. J., G. W. Leve, and G. R. Tarver. 1963. Geology and ground 

water resources of Flagler, Putnam, and St. Johns Counties, Florida. 

Report of Investigation No. 32. U.S. Geological Survey and Florida 

Geological Survey. 

Chen, M., and L. Q. Ma. 2001. Taxonomy and geographic distribution of 

total phosphorus in Florida surface soils. Soil Science Society of America 

Journal. 65:1539–1547.

Copeland, R., S. Upchurch, K. Summers, A. Janicki, P. Hansard, M. 

Paulic, G. Maddox, J. Silvanima, and P. Craig. 1999. Overview of 

the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s integrated water 

resource monitoring efforts and the design plan of the Status Network. 

Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 

Ambient Monitoring Section.

Daytona Beach News-Journal Online. November 11, 2004. Water district to 

help fund stormwater projects.

Available: http://www.news-journal online.com/index.htm.

Federal Clean Water Act. Section 303(d).

Fernald, E. A., and E. D. Purdum (Eds.). 1998. Water resources atlas of 

Florida. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida State University, Institute of 

 Science and Public Affairs.

Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62-302. Surface water quality 

 standards.

—. Rule 62-303. Identifi cation of impaired surface waters.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2001. A report to the 

governor and the legislature on the allocation of total maximum daily loads 

in Florida. Tallahassee, Florida: Bureau of Watershed Management, 

Division of Water Resource Management.

—. 2004. Typical water quality values for Florida’s lakes, streams and 

 estuaries (draft). Watershed Assessment Section.

—. 2005. Evaluating the occurrence of iron in surface waters of the Upper 

St. Johns River Basin (draft). Ground Water Protection Section.

—. 2007a. Tomoka River (WBID 2634), Upper East Coast Basin: Evaluation of potential ground water/geologic infl uences on surface water quality. 

Ground Water Protection Section.

—. 2007b. Moultrie Creek (WBID 2493) and Pellicer Creek (WBID 

2580B), Upper East Coast Basin: Evaluation of potential ground water/

geologic infl uences on surface water quality. Ground Water Protection 

Section.

—. 2007c. Spruce Creek (WBIDs 2674 and 2674A), Upper East Coast 

Basin: Evaluation of potential ground water/geologic infl uences on surface 

water quality. Ground Water Protection Section.

Florida Water Resources Journal. December 2004. Volume 56, Number 12.

Florida Watershed Restoration Act. 1999. Chapter 99-223, Laws of 

Florida.

Friedemann, F., and J. Hand. 1989. Typical water quality values for 

 Florida’s lakes, streams, and estuaries. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida 

Department of Environmental Regulation.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 111
Harrington, D. J. 2003. Data quality assurance and statistical analysis 

protocols for the Status Network. Ground Water Protection Section 

Technical Document No. 2003-103. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection.

Harrington, D. J., J. E. McNeal, and R. W. Hicks. 2004. Integrating 

ground water into watershed management. Ground Water Protection 

Section Technical Document 2004-101. Tallahassee, Florida.

Lim, K. A., B. A. Engel, Z. T. J. Choi, K. Kim, S. Muthukrishnan, and 

D. Tripathy. 2005. Automated Web GIS based Hydrograph Analysis 

Tool, WHAT. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 

December 2005: 1407–1416.

Maddox, G. L., J. M. Lloyd, T. M. Scott, S. B. Upchurch, and R. Copeland (Eds.). 1992. Florida Ground Water Quality Monitoring Program–Volume 2: Background hydrogeochemistry. Special Publication 

No. 34. Florida Geological Survey.

Miller, J. D. 2003. Status and trends of water quality in the Northern 

Coastal Basin (draft). Technical Memorandum. Palatka, Florida: 

St. Johns River Water Management District.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2003. 2003–2008 

National Estuarine Research Reserve System strategic plan.

Scott, T. M., J. M. Lloyd, and G. Maddox. 1991. Florida’s Ground Water 

Quality Monitoring Program, hydrogeological framework. Special 

 Publication No. 32. Florida Geological Survey. 

Snell, L. J., and W. Anderson. 1970. Water resources of Northeast Florida, 

St. Johns River Basin and adjacent coastal areas. Report of Investigation 

No. 54. Tallahassee, Florida: U.S. Geological Survey.

St. Johns River Water Management District. 2000. District water 

 management plan.

—. 2003. Northern Coastal Basin Surface Water Improvement and 

 Management Plan.

—. July 26, 2004. Governing Board Resolution #2005-03. Request to the 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection for disbursement of 

funds from the Ecosystem Management and Restoration Trust Fund for 

implementation of the Northern Coastal Basin State Funding Initiative 

approved and identifi ed in the conference report on HB 1835.

—. 2004a. The Guana Marsh Renovation Project fact sheet. Available: 

http://www.sjrwmd.com.

—. 2004b. Rose Bay fact sheet. Available: http://www.sjrwmd.com. 

U.S. Census Bureau Web site. Accessed December 21, 2004. Available: 

http://www.census.gov. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Technical fact sheet on 

copper. Ground Water and Drinking Water Web site. Available: 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwh/t-ioc/copper.html.

Wayland, R. H., III. November 19, 2001. 2002 integrated water quality monitoring and assessment report guidance. Memorandum to EPA 

Regional Water Management Directors; EPA Regional Science and 

Technology Directors; and State, Territory, and Authorized Tribe 

Water Quality Program Directors. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

112 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast
Water Quality Assessment Report 2008

Upper East Coast Appendices 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Appendix A: Legislative and Regulatory Background on the Watershed 

Management Approach and the Implementation of Total Maximum 

Daily Loads .................................................................................................................... 115

Federal and State Legislation on Surface Water Quality and Total Maximum Daily Loads ...... 115

Determining Impairment Based on the State’s Impaired Surface Waters Rule .......................... 117

Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads ............................................................................... 119

Table A.1: Basin Groups for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle, by 

Department District Office ................................................................................. 121

Table A.2: Basin Rotation Schedule for TMDL Development and Implementation ............ 121

Figure A.1: Five-Year Rotating Basin Cycle in the Department’s Six Districts ................... 122

Table A.3: Potentially Affected Stakeholders and Actions To Achieve TMDLs ................... 123

Appendix B: Information on Reasonable Assurance ................................................ 126

Background ................................................................................................................................. 126

Current Rule Text Relating to Evaluation of Pollution Control Mechanisms ............................. 127

Responsible Parties for Reasonable Assurance Demonstration .................................................. 127

Time Frame for Development of Documentation ....................................................................... 128

What It Means To Be Under Local, State, or Federal Authority ................................................. 128

Time Frame for Attaining Water Quality Standards ................................................................... 128

Parameter-Specific Nature of Demonstration .............................................................................. 129

Information To Consider and Document when Assessing Reasonable Assurance in the IWR... 129

Water Quality–Based Targets and Aquatic Ecological Goals ..................................................... 130

Interim Targets ............................................................................................................................ 131

Averaging Periods for Water Quality Targets ............................................................................. 131

Estimates of Pollutant Reductions from Restoration Actions ..................................................... 131

New Sources/Growth .................................................................................................................. 131

Examples of Reasonable Progress ............................................................................................... 131

Long-Term Requirements ........................................................................................................... 132

Appendix C: Methodology for Determining Impairment Based on the 

Impaired Surface Waters Rule .................................................................................... 133

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule ............................................................................................. 133

Attainment of Designated Use(s) ................................................................................................ 133

Table C.1: Designated Use Attainment Categories for Surface Waters in Florida ............. 134

Sources of Data ........................................................................................................................... 134

Table C.2: Data Used in Developing the Planning and Verified Lists, First Basin 

Rotation Cycle ..................................................................................................... 135

Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 135
114 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

Appendix D: Integrated Assessment (Master List) for the Upper East 

Coast Basin .................................................................................................................... 141

Table D.1: Integrated Water Quality Report (Master List) for the Upper East Coast 

Basin, by Planning Unit ...................................................................................... 142

Table D.2: Water Quality Monitoring Stations Used in the Assessment for the Upper 

East Coast Basin, by Planning Unit ................................................................... 251

Appendix E: Permitted Discharge Facilities, Superfund Sites, and Landfills 

in the Upper East Coast Basin, by Planning Unit ...................................................... 284

Table E.1: Permitted Facilities with Discharges to Surface Water and Ground Water, 

 by Planning Unit ................................................................................................ 284

Table E.2: Superfund Sites, by Planning Unit ..................................................................... 289

Table E.3: Permitted Landfill Facilities, by Planning Unit ................................................. 290

Appendix F: Level I Land Use in the Upper East Coast Basin, by 

Planning Unit ................................................................................................................. 293

Appendix G: Documentation Provided during Public Comment Period ............... 294
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 115

Appendix A: Legislative and Regulatory Background on the 

Watershed Management Approach and the Implementation of 

Total Maximum Daily Loads 

Federal and State Legislation on Surface Water Quality and Total Maximum 

Daily Loads 

Clean Water Act 

Congress enacted the Clean Water Act in 1972 with the goal of restoring and 

maintaining the “chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters” (33 

U.S.C. § 1251[a]). The ultimate goal of the act is to eliminate the “discharge of [all] 

pollutants into navigable waters” (33 U.S.C. § 1251[a][1]). 

Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires states to report biennially to the U. S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on their water quality. The 305(b) assessment 

report provides information on the physical, chemical, biological, and cultural features of 

each river basin in Florida. This initial assessment provides a common factual basis for 

identifying information sources and major issues, and for determining the future changes, 

strategies, and actions needed to preserve, protect, and/or restore water quality. 

Understanding the physical framework of each basin allows the development of a 

science-based methodology for assessing water quality and an accurate picture of the 

waters that are most impaired or vulnerable to contamination. 

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to submit to the EPA lists of 

surface waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards and establish total 

maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for each of these waters on a schedule. A pollution limit 

is then allocated to each pollutant source in an individual river basin. 

A TMDL represents the maximum amount of a given pollutant that a waterbody can 

assimilate and meet all of its designated uses (see Noteworthy on Florida’s surface water 

quality classifications for a listing of these classifications). A waterbody that does not 

meet its designated use is defined as impaired. 

NOTEWORTHY: FLORIDA’S SURFACE WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS 

Florida’s water quality standards program, 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], Florida Statutes [F.S.]). Water quality criteria, expressed as numeric or 

narrative limits for specific parameters, describe the water quality necessary to maintain these 

uses for surface water and ground water. Florida’s surface water is protected for five designated 

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 

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

this class) 
116 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

Florida Watershed Restoration Act 

In 1998, the EPA settled a lawsuit with the environmental group Earthjustice over 

Florida’s TMDL Program. The Consent Decree resulting from the lawsuit requires all 

TMDLs on the state’s 1998 Section 303(d) list of impaired waters to be developed in 13 

years. If the state fails to develop the TMDLs, the EPA is required to do so. 

In response to concerns about the TMDL lawsuit and in recognition of the important 

role that TMDLs play in restoring state waters, the 1999 Florida legislature enacted the 

Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA) (Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida). The act 

clarified the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (Department) statutory 

authority to establish TMDLs, required the Department to develop a methodology for 

identifying impaired waters, specified that the Department could develop TMDLs only 

for waters on a future state list of impaired waters developed using this new 

methodology, and directed the Department to establish an Allocation Technical Advisory 

Committee (ATAC) to address the allocation process for TMDLs. The act also declared 

Lake Okeechobee impaired and, as required under the TMDL Consent Decree, allowed 

the state to develop a TMDL for the lake (see Noteworthy for a description of the 

legislation’s major provisions). 

NOTEWORTHY: THE FLORIDA WATERSHED RESTORATION ACT 

The Florida Watershed Restoration Act contains the following major provisions: 

• Establishes that the 303(d) list submitted to the EPA in 1998 is for planning purposes only. 

• Requires the Department to adopt 303(d) listing criteria (that is, the methodology used to 

define impaired waters) by rule. 

• Requires the Department to verify impairment and then establish a Verified List for each 

basin. The Department must also evaluate whether proposed pollution control programs are 

sufficient to meet water quality standards, list the specific pollutant(s) and concentration(s) 

causing impairment, and adopt the basin-specific 303(d) list by Secretarial Order. 

• Requires the Department’s Secretary to adopt TMDL allocations by rule. The legislation 

requires the Department to establish “reasonable and equitable” allocations of TMDLs, but 

does not mandate how allocations will be made among individual sources. 

• Requires that TMDL allocations consider existing treatment levels and management 

practices; the differing impacts that pollutant sources may have; the availability of treatment 

technologies, best management practices (BMPs), or other pollutant reduction measures; the 

feasibility, costs, and benefits of achieving the allocation; reasonable time frames for 

implementation; the potential applicability of moderating provisions; and the extent that 

nonattainment is caused by pollutants from outside Florida, discharges that have ceased, or 

alteration to a waterbody. 

• Required a report to the legislature by February 2001 addressing the allocation process. 

• Authorizes the Department to develop basin plans to implement TMDLs, coordinating with the 

water management districts, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

(DACS), the Soil and Water Conservation Districts, regulated parties, and environmental 

groups in assessing waterbodies for impairment, collecting data for TMDLs, developing 

TMDLs, and conducting at least one public meeting in the watershed. Implementation is 

voluntary if not covered by regulatory programs. 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 117

• Authorizes the Department and DACS to develop interim measures and BMPs to address 

nonpoint sources. While BMPs would be adopted by rule, they will be voluntary if not 

covered by regulatory programs. If they are adopted by rule and the Department verifies their 

effectiveness, then implementation will provide a presumption of compliance with water 

quality standards. 

• Directs the Department to document the effectiveness of the combined regulatory/voluntary 

approach and report to the legislature by January 1, 2005. The report will include 

participation rates and recommendations for statutory changes. 

Determining Impairment Based on the State’s Impaired Surface Waters Rule 

Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act and the FWRA describe impaired 

waters as those waterbodies or waterbody segments that do not meet applicable water 

quality standards. “Impairment” is a broad term that includes designated uses, water 

quality criteria, the Florida antidegradation policy, and moderating provisions (see 

Noteworthy for explanations of these terms). 

The state’s Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) (Rule 62-303, 

Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]) was developed in cooperation with a Technical 

Advisory Committee and adopted by the Florida Environmental Regulation Commission 

on April 26, 2001. It provides 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 complete text 

of the rule is available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/legal/Rules/shared/62-303/62-

303.pdf. 

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 given 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. 

NOTEWORTHY: EXPLANATION OF TERMS 

• Designated uses, discussed in an earlier sidebar, comprise the five classifications applied to 

each of the state’s surface waterbodies.

• Water quality criteria comprise numeric or narrative limits of pollutants. 
118 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

• 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 

continuation 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 classification

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 discharge. 

• 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 mixing 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. 

Determining impairment in individual waterbodies takes place in two phases. First, 

in each river basin the Department evaluates the existing water quality data, using the 

methodology prescribed in the IWR, to determine whether 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 administer or implement any regulatory 

program. It 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 the Department’s watershed management approach (described 

in the following section). The Department carries out additional data gathering and 

strategic monitoring, focusing on these potentially impaired waters, and determines—

using the methodology in Part III, Section 62-303.400, F.A.C.—if a waterbody is, in fact, 

impaired and if the impairment is caused by pollutant discharges. 

A Water Quality Assessment Report is produced containing the results of this 

updated evaluation and a Verified List of impaired waters. The criteria for the Verified 

List are more stringent than those for the Planning List. The Department is required to 

develop TMDLs for waters on the Verified List under Subsection 403.067(4), F.S. A 

watershed management plan (called a Basin Management Action Plan, or BMAP) to 

reduce the amount of pollutants that cause impairments must 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. 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 119

Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads 

The Watershed Management Approach 

The Department's statewide approach to water resource management, called the 

watershed management approach, is the framework for implementing TMDLs as required 

by the federal and state governments. The approach 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 perspective that considers the cumulative 

effects of human activities. Water resources are managed on the basis of natural 

boundaries, such as river basins, rather than political or regulatory boundaries. Federal, 

state, regional, tribal, and local governments identify watersheds not meeting clean water 

or other natural resource goals and work cooperatively to focus resources and implement 

effective strategies to restore water quality. Extensive public participation in the 

decision-making process is crucial. 

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 restoration, land acquisition, and public 

involvement. 

By promoting the management of entire natural systems and addressing the 

cumulative effects of human activities on a watershed basis, this approach is intended to 

protect and enhance the ecological structure, function, and integrity of Florida’s 

watersheds. It provides a framework for setting priorities and focusing the Department’s 

resources on protecting and restoring water quality, and aims to increase cooperation 

among state, regional, local, and federal interests. By emphasizing public involvement, 

the approach encourages stewardship by all Floridians to preserve water resources for 

future generations. 

The watershed approach is intended to speed up projects by focusing funding and 

other resources on priority water quality problems, strengthening public support, 

establishing agreements, and funding multiagency projects. It avoids duplication by 

building on existing assessments and restoration activities and promotes cooperative 

monitoring programs. It encourages accountability for achieving water quality 

improvements through improved monitoring and the establishment of TMDLs. 

The Watershed Management Cycle 

As part of the Department’s watershed management approach, TMDLs will be 

developed, and the corresponding pollutant loadings allocated, as part of a watershed 

management cycle that rotates through the state’s 52 river basins over a 9-year period. 

The cycle’s 5 phases are as follows: 
120 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

• Phase 1: Preliminary Watershed Evaluation. For each river basin, a Water 

Quality Status Report is developed, containing a Planning List of potentially 

impaired waters that may require the establishment of TMDLs. The report 

characterizes each basin’s hydrologic, ecological, and socioeconomic setting as well 

as historical, current, and proposed watershed management issues and activities. It 

also contains a preliminary evaluation of major water quality parameters, water 

quality issues by planning unit, ecological resources, and basinwide pollutant loading 

trends related to land uses. At the end of Phase 1, a Strategic Monitoring Plan is 

developed. 

• Phase 2: Strategic Monitoring and Assessment. Additional data are collected 

through strategic monitoring and uploaded to STORET. The data are used to verify 

whether potentially impaired waters in each basin are impaired and to calibrate and 

verify models for TMDL development. At the end of Phase 2, a Water Quality

Assessment Report is produced for each basin that contains a Verified List of 

impaired waters. The report also provides an updated and more thorough evaluation 

of water quality, associated biological resources, and current management plans. The 

Department will adopt the Verified List through a Secretarial Order and submit it to 

the EPA as the state’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. 

• Phase 3: Development and Adoption of TMDLs. TMDLs for priority impaired 

waters in the basin will be developed and adopted by rule. Because TMDLs cannot 

be developed for all listed waters during a single watershed management cycle due to 

fiscal and technical limitations, waterbodies will be prioritized using the criteria in the 

IWR (Rule 62-303, F.A.C.). 

• Phase 4: Development of a Basin Management Action Plan. A BMAP will be 

developed for each basin to specify how pollutant loadings from point and nonpoint 

sources will be allocated and reduced in order to meet TMDL requirements. The 

plans will include regulatory and nonregulatory (i.e., voluntary) and structural and 

nonstructural strategies, and existing management plans will be used where feasible. 

The involvement and support of affected stakeholders in this phase will be especially 

critical. 

• Phase 5: Implementation of a Basin Management Action Plan. Implementation of 

the activities specified in the BMAP will begin. This includes carrying out rule 

development as needed, securing funding, informing stakeholders and the public, and 

monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the plan. 

To implement the watershed cycle, the state’s river basins have been divided into 

five groups within each of the Department’s six districts statewide, and each district will 

assess one basin each year. Table A.1 shows the basin groups for implementing the 

cycle in the Department’s districts, and Figure A.1 shows these groups and the rotating 

cycle in the districts. Table A.2, 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. 

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 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 121

cycles will be targeted at evaluating whether water quality objectives are being met and 

whether individual waters are no longer impaired. The Department also will track the 

implementation of scheduled restoration activities, whether required or voluntary, to 

ensure continued progress towards meeting the TMDLs. 

Table A.1: Basin Groups for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle, by Department 

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. 

Andrew Bay 

Pensacola Bay Perdido River and 

Bay 

Northeast Suwannee River Lower St. Johns 

River – St. Marys–Nassau Rivers Upper East Coast 

Central Ocklawaha River Middle St. Johns 

River 

Upper St. Johns 

River Kissimmee River Indian River 

Lagoon 

Southwest 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 

Rivers 

Lake Worth 

Lagoon–Palm 

Beach Coast 

Biscayne Bay–

Southeast Coast Everglades 

Table A.2: 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 

PHASE 

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 

 1st Five-Year Cycle – High-Priority Waters 2nd Five-Year Cycle – Medium-Priority Waters 

Note: Projected years for Phases 3, 4, and 5 may change due to accelerated local activities, length of plan 

development, legal challenges, etc. 
122 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

Figure A.1: Five-Year Rotating Basin Cycle in the Department’s Six Districts 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 123

Pollutants can enter a waterbody through point source discharges (generally from a 

specific facility) or nonpoint discharges (e.g., stormwater runoff, septic tanks). 

Government agencies, businesses, organizations, and individuals who contribute to these 

discharges will be asked to share the responsibility of attaining TMDLs through load 

allocations (the amount of a specified pollutant allotted for discharge) that are based on 

an established TMDL. Table A.3 summarizes these potentially affected stakeholders, 

and the actions they may be asked to take to help achieve a TMDL. 

Table A.3: Potentially Affected Stakeholders and Actions To Achieve TMDLs 

Potentially Affected Stakeholders Actions To Achieve TMDL 

Municipal stormwater/wastewater programs Reduce and treat urban stormwater runoff through 

stormwater retrofits, replacement of septic tanks 

Commercial developers, homebuilders, individual 

homeowners 

Improve development design and construction, 

enhance BMPs, replace septic tanks 

Municipal and industrial wastewater treatment 

facilities, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permitted facilities 

Reduce pollutant loadings from permitted 

discharges 

Farming and silviculture operations Reduce and treat runoff through BMPs 

Federal, regional, state agencies; regional and 

local water quality coalitions Carry out waterbody restoration projects 

Permitting and Other Approaches 

NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMITS

All point sources that discharge to surface waterbodies require an NPDES permit. 

These permits can be classified into two types: domestic or industrial wastewater 

discharge permits, and stormwater permits. NPDES-permitted point sources may be 

affected by the development and implementation of a TMDL. All NPDES permits 

include “reopener clauses” that allow the Department to incorporate new discharge limits 

when a TMDL is established. These new limitations may be incorporated into a permit 

when a TMDL is implemented or at the next permit renewal, depending on the timing of 

the permit renewal and workload. For NPDES municipal stormwater permits, the 

Department intends to insert the following statement once a BMAP is completed: 

“The permittee shall undertake those activities specified in the (Name of Waterbody) 

Basin Management Action Plan in accordance with the approved schedule set forth in the 

BMAP.” 
124 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

DOMESTIC AND INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER PERMITS

In addition to NPDES-permitted facilities, all of which discharge to surface waters, 

Florida also regulates domestic and industrial wastewater discharges to ground water via 

land application. Since ground water and surface water are so intimately linked in much 

of the state, reductions in loadings from these facilities may be needed to meet TMDL 

limitations for pollutants in surface waters. If such reductions are identified in the 

BMAP, they would be implemented through modifications of the existing state permits. 

FLORIDA STORMWATER/ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMITS

With the implementation of the state’s stormwater treatment rule in 1982, Florida 

became the first state to require the treatment of stormwater from all new development. 

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

new development projects receive an Environmental Resource Permit that combines 

stormwater flood protection, stormwater treatment, and wetland protection/mitigation 

into a single permit. These permits are designed to obtain 80 percent average annual load 

reduction of total suspended solids. This level of treatment may need to be increased, 

depending on the allocation of load reductions, especially for nutrients. For example, the 

St. Johns River Water Management District recently adopted basin-specific criteria for 

the Lake Apopka watershed that require the phosphorus loading from new development 

not to exceed predevelopment phosphorus loading. 

LOCAL LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES 

Since structural stormwater treatment practices can only achieve certain levels of 

load reductions, and because the hydrologic changes accompanying urban development 

often cause ecological impacts to aquatic systems, local land development codes that 

promote “low-impact development” are an important component of restoring impaired 

waters. Local codes may need to be reviewed to determine how to promote 

developments that minimize impervious surfaces (such as reduced street widths or the use 

of pervious pavements), promote the protection of vegetation, promote the protection and 

restoration of riparian buffers along streams and lakes, and adopt the principles of the 

Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program in local landscaping codes. 

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Typically, BMPs refer to a practice or combination of practices that, based on sound 

science and best professional judgment, are determined to be the most effective and 

practicable means of reducing nonpoint source pollutant discharges and improving water 

quality. Both economic and technological considerations are included in the evaluation 

of what is practicable. BMPs may include structural controls (such as retention areas or 

detention ponds) or nonstructural controls (such as street sweeping or public education). 

Many BMPs have been developed for urban stormwater to reduce pollutant loadings and 

peak flows. These BMPs accommodate site-specific conditions, including soil type, 

slope, depth to ground water, and the designation of receiving waters. 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 125

The passage of the FWRA increased the emphasis on implementing BMPs to reduce 

nonpoint source pollutant discharges from agricultural operations. Recognizing that the 

development and adoption of BMPs might take several years, the legislature authorized 

the use of Interim Measures (IMs) during the BMP development process for agricultural 

operations. In essence, IMs are a set of logical conservation practices designed to reduce 

agricultural nonpoint pollutant discharges based on current knowledge and best 

professional judgment. These practices will evolve into more formal BMPs as better 

scientific data on their effectiveness is obtained. 

Once DACS adopts BMPs, the Department is charged with verifying their 

effectiveness in reducing agricultural nonpoint sources. Once verified, agricultural 

operations that have implemented BMPs will receive a waiver of liability and 

presumption of compliance similar to that granted a developer who obtains an 

Environmental Resource Permit. 

OTHER STRATEGIES

The success of implementing nonpoint source TMDL load allocations will require 

variety, creativity, stakeholder commitment to watershed management, and personal 

stewardship. In addition to BMPs, other possible strategies for meeting TMDLs, 

restoring water quality, and preventing the further degradation of Florida’s watersheds 

include cost sharing, waste minimization, pollution prevention, new approaches to land 

use design and development, and pollutant trading. The Department will assemble a 

Technical Advisory Committee to help develop a pollutant-trading rule, which must be 

reviewed by the legislature prior to its adoption. The Department will also continue to 

work with local stakeholders on TMDL allocation issues and implementation plans. 

Sources of Information 

For additional information on the Department’s Watershed Management Program 

and TMDLs, please contact the following basin coordinators: 

• Southwest Florida and Lake Okeechobee, Pat Fricano (850) 245-8559 

• Northwest and Central Florida (except Indian River Lagoon), Mary Paulic 

(850) 245-8560 

• Northeast Florida (except Lower St. Johns Basin), Middle St. Johns Basin, Upper 

St. Johns Basin, St. Lucie Basin, Suwannee Basin, and Ochlockonee–St. Marks 

Basin, Jennifer Gihring (850) 245-8418 

• Indian River Lagoon, Southeast Florida (except St. Lucie Basin), and Lower St. Johns 

Basin, Amy Tracy (850) 245-8506 

• West Central Florida and Tampa Bay Region, Terry Hansen (850) 245-8561 

For information on establishing and implementing TMDLs, contact Jan MandrupPoulsen at (850) 245-8448. Additional information is available on the Department’s Web 

site at www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/index.htm. 
126 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

Appendix B: Information on Reasonable Assurance 

TO: Interested Parties 

FROM: Mimi Drew, Director 

 Division of Water Facilities 

DATE: September 2002 

SUBJECT: Guidance for Development of Documentation To Provide 

Reasonable Assurance that Proposed Pollution Control Mechanisms Will Result in 

the Restoration of Designated Uses in Impaired Waters 

The purpose of this memo is to describe the types of information that should be 

considered, and subsequently documented, when evaluating whether there is sufficient 

reasonable assurance that: 

1. Proposed pollution control mechanisms (typically described in watershed 

management or restoration plans) addressing impaired waters will result in the 

attainment of applicable water quality standards (designated uses) at a clearly 

defined point in the future, and 

2. Reasonable progress towards restoration of designated uses will be made by the 

time the next 303(d) list of impaired waters is due to be submitted to the EPA. 

There are many site-specific issues related to determining whether reasonable 

assurance has been provided. Accordingly, this document describes the elements or 

issues that should be considered when evaluating a submittal or when documenting the 

basis for the Department’s decision, rather than attempting to establish specific criteria on 

what constitutes reasonable assurance. 

It should be noted that the term “reasonable assurance” is used throughout many 

Department programs and rules, and this guidance specifically addresses the issues 

related to the “reasonable assurance” provided by proposed pollution control 

mechanisms. This guidance should not be used to evaluate the meaning of reasonable 

assurance in other contexts, particularly in permitting decisions. 

Background 

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR), Rule 62-303, F.A.C. (Identification of 

Impaired Surface Waters), establishes a formal mechanism for identifying surface waters 

in Florida that are impaired (do not meet applicable water quality standards) by 

pollutants. Most waters that are verified as being impaired by a pollutant will be listed on 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 127

the state’s 303(d) list pursuant to the Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA) and 

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Once listed, Total Maximum Daily Loads 

(TMDLs) will be developed for the pollutants causing the impairment of the listed 

waters. However, as required by the FWRA, the Department will evaluate whether 

existing or proposed pollution control mechanisms will effectively address the 

impairment before placing a water on the state’s Verified List. If the Department can 

document there is reasonable assurance that the impairment will be effectively addressed 

by the control measure, then the water will not be listed on the final Verified List (other 

impaired waters that will not be listed include waters with TMDLs and waters impaired 

by pollution). 

Current Rule Text Relating to Evaluation of Pollution Control Mechanisms 

The rule text addressing the evaluation of proposed pollution control mechanisms is 

as follows: 

Section 62-303.600, Evaluation of Pollution Control Mechanisms 

1. Upon determining that a waterbody is impaired, the Department shall evaluate 

whether existing or proposed technology-based effluent limitations and other 

pollution control programs under local, state, or federal authority are sufficient to 

result in the attainment of applicable water quality standards. 

2. If, as a result of the factors set forth in (1), the waterbody segment is expected to 

attain water quality standards in the future and is expected to make reasonable 

progress towards attainment of water quality standards by the time the next 303(d) 

list is scheduled to be submitted to EPA, the segment shall not be listed on the 

Verified List. The Department shall document the basis for its decision, noting 

any proposed pollution control mechanisms and expected improvements in water 

quality that provide reasonable assurance that the waterbody segment will attain 

applicable water quality standards. 

Responsible Parties for Reasonable Assurance Demonstration 

It is ultimately the Department’s responsibility to assure adequate documentation in 

the administrative record whenever the Department decides to not list an impaired 

waterbody segment for a given pollutant. This documentation will be very important 

because the Verified Lists will be adopted by Order of the Secretary and third parties will 

be provided an opportunity to challenge, via an administrative hearing, all listing 

decisions (both those listing a water and those to not list a water for a given pollutant). 

However, the Department expects that local stakeholders will often offer to prepare the 

necessary documentation to demonstrate reasonable assurance that proposed control 

mechanisms will restore a given waterbody. The Department will provide guidance to 

stakeholders on what information is needed and how it should be submitted. 
128 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

Time Frame for Development of Documentation 

The Department plans to prepare basin-specific Verified Lists as part of its 

watershed management cycle, which rotates through all of the state’s basins over a fiveyear, five-phased cycle1

. During the first phase of the cycle, the Department will assess 

water quality in the basin and prepare a draft Planning List of potentially impaired 

waters. The Department and interested parties will then have approximately one year 

(Phase 2) to monitor waters on the planning list and prepare documentation, as 

appropriate, to provide reasonable assurance that impaired waters will be restored. The 

Department will review submittals from interested parties during Phase 2, before 

adopting the Verified List for the basin containing the waterbody segment in question. 

What It Means To Be Under Local, State, or Federal Authority 

Both the FWRA and the IWR require that the pollution control programs 

under consideration be “under local, state, or federal authority.” A pollution 

control program will be considered "under local, state, or federal authority" if the 

program is subject to or required by a local ordinance, state statute or rule, or 

federal statute or regulation. 

Programs will also be considered under local, state, or federal authority if they 

are subject to a written agreement, signed by both local stakeholders and at least 

one governmental entity, that includes measurable goals, performance criteria, 

benchmarks, and back-up corrective actions to assure the further progress of the 

program. It is important to note that these written agreements do not need to be 

enforceable for nonregulated nonpoint sources. 

Many nonpoint sources are currently outside of the regulatory programs of EPA, the 

Department, and the water management districts, and reductions at these nonpoint 

sources will be voluntary. In fact, pollution control mechanisms for these nonpoint 

sources would be voluntary even if a TMDL were developed. As such, these agreements 

may provide the same level of reasonable assurance that can be provided for a TMDL 

implementation plan as long as they maintain the Department’s enforcement capability 

over all point sources involved. 

Time Frame for Attaining Water Quality Standards 

The FWRA and the IWR do not establish a specific time limit by which waters must 

attain applicable water quality standards or designated uses. However, the pollution 

control mechanisms or watershed restoration plan must provide reasonable assurance that 

designated uses will be met at some time in the future. As such, the documentation 

submitted to the Department must provide a specific date by which time designated uses 

are expected to be restored. In cases where designated uses will not be met for many 

years, the documentation should also provide justification as to why the specified time is 

needed to restore designated uses. 

 

1

 Federal regulations currently call for state 303(d) lists every two years, but Florida plans to submit annual updates 

based on the basin-specific Verified Lists. 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 129

Parameter-Specific Nature of Demonstration 

For the Department not to place an impaired waterbody segment on the Verified List, 

reasonable assurance must be provided for each pollutant that has been documented to be 

causing impairment of the waterbody segment. However, some entities, including the 

Department, may want to provide reasonable assurance addressing only selected 

pollutants, which could result in the Department not listing the waterbody segment for 

those pollutants, but still listing it for others. In this event, TMDLs will only be 

developed for the remaining listed pollutants. 

Information To Consider and Document when Assessing Reasonable 

Assurance in the IWR 

To provide reasonable assurance that existing or proposed pollution control 

mechanisms will restore designated uses, the following information should be evaluated 

and documented for the Administrative Record: 

1. A Description of the Impaired Water—name of the water listed on the Verified 

List, the location of the waterbody and watershed, the watershed/8-digit 

cataloging unit code, the NHD identifier (when they become available), the type 

(lake, stream, or estuary) of water, the water use classification, the designated use 

not being attained, the length (miles) or area (acres) of impaired area, the 

pollutant(s) of concern (those identified as causing or contributing to the 

impairment), and the suspected or documented source(s) of the pollutant(s) of 

concern. 

2. A Description of the Water Quality or Aquatic Ecological Goals—a 

description of the water quality–based targets or aquatic ecological goals (both 

interim and final) that have been established for the pollutant(s) of concern, the 

averaging period for any numeric water quality goals, a discussion of how these 

goals will result in the restoration of the waterbody’s impaired designated uses, a 

schedule indicating when interim and final targets are expected to be met, and a 

description of procedures (with thresholds) to determine whether additional 

(backup) corrective actions are needed. 

3. A Description of the Proposed Management Actions To Be Undertaken—

names of the responsible participating entities (government, private, others), a 

summary and list of existing or proposed management activities designed to 

restore water quality, the geographic scope of any proposed management 

activities, documentation of the estimated pollutant load reduction and other 

benefits anticipated from implementation of individual management actions, 

copies of written agreements committing participants to the management actions, 

a discussion on how future growth and new sources will be addressed, confirmed 

sources of funding, an implementation schedule (including interim milestones and 
130 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

the date by which designated uses will be restored), and any enforcement 

programs or local ordinances, if the management strategy is not voluntary. 

4. A Description of Procedures for Monitoring and Reporting Results—a 

description of the water quality monitoring program to be implemented (including 

station locations, parameters sampled, and sampling frequencies) to demonstrate 

reasonable progress; quality assurance/quality control elements that demonstrate 

the monitoring will comply with Rule 62-160, F.A.C.; procedures for entering all 

appropriate data into STORET; the responsible monitoring and reporting entity; 

the frequency and format for reporting results; the frequency and format for 

reporting on the implementation of all proposed management activities; and 

methods for evaluating progress towards goals. 

5. A Description of Proposed Corrective Actions—a description of proposed 

corrective actions (and any supporting document[s]) that will be undertaken if 

water quality does not improve after implementation of the management actions 

or if management actions are not completed on schedule, and a process for 

notifying the Department that these corrective actions are being implemented. 

Water Quality–Based Targets and Aquatic Ecological Goals 

Some of the most important elements listed above are the requirements to provide 

water quality–based targets or aquatic ecological goals and a discussion on how resultant 

pollutant(s) reduction targets/goals will result in restoration of designated uses. Some 

people have expressed concern about these targets because they equate a water quality–

based restoration target with a TMDL (thus assuming a “Catch 22” that a TMDL is 

needed to make a demonstration that a TMDL is not needed). However, as is also the 

case for TMDLs, water quality–based targets can take many forms, and need not be a 

result of a complex hydrodynamic/water quality model. 

In some cases, there may be sufficient historical data (paleolimnological data, 

loadings from periods predating the impairment, or baseline data for Outstanding Florida 

Waters2

, for example) that could be used to determine an appropriate water quality target. 

In other cases, simplified modeling (including regression analysis) may allow for 

conservative estimates of the assimilative capacity that could then be used as the basis for 

restoration goals. And, finally, a water quality target may have been developed that 

would be scientifically equivalent to (or act as the basis for) a TMDL, but the target has 

not been administratively adopted as a TMDL. In each of these cases, a sound water 

quality target could be used to evaluate whether the proposed pollution control 

mechanisms will sufficiently reduce loadings to meet the assimilative capacity of the 

water in question and result in attainment of designated uses. 

 

2

 Baseline data would be data for the year prior to designation of the OFW. 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 131

Interim Targets 

Because it will usually take many years to restore fully the designated uses of an 

impaired water, interim water quality targets will often be needed to measure whether 

reasonable progress is being made towards the restoration of designated uses. Examples 

of such interim targets are provided in the last section of this document, but site-specific 

measures are also encouraged. 

Averaging Periods for Water Quality Targets 

While the averaging period for water quality–based targets should be consistent with 

how the underlying standard is expressed, they can often be expressed in a variety of 

ways and need not be expressed as “daily loads.” Annual averages or medians are often 

appropriate for some parameters, but shorter-term (seasonal, for example) averages may 

be necessary if the impairment is limited to specific seasons or parts of the year. Multiyear averages may be appropriate in limited circumstances where there is naturally high 

variation of the water quality target. 

Estimates of Pollutant Reductions from Restoration Actions 

It will often be difficult to estimate precisely the pollutant reductions that will result 

from specific restoration activities. This is particularly true for the implementation of 

best management practices (BMPs). However, to provide reasonable assurance that a 

BMP or other restoration action will reduce loadings of the pollutant of concern to a level 

that will restore the water’s designated uses, documentation should address how the 

reductions were calculated, including providing documented values from the scientific 

literature for reductions attributed to similar management actions. If the expected 

reductions are expressed as a range, the midpoint of the range should be used as the basis 

for estimating reductions, unless documentation is provided supporting the use of 

different removal efficiencies in this specific application. 

New Sources/Growth 

Another key element is the discussion on how future growth and new sources will be 

addressed. Restoration goals must address possible increased loadings of the pollutant of 

concern that are anticipated due to population growth or land use changes in contributing 

watersheds, both from point and nonpoint sources. This will be particularly important for 

waters impaired by nutrients, given that so many Florida watersheds are faced with 

continuing urban, residential, and agricultural development that results in increased 

nutrient loading from stormwater, septic tanks, and wastewater discharges. 

Examples of Reasonable Progress 

The determination of whether there will be reasonable progress towards attainment 

of water quality standards will be very site- and pollutant-specific. Documentation 
132 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

should be provided supporting specific progress towards restoration of the designated 

uses of the impaired water. Possible examples of reasonable progress include, but are not 

limited to the following: 

• A written commitment to implement controls reducing loadings within a specified 

time frame from watershed stakeholders representing at least 50 percent of the 

anthropogenic load of the pollutant(s) of concern; 

• Evidence of at least a 10 percent reduction (or alternatively, a percent reduction 

consistent with meeting the water quality target by the specified date) in annual 

anthropogenic loading of the pollutant(s) of concern; 

• Evidence of at least a 10 percent decrease (or alternatively, a percent decrease 

consistent with meeting the water quality target by the specified date) in the annual 

average concentration of the pollutant(s) of concern in the water; 

• Bioassessment results showing there has been an improvement in the health of the 

biological community of the water, as measured by bioassessment procedures similar 

to those used to determine impairment and conducted in similar conditions; or 

• Adoption of a local ordinance that specifically provides water quality goals, restricts 

growth or loads tied to the pollutant(s) of concern, and provides an enforcement 

option if the proposed management measure(s) are not implemented as required. 

Reasonable progress must be made by the time the next 303(d) list is due to be 

submitted to EPA, which is currently every two years. EPA has contemplated changing 

the listing cycle to every four or five years, and the IWR was specifically worded to 

allow a longer time frame for requiring reasonable progress in the event that the listing 

cycle changes. 

Long-Term Requirements

If at any time the Department determines that reasonable assurance and reasonable 

progress are not being met, the order adopting the Verified List will be amended to 

include the waterbody on the Verified List for the pollutant(s) in question. Additional 

reasonable progress must be made each time a waterbody is considered for listing under 

Rule 62-303, F.A.C. (every five years). 

If you have any questions about this guidance memo, contact Daryll Joyner of the 

Department’s Bureau of Watershed Management in Tallahassee at 850-245-8431. 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 133

Appendix C: Methodology for Determining Impairment Based 

on the Impaired Surface Waters Rule 

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule 

To identify impaired waters in each of the state’s river basins, the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection (Department) evaluates water quality data using 

the science-based methodology in the Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule 

(IWR) (Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]). The rule 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 designed to provide greater confidence that the outcome of the water quality 

assessment is correct. The complete text of the IWR is available at 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/legal/Rules/shared/62-303/62-303.pdf. 

As part of the watershed management approach, for each river basin in the state the 

Department will follow the methodology in Section 62-303.300, F.A.C., to develop a 

Planning List of potentially impaired waters to be assessed under Subsections 403.067(2) 

and (3), Florida Statutes (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. Data older than 10 years cannot be used to evaluate water 

quality criteria exceedances for the Planning List. 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 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for 

informational purposes only. 

After further assessment, using the methodology in Part III, Section 62-303.400, 

F.A.C., the Department will determine if 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. Data older than 7.5 years should not be used to verify impairment. 

The Verified List will be adopted by Secretarial Order and forwarded to the EPA for 

approval as Florida’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. The Department will 

develop TMDLs for these waters under Subsection 403.067(4), F.S. 

Attainment of Designated Use(s) 

While the designated uses of a given waterbody are established using the surface 

water quality classification system described previously, it is important to note that the 

EPA uses slightly different terminology in its description of designated uses. Because the 

Department is required to provide use attainment status for both the state’s 305(b) report 

and the state’s 303(d) list of impaired waters, the Department 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: 
134 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

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 C.1 summarizes the designated uses assigned to Florida’s various surface 

water classifications. 

Table C.1: 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 Attainment 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 

Sources of Data 

The Department’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 EPA’s Legacy and modernized 

STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) databases, the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), the 

Department, the Florida Department of Health (FDOH), the water management districts, 

local governments, and volunteer monitoring groups. 

Historically, the Department carried out statewide water quality assessments using 

data available in the EPA’s Legacy STORET Database; STORET makes up 

approximately 60 percent 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 (see the new 

STORET Web site at http://www.epa.gov/storet/. However, because of software 

difficulties associated with batch uploading of data to the modernized STORET, the data 

being uploaded to the national repository decreased dramatically, and lingering problems 

have temporarily reduced STORET’s importance as a statewide data source. It houses 

only about 5 percent of the statewide IWR Database. 

Approximately 35 percent of the data used in the IWR assessment was provided by 

individual organizations that for various reasons, such as time constraints or resource 

limitations, were 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 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 135

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/. 

The Department created the IWR Database in 2002 to evaluate data simultaneously 

in accordance with the IWR methodology for every basin in the state, based on the 

appropriate data “window.” For the Verified List assessment, the window is 7.5 years 

(for the IWR Database), and the Planning List assessment window is 10 years. Table 

C.2 shows the periods of record for the Verified and Planning Lists for the five basin 

groups. 

The evaluation of water quality in the state’s basins also includes some qualitative 

information. These sources are described in the Water Quality Status Reports and Water 

Quality Assessment Reports for each basin. 

Table C.2: Data Used in Developing the 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 List 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 

Verified 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-

year record is used for the Verified Lists. 

Methodology 

To determine the status of surface water quality in individual river basins in Florida, 

three categories of data—chemistry data, biological data, and fish consumption 

advisories—were evaluated to determine potential impairments for the designated use 

attainment categories discussed earlier: aquatic life, primary contact and recreation, fish 

and shellfish consumption, drinking water use, and protection of human health. 

Aquatic Life Based Attainment 

The 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). 
136 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

EXCEEDANCES OF NUMERIC WATER QUALITY CRITERIA

The chemistry data from STORET used in evaluating impairment were also used for 

preparing the state’s 305(b) report. Only ambient surface water quality stations were 

included in the assessment of impairment. Water quality information from point sources 

or wells was excluded. Monitoring stations were classified as one of five waterbody 

types—spring, stream, lake, estuary, or blackwater—based on criteria described in the 

latest 305(b) report. The assessments included the following parameters: 

Metals Arsenic, aluminum, cadmium, chromium VI, chromium III, 

copper, iron, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, 

thallium, and zinc 

Nutrients Chlorophyll a for streams and estuaries, and Trophic State 

Index (TSI) (chlorophyll a, total nitrogen, and total 

phosphorus) for lakes 

Conventionals Dissolved oxygen (DO), fecal coliform, total coliform, pH, 

unionized ammonia 

The requirements for placing waters on the Planning List included a minimum of 10 

temporally independent samples from the 10-year period of record shown in Table C.2,

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 requires at 

least 20 samples from the last 5 years preceding the Planning List assessment. An 

exceedance, meaning that water quality criteria or standards are not met, is recorded any 

time the criterion is exceeded by any amount. An exceedance for 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, unionized ammonia data 

were not analyzed by the program, but rather with an Excel spreadsheet. Second, 

because the full complexity of the pH criterion could not be programmed, the incomplete 

listings for pH are not included. They will be further examined while additional data are 

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 geographic information system (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 Planning 

List if there was at least 80 percent confidence that the actual criteria exceedance rate was 

greater than or equal to 10 percent. To be placed on the Verified List, at least a 90 

percent confidence rate was required. 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 137

EXCEEDANCES OF NUTRIENT THRESHOLDS

The state currently 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 aquatic 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 impairment. 

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 seagrasses 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 lakes. 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 areas, a water was considered nutrient enriched if the annual mean 

chlorophyll a values were greater than 11 micrograms per liter (μg/L), or if annual mean 

chlorophyll a values increased by more than 50 percent over historical values for at least 

two consecutive years. For streams, a water was considered nutrient enriched if the 

annual mean chlorophyll a values were greater than 20 μg/L, or if the annual mean 

increased by more than 50 percent over historical values for at least two consecutive 

years. 

A lake with a mean color greater than 40 platinum cobalt units (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 was considered nutrient enriched if there was an 

increase in TSI over the 1989 to 2000 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 rivers using the IWR 

as guidance and following the Department’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 contained in the 

Status Reports. The purpose behind using a bioassessment methodology in surface water 

characterizations 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. Similar to water quality criteria, 

bioassessment methods involve the identification of a biological reference condition, 

based on data from unimpaired or least impacted waters in a given region. 
138 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

For the Planning and Verified List assessments, the reference condition data were 

used to establish expected scores, ranging from best to worst, for various measures of 

community structure and function, such as numbers or percentages of particular species 

or feeding groups. Data on community structure and function from waters of unknown 

quality in the same region as reference waters were compared with the expected scores of 

metrics to evaluate their biological integrity. 

Metrics (e.g., number of taxa, percent Diptera, percent filter feeders) were used 

independently and as an aggregated group called an index. Indices have advantages over 

individual metrics in that they can integrate several related metrics into one score that 

reflects a wider range of biological variables. A number of bioassessment metrics and 

indices exist for assessing populations of plant and animal life, including fish, diatoms 

(e.g., microscopic algae and unicellular plankton), and macroinvertebrates (e.g., insects, 

crayfish, snails, and mussels). 

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 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (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., percent suitable macroinvertebrate habitat, water velocities, 

extent of sand or silt smothering, and riparian [Definition: Of, on, or relating to the 

banks of a natural course of water.] buffer zone widths) was not available at the time of 

reporting, it was not included. However, this information is instrumental in pinpointing 

the causes for failed bioassessment metrics and will be included in future reporting. 

The data used to develop the Planning and Verified Lists were obtained from the 

Department’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 are used without regard to the randomness of sample 

site selection. For the purposes of the Status Reports, the seasons are defined as follows: 

winter (1/1–3/31), spring (4/1–6/30), summer (7/1–9/30), and fall (10/1–12/31). Wet 

seasons are generally spring and summer, and dry seasons are fall and winter, although 

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 

percent Diptera, was performed according to the following formula: 

100(B/A) where A = the 95 percentile of the reference population and B = observed 

value 

For percent Diptera, the following formula was used: 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 139

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 six metrics in 

the method: total number of taxa; total number of taxa belonging to the orders 

Ephemeroptera, Odonata, and Trichoptera (EOT taxa); percent EOT taxa; ShannonWiener Diversity Index score; Hulbert Index score; and percent Dipteran individuals. 

LCI calculations were only provided for clear lakes (< 20 PCUs). As macroinvertebratebased 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 Stream Condition Index (SCI) score was calculated by adding the scores of 

the seven metrics in the method: total number of taxa; total number of taxa belonging to 

the orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT taxa); percent Chironomid 

taxa; percent dominant taxa; percent Diptera; percent filter feeders; and Florida Index. A 

poor or very poor rating based on the total score constituted a failed bioassessment, based 

on the IWR. The Water Quality Status Reports contain definitions and specific methods 

for the generation and analysis of bioassessment data. 

BIORECON

To establish an impairment rating based on BioRecon data, three metrics were used: 

the Florida Index score, total number of taxa, and total number of EPT taxa. If all three 

metrics failed to meet thresholds, the water was deemed “impaired” based on the IWR. 

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 Subsection 

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 attainment, no ambient toxicity data are 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: 
140 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

• 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 year 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 issued. Fish consumption advisories were based on the 

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. 

Drinking Water Attainment and Protection of Human Health 

For Class I waters, a waterbody was potentially impaired if it did not meet the 

applicable Class I water quality criteria. 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 141

Appendix D: Integrated Assessment (Master List) for the Upper 

East Coast Basin 

Table D.1 contains the listing status of all assessed waters in the basin as of October 

2007. Table D.1 shows the current waterbody identification numbers (WBIDs). 

Information in this appendix was obtained from an inventory of the Legacy and 

modernized STORET databases, as well as data contributed directly to the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection (Department) by individual data providers. 

Table D.2 includes only stations with data from the Planning and Verified assessment 

periods. 
142 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

Table D.1: Integrated Water Quality Report (Master List) for the Upper East Coast Basin, by Planning Unit 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2620 Bulow Creek Stream Aluminum NI 2 2620 Bulow Creek Stream Arsenic NI 2 2620 Bulow Creek Stream Cadmium NI 2 2620 Bulow Creek Stream Copper NI 2 2620 Bulow Creek Stream Lead NI 2 2620 Bulow Creek Stream Nickel NI 2 2620 Bulow Creek Stream Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2620 Bulow Creek Stream Nutrients 

(Histchla) 

NI 2 

2620 Bulow Creek Stream Selenium NI 2 2620 Bulow Creek Stream Turbidity NI 2 2620 Bulow Creek Stream Zinc NI 2 2634 Tomoka 

River 

Stream Arsenic NI 2 
144 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2634 Tomoka 

River 

Stream Biology NI 2 

2634 Tomoka 

River 

Stream Fecal Coliform NI 2 

2634 Tomoka 

River 

Stream Fluoride NI 2 

2634 Tomoka 

River 

Stream Iron NI 2 

2634 Tomoka 

River 

Stream Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2634 Tomoka 

River 

Stream Nutrients 

(Histchla) 

NI 2 

2634 Tomoka 

River 

Stream Turbidity NI 2 

2634 Tomoka 

River 

Stream Unionized 

Ammonia 

NI 2 

2634 Tomoka 

River 

Stream Zinc NI 2 

2635 Grover 

Branch 

Stream Turbidity NI 2 

2645 Mizners 

Branch 

Stream Biology NI 2 
146 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2645 Mizners 

Branch 

Stream Iron NI 2 

2645 Mizners 

Branch 

Stream Turbidity NI 2 

2646 Little 

Tomoka River 

Stream Biology NI 2 

2646 Little 

Tomoka River 

Stream Turbidity NI 2 

2664 Reed Canal Stream Fecal Coliform NI 2 2664 Reed Canal Stream Turbidity NI 2 2670 Halifax Canal Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

NI 2 

2670 Halifax Canal Stream Turbidity NI 2 2672 Rose Bay Estuary Fecal Coliform NI 2 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2672 Rose Bay Estuary Nutrients 

(Histchla) 

NI 2 

2672 Rose Bay Estuary Turbidity NI 2 2673 Unnamed 

Drain 

Stream Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 

2673 Unnamed 

Drain 

Stream Turbidity NI 2 

2674 Spruce 

Creek 

Stream Arsenic NI 2 

2674 Spruce 

Creek 

Stream Cadmium NI 2 
148 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2674 Spruce 

Creek 

Stream Chromium3 NI 2 

2674 Spruce 

Creek 

Stream Copper NI 2 

2674 Spruce 

Creek 

Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

NI 2 

2674 Spruce 

Creek 

Stream Lead NI 2 

2674 Spruce 

Creek 

Stream Nickel NI 2 

2674 Spruce 

Creek 

Stream Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2674 Spruce 

Creek 

Stream Nutrients 

(Histchla) 

NI 2 

2674 Spruce 

Creek 

Stream Selenium NI 2 

2674 Spruce 

Creek 

Stream Turbidity NI 2 

2674 Spruce 

Creek 

Stream Unionized 

Ammonia 

NI 2 

2674 Spruce 

Creek 

Stream Zinc NI 2 

2675 Sand Creek Stream Biology NI 2 2675 Sand Creek Stream Turbidity NI 2 2678 Turnbull Bay Estuary Turbidity NI 2 
150 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2679 Unnamed 

Drain 

Stream Turbidity NI 2 

2681 Glencoe 

Ditches 

Stream Turbidity NI 2 

8117 Halifax River 

Ocean 1 

Coastal Fecal Coliform NI 2 

8118 Halifax River 

Ocean 2 

Coastal Fecal Coliform NI 2 

8119 Halifax River 

Ocean 3 

Coastal Fecal Coliform NI 2 

2363A Halifax River Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

NI 2 

2363A Halifax River Estuary Fecal Coliform NI 2 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2363A Halifax River Estuary Nutrients 

(Histchla) 

NI 2 

2363A Halifax River Estuary Turbidity NI 2 2363B Halifax River Estuary Aluminum NI 2 2363B Halifax River Estuary Arsenic NI 2 2363B Halifax River Estuary Cadmium NI 2 2363B Halifax River Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

NI 2 

2363B Halifax River Estuary Fecal Coliform NI 2 2363B Halifax River Estuary Lead NI 2 2363B Halifax River Estuary Nickel NI 2 
152 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2363B Halifax River Estuary Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2363B Halifax River Estuary Nutrients 

(Histchla) 

NI 2 

2363B Halifax River Estuary Selenium NI 2 2363B Halifax River Estuary Turbidity NI 2 2363B Halifax River Estuary Zinc NI 2 

2363C Tomoka 

Basin 

Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

NI 2 

2363C Tomoka 

Basin 

Estuary Fecal Coliform NI 2 
154 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2363C Tomoka 

Basin 

Estuary Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 

2363C Tomoka 

Basin 

Estuary Nutrients 

(Histchla) 

NI 2 

2363C Tomoka 

Basin 

Estuary Turbidity NI 2 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2363J Palm Coast Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

NI 2 

2363J Palm Coast Estuary Fecal Coliform NI 2 2363J Palm Coast Estuary Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 

2363J Palm Coast Estuary Turbidity NI 2 

2634A Tomoka 

River 

Estuary Aluminum NI 2 

2634A Tomoka 

River 

Estuary Arsenic NI 2 

2634A Tomoka 

River 

Estuary Cadmium NI 2 

2634A Tomoka 

River 

Estuary Copper NI 2 

2634A Tomoka 

River 

Estuary Fecal Coliform NI 2 

2634A Tomoka 

River 

Estuary Lead NI 2 
156 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2634A Tomoka 

River 

Estuary Nickel NI 2 

2634A Tomoka 

River 

Estuary Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2634A Tomoka 

River 

Estuary Nutrients 

(Histchla) 

NI 2 

2634A Tomoka 

River 

Estuary Selenium NI 2 

2634A Tomoka 

River 

Estuary Turbidity NI 2 

2634A Tomoka 

River 

Estuary Zinc NI 2 
158 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2666A Sweetwater 

Creek 

Stream Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 

2666A Sweetwater 

Creek 

Stream Turbidity NI 2 

2674A Spruce 

Creek 

Estuary Nutrients 

(Histchla) 

NI 2 

2674A Spruce 

Creek 

Estuary Turbidity NI 2 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2674B Strickland 

Bay 

Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

NI 2 

2674B Strickland 

Bay 

Estuary Turbidity NI 2 

2472 Red House 

Branch 

Stream Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 

2472 Red House 

Branch 

Stream Turbidity NI 2 

2472 Red House 

Branch 

Stream Unionized 

Ammonia 

NI 2 

2491 San 

Sebastian River 

Stream Fecal Coliform NI 2 
160 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2491 San 

Sebastian River 

Stream Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 

2491 San 

Sebastian River 

Stream Nutrients 

(Histchla) 

NI 2 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2491 San 

Sebastian River 

Stream Turbidity NI 2 

2491 San 

Sebastian River 

Stream Unionized 

Ammonia 

NI 2 

2493 Moultrie 

Creek 

Stream Aluminum NI 2 

2493 Moultrie 

Creek 

Stream Arsenic NI 2 

2493 Moultrie 

Creek 

Stream Cadmium NI 2 

2493 Moultrie 

Creek 

Stream Copper NI 2 

2493 Moultrie 

Creek 

Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

NI 2 

2493 Moultrie 

Creek 

Stream Fluoride NI 2 

2493 Moultrie 

Creek 

Stream Lead NI 2 

2493 Moultrie 

Creek 

Stream Manganese NI 2 

2493 Moultrie 

Creek 

Stream Nickel NI 2 
162 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2493 Moultrie 

Creek 

Stream Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2493 Moultrie 

Creek 

Stream Nutrients 

(Histchla) 

NI 2 

2493 Moultrie 

Creek 

Stream Selenium NI 2 

2493 Moultrie 

Creek 

Stream Turbidity NI 2 

2493 Moultrie 

Creek 

Stream Zinc NI 2 

2499 Oyster Creek Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

NI 2 

2502 Salt Run Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

NI 2 
164 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2502 Salt Run Estuary Fecal Coliform NI 2 2502 Salt Run Estuary Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 

2502 Salt Run Estuary Turbidity NI 2 2520 Wildwood 

Creek 

Stream Biology NI 2 

2520 Wildwood 

Creek 

Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

NI 2 

2520 Wildwood 

Creek 

Stream Fecal Coliform NI 2 

2520 Wildwood 

Creek 

Stream Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 

2520 Wildwood 

Creek 

Stream Turbidity NI 2 

2520 Wildwood 

Creek 

Stream Unionized 

Ammonia 

NI 2 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2535 Moses Creek Stream Biology NI 2 2535 Moses Creek Stream Fecal Coliform NI 2 2535 Moses Creek Stream Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 

2535 Moses Creek Stream Turbidity NI 2 2535 Moses Creek Stream Unionized 

Ammonia 

NI 2 

8122 Matanzas 

River Ocean 

Coastal Fecal Coliform NI 2 

2363G Matanzas 

River 

Estuary Aluminum NI 2 

2363G Matanzas 

River 

Estuary Arsenic NI 2 

2363G Matanzas 

River 

Estuary Cadmium NI 2 
166 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2363G Matanzas 

River 

Estuary Copper NI 2 

2363G Matanzas 

River 

Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

NI 2 

2363G Matanzas 

River 

Estuary Fecal Coliform NI 2 

2363G Matanzas 

River 

Estuary Fecal Coliform 

(Col3) 

NI 2 

2363G Matanzas 

River 

Estuary Manganese NI 2 

2363G Matanzas 

River 

Estuary Nickel NI 2 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2363G Matanzas 

River 

Estuary Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 
168 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2363G Matanzas 

River 

Estuary Nutrients 

(Histchla) 

NI 2 

2363G Matanzas 

River 

Estuary Selenium NI 2 

2363G Matanzas 

River 

Estuary Turbidity NI 2 

2363G Matanzas 

River 

Estuary Zinc NI 2 

2363H St. Augustine 

Inlet 

Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

NI 2 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2363H St. Augustine 

Inlet 

Estuary Fecal Coliform NI 2 

2363H St. Augustine 

Inlet 

Estuary Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 

2363H St. Augustine 

Inlet 

Estuary Turbidity NI 2 

2550 Unnamed 

Drain 

Stream Fecal Coliform NI 2 

2550 Unnamed 

Drain 

Stream Turbidity NI 2 

2553 Cracker 

Branch (Pellicer Creek) 

Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

NI 2 

2553 Cracker 

Branch (Pellicer Creek) 

Stream Fecal Coliform NI 2 

2553 Cracker 

Branch (Pellicer Creek) 

Stream Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 
170 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2553 Cracker 

Branch (Pellicer Creek) 

Stream Turbidity NI 2 

2553 Cracker 

Branch (Pellicer Creek) 

Stream Unionized 

Ammonia 

NI 2 

2577 Stevens 

Branch 

Stream Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 

8120 Pellicer 

Creek Ocean 1 

Coastal Fecal Coliform NI 2 

8121 Pellicer 

Creek Ocean 2 

Coastal Fecal Coliform NI 2 

2363D Palm Coast Estuary Cadmium NI 2 2363D Palm Coast Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

NI 2 

2363D Palm Coast Estuary Fecal Coliform NI 2 2363D Palm Coast Estuary Lead NI 2 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2363D Palm Coast Estuary Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 

2363D Palm Coast Estuary Selenium NI 2 2363D Palm Coast Estuary Thallium NI 2 2363D Palm Coast Estuary Turbidity NI 2 

2363E ICWW Estuary Aluminum NI 2 2363E ICWW Estuary Cadmium NI 2 2363E ICWW Estuary Chromium3 NI 2 2363E ICWW Estuary Copper NI 2 2363E ICWW Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

NI 2 

2363E ICWW Estuary Fecal Coliform NI 2 
172 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2363E ICWW Estuary Fecal Coliform 

(Col3) 

NI 2 

2363E ICWW Estuary Lead NI 2 2363E ICWW Estuary Manganese NI 2 2363E ICWW Estuary Nickel NI 2 2363E ICWW Estuary Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2363E ICWW Estuary Nutrients 

(Histchla) 

NI 2 

2363E ICWW Estuary Selenium NI 2 2363E ICWW Estuary Turbidity NI 2 2363E ICWW Estuary Zinc NI 2 

2363F ICWW Estuary Fecal Coliform NI 2 2363F ICWW Estuary Fecal Coliform 

(Col3) 

NI 2 
174 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2363F ICWW Estuary Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 

2363F ICWW Estuary Turbidity NI 2 

2580A Pellicer 

Creek 

Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

NI 2 

2580A Pellicer 

Creek 

Stream Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 

2580A Pellicer 

Creek 

Stream Turbidity NI 2 

2580B Pellicer 

Creek 

Stream Arsenic NI 2 

2580B Pellicer 

Creek 

Stream Cadmium NI 2 

2580B Pellicer 

Creek 

Stream Chromium3 NI 2 

2580B Pellicer 

Creek 

Stream Copper NI 2 

2580B Pellicer 

Creek 

Stream Lead NI 2 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2580B Pellicer 

Creek 

Stream Nickel NI 2 

2580B Pellicer 

Creek 

Stream Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 
176 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2580B Pellicer 

Creek 

Stream Nutrients 

(Histchla) 

NI 2 

2580B Pellicer 

Creek 

Stream Selenium NI 2 

2580B Pellicer 

Creek 

Stream Turbidity NI 2 

2580B Pellicer 

Creek 

Stream Unionized 

Ammonia 

NI 2 

2580B Pellicer 

Creek 

Stream Zinc NI 2 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2320 Guana River Estuary Nutrients 

(Histchla) 

NI 2 

2320 Guana River Estuary Turbidity NI 2 2400 Smith Creek Stream Fecal Coliform NI 2 
178 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2400 Smith Creek Stream Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 

2400 Smith Creek Stream Turbidity NI 2 2406 Deep Creek 

Upper 

Stream Fecal Coliform NI 2 

2406 Deep Creek 

Upper 

Stream Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 

2406 Deep Creek 

Upper 

Stream Turbidity NI 2 

2406 Deep Creek 

Upper 

Stream Unionized 

Ammonia 

NI 2 

2435 Capo Creek Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

NI 2 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2435 Capo Creek Estuary Fecal Coliform NI 2 2435 Capo Creek Estuary Fecal Coliform 

(Col3) 

NI 2 

2435 Capo Creek Estuary Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 

2435 Capo Creek Estuary Turbidity NI 2 2442 Marshall 

Creek 

Stream Fecal Coliform NI 2 

2442 Marshall 

Creek 

Stream Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 

2442 Marshall 

Creek 

Stream Turbidity NI 2 

2451 Stokes 

Creek 

Estuary Fecal Coliform NI 2 

2451 Stokes 

Creek 

Estuary Fecal Coliform 

(Col3) 

NI 2 
180 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2451 Stokes 

Creek 

Estuary Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 

2451 Stokes 

Creek 

Estuary Turbidity NI 2 

2468 Casa Cola 

Creek 

Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

NI 2 

2468 Casa Cola 

Creek 

Estuary Fecal Coliform NI 2 

2468 Casa Cola 

Creek 

Estuary Fecal Coliform 

(Col3) 

NI 2 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2468 Casa Cola 

Creek 

Estuary Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 

2468 Casa Cola 

Creek 

Estuary Nutrients 

(Histchla) 

NI 2 

2468 Casa Cola 

Creek 

Estuary Turbidity NI 2 
182 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2470 Sombrero 

Creek 

Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

NI 2 

2470 Sombrero 

Creek 

Estuary Fecal Coliform 

(Col3) 

NI 2 

2470 Sombrero 

Creek 

Estuary Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 

2470 Sombrero 

Creek 

Estuary Turbidity NI 2 

2477 Ximanies 

Creek 

Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

NI 2 

2477 Ximanies 

Creek 

Estuary Fecal Coliform NI 2 

2477 Ximanies 

Creek 

Estuary Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 

2477 Ximanies 

Creek 

Estuary Turbidity NI 2 

2483 Pancho 

Creek 

Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

NI 2 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2483 Pancho 

Creek 

Estuary Fecal Coliform NI 2 

2483 Pancho 

Creek 

Estuary Fecal Coliform 

(Col3) 

NI 2 

2483 Pancho 

Creek 

Estuary Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 

2483 Pancho 

Creek 

Estuary Turbidity NI 2 

2487 Robinson 

Creek 

Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

NI 2 

2487 Robinson 

Creek 

Estuary Fecal Coliform NI 2 

2487 Robinson 

Creek 

Estuary Fecal Coliform 

(Col3) 

NI 2 

2487 Robinson 

Creek 

Estuary Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 

2487 Robinson 

Creek 

Estuary Turbidity NI 2 
184 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

8123 Tolomato 

River Ocean 1 

Coastal Fecal Coliform NI 2 

8125 Tolomato 

River Ocean 3 

Coastal Fecal Coliform NI 2 

2320A Lake Vedra Estuary Fecal Coliform NI 2 2320A Lake Vedra Estuary Turbidity NI 2 2320A Lake Vedra Estuary Zinc NI 2 

2363I Tolomato 

River 

Estuary Aluminum NI 2 

2363I Tolomato 

River 

Estuary Cadmium NI 2 

2363I Tolomato 

River 

Estuary Chromium3 NI 2 

2363I Tolomato 

River 

Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

NI 2 

2363I Tolomato 

River 

Estuary Fecal Coliform NI 2 

2363I Tolomato 

River 

Estuary Fecal Coliform 

(Col3) 

NI 2 

2363I Tolomato 

River 

Estuary Lead NI 2 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2363I Tolomato 

River 

Estuary Manganese NI 2 

2363I Tolomato 

River 

Estuary Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 
186 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2363I Tolomato 

River 

Estuary Nutrients 

(Histchla) 

NI 2 

2363I Tolomato 

River 

Estuary Selenium NI 2 

2363I Tolomato 

River 

Estuary Turbidity NI 2 

2363I Tolomato 

River 

Estuary Zinc NI 2 

2406A Deep Creek 

Lower 

Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

NI 2 

2406A Deep Creek 

Lower 

Estuary Fecal Coliform NI 2 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2406A Deep Creek 

Lower 

Estuary Fecal Coliform 

(Col3) 

NI 2 

2406A Deep Creek 

Lower 

Estuary Nutrients 

(Chla) 

NI 2 

2406A Deep Creek 

Lower 

Estuary Turbidity NI 2 

2620 Bulow Creek Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

VL 5 Medium 2012 

2620 Bulow Creek Stream Iron VL 5 Medium 2012 2641 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream Fecal Coliform VL 5 Medium 2012 
188 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2642 Unnamed 

Branch 

Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 

2647 Holly Hill 

Ditch 

Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

VL 5 Medium 2012 

2670 Halifax Canal Stream Fecal Coliform VL 5 Medium 2012 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2672 Rose Bay Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

VL 5 Low 2011 

2672 Rose Bay Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 2674 Spruce 

Creek 

Stream Fecal Coliform VL 5 High 2006 
190 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2675 Sand Creek Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

VL 5 Medium 2012 

2678 Turnbull Bay Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

VL 5 Medium 2012 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2678 Turnbull Bay Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 2678 Turnbull Bay Estuary Nutrients 

(Chla) 

VL 5 Medium 2012 

2363A Halifax River Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 2363B Halifax River Estuary Copper VL 5 Low 2011 
192 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2363B Halifax River Estuary Iron VL 5 Low 2011 2363B Halifax River Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 

2363C Tomoka 

Basin 

Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2363J Palm Coast Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 

2634A Tomoka 

River 

Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 

2674A Spruce 

Creek 

Estuary Copper VL 5 Medium 2012 

2674A Spruce 

Creek 

Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

VL 5 High 2006 

2674A Spruce 

Creek 

Estuary Fecal Coliform VL 5 Medium 2012 

2674A Spruce 

Creek 

Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 
194 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2674A Spruce 

Creek 

Estuary Nutrients 

(Chla) 

VL 5 High 2006 

2674B Strickland 

Bay 

Estuary Fecal Coliform VL 5 Medium 2012 

2674B Strickland 

Bay 

Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

8117B Dunlawton Coastal Coliforms 

(Beach 

Advisory) 

VL 5 Medium 2012 

8117C Hilton Coastal Coliforms 

(Beach 

Advisory) 

VL 5 Medium 2012 

8117D Silver Beach Coastal Coliforms 

(Beach 

Advisory) 

VL 5 Medium 2012 

2472 Red House 

Branch 

Stream Fecal Coliform VL 5 Medium 2012 

2493 Moultrie 

Creek 

Stream Fecal Coliform VL 5 Medium 2012 

2502 Salt Run Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 
196 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2510 Quarry 

Creek 

Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 

2513 Unnamed 

Bayou 

Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 

2519 East Creek Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 2529 San Julian 

Creek 

Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2363G Matanzas 

River 

Estuary Iron VL 5 Medium 2012 

2363G Matanzas 

River 

Estuary Lead VL 5 Medium 2012 

2363G Matanzas 

River 

Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 
198 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2363H St. Augustine 

Inlet 

Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 

2553 Cracker 

Branch (Pellicer Creek) 

Stream Iron RA 4C Low 2011 

2363D Palm Coast Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 

2363E ICWW Estuary Arsenic VL 5 Medium 2012 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2363E ICWW Estuary Iron VL 5 Medium 2012 2363E ICWW Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 
200 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2363F ICWW Estuary Coliform 

(Shellfish 

harvesting 

downgrade) 

VL 5 Medium 2012 

2363F ICWW Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 

2580B Pellicer 

Creek 

Stream Fecal Coliform VL 5 Low 2011 

2320 Guana River Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

VL 5 Low 2011 

2320 Guana River Estuary Fecal Coliform VL 5 Low 2011 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2320 Guana River Estuary Fecal Coliform 

(Col3) 

VL 5 Medium 2012 

2320 Guana River Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 2320 Guana River Estuary Nutrients 

(Chla) 

VL 5 Medium 2012 
202 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2435 Capo Creek Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 2451 Stokes 

Creek 

Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 

2468 Casa Cola 

Creek 

Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 

2470 Sombrero 

Creek 

Estuary Fecal Coliform VL 5 Medium 2012 

2470 Sombrero 

Creek 

Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2477 Ximanies 

Creek 

Estuary Coliform 

(Shellfish 

harvesting 

downgrade) 

VL 5 Medium 2012 

2477 Ximanies 

Creek 

Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 

2483 Pancho 

Creek 

Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 

2487 Robinson 

Creek 

Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 
204 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2320A Lake Vedra Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

VL 5 Medium 2012 

2320A Lake Vedra Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 2320A Lake Vedra Estuary Nutrients 

(Chla) 

VL 5 Medium 2012 

2363I Tolomato 

River 

Estuary Arsenic VL 5 Medium 2012 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2363I Tolomato 

River 

Estuary Coliform 

(Shellfish 

harvesting 

downgrade) 

VL 5 Medium 2012 

2363I Tolomato 

River 

Estuary Copper VL 5 Medium 2012 

2363I Tolomato 

River 

Estuary Iron VL 5 Medium 2012 

2363I Tolomato 

River 

Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 

2363I Tolomato 

River 

Estuary Nickel VL 5 Medium 2012 

2406A Deep Creek 

Lower 

Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 
206 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2457A St. Marks 

Pond Estuary 

Estuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 

8998 Florida 

Atlantic Coast 

Coastal Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 

2320 Guana River Estuary Coliform 

(Shellfish 

harvesting 

downgrade) 

VL 5 Medium 2012 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

8122 Matanzas 

River Ocean 

Coastal Fecal Coliform 

(Col2) 

ID 3A 

2631 Unnamed 

Ditch 

Stream ND 3A 

2640 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream ND 3A 

2643 Unnamed 

Ditches 

Stream ND 3A 

2649 Priest 

Branch 

Stream ND 3A 

2650 Unnamed 

Slough 

Stream ND 3A 

2652 Unnamed 

Ditch 

Stream ND 3A 

2653 Unnamed 

Drain 

Stream ND 3A 

2654 Drainage 

Canals 

Stream ND 3A 

2655 Unnamed 

Ditch 

Stream ND 3A 

2656 Unnamed 

Ditch 

Stream ND 3A 

2657 Int 

Speedway Ditch 

Stream ND 3A 
208 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2665 Unnamed 

Ditch 

Stream ND 3A 

2668 Port Orange 

Canal 

Stream ND 3A 

2683 Turnbull 

Creek 

Stream ND 3A 

2471 Unnamed 

Slough 

Stream ND 3A 

2506 Unnamed 

Slough 

Stream ND 3A 

2508 Unnamed 

Slough 

Stream ND 3A 

2514 Unnamed 

Slough 

Stream ND 3A 

2521 Unnamed 

Slough 

Stream ND 3A 

2532 Unnamed 

Slough 

Stream ND 3A 

2536 Unnamed 

Slough 

Stream ND 3A 

2537 Unnamed 

Ditch 

Stream ND 3A 

2363G1 Matanzas 

River Upper 

Estuary Nutrients 

(Chla) 

ND 3A 

2363G1 Matanzas 

River Upper 

Estuary Nutrients 

(Histchla) 

ND 3A 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2502A Salt Run Estuary Nutrients 

(Chla) 

ND 3A 

2502A Salt Run Estuary Nutrients 

(Histchla) 

ND 3A 

2551 Lake Triplet Lake ND 3A 2566 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream ND 3A 

2573 Unnamed 

Drain 

Stream ND 3A 

2595 Styles Creek Stream ND 3A 2597 Hulett 

Branch 

Stream ND 3A 

2598 Dave Branch Stream ND 3A 2609 St. Joe 

Canal 

Stream ND 3A 

2363E1 ICWW Estuary Nutrients 

(Chla) 

ND 3A 

2363E1 ICWW Estuary Nutrients 

(Histchla) 

ND 3A 

2363D Palm Coast Estuary Silver ND 3A Low 2011 

2551A Lake Triplet 

Drain 

Lake ND 3A 

2580C Pellicer 

Creek 

Stream ND 3A 

2364 Unnamed 

Slough 

Stream ND 3A 
210 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2380 Unnamed 

Slough 

Stream ND 3A 

2429 Sweetwater 

Creek 

Stream ND 3A 

2457 St. Marks 

Pond Outlet 

Stream ND 3A 

2620 Bulow Creek Stream Fluoride ID 3B 2634 Tomoka 

River 

Stream Cadmium ID 3B 

2634 Tomoka 

River 

Stream Chromium3 ID 3B 

2634 Tomoka 

River 

Stream Nickel ID 3B 

2634 Tomoka 

River 

Stream Silver ID 3B 

2635 Grover 

Branch 

Stream Iron ID 3B 

2635 Grover 

Branch 

Stream Lead ID 3B 

2635 Grover 

Branch 

Stream Unionized 

Ammonia 

ID 3B 

2641 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream Turbidity ID 3B 

2641 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream Unionized 

Ammonia 

ID 3B 

2645 Mizners 

Branch 

Stream Cadmium ID 3B 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2645 Mizners 

Branch 

Stream Chromium3 ID 3B 

2645 Mizners 

Branch 

Stream Copper ID 3B 

2645 Mizners 

Branch 

Stream Lead ID 3B 

2645 Mizners 

Branch 

Stream Nickel ID 3B 

2645 Mizners 

Branch 

Stream Silver ID 3B 

2646 Little 

Tomoka River 

Stream Iron ID 3B 

2646 Little 

Tomoka River 

Stream Lead ID 3B 

2646 Little 

Tomoka River 

Stream Unionized 

Ammonia 

ID 3B 

2647 Holly Hill 

Ditch 

Stream Fecal Coliform ID 3B 

2647 Holly Hill 

Ditch 

Stream Turbidity ID 3B 

2647 Holly Hill 

Ditch 

Stream Unionized 

Ammonia 

ID 3B 

2664 Reed Canal Stream Unionized 

Ammonia 

ID 3B 
212 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2670 Halifax Canal Stream Nutrients 

(Histchla) 

ID 3B 

2673 Unnamed 

Drain 

Stream Unionized 

Ammonia 

ID 3B 

2675 Sand Creek Stream Unionized 

Ammonia 

ID 3B 

2678 Turnbull Bay Estuary Arsenic ID 3B 2678 Turnbull Bay Estuary Copper ID 3B 2679 Unnamed 

Drain 

Stream Unionized 

Ammonia 

ID 3B 

2681 Glencoe 

Ditches 

Stream Unionized 

Ammonia 

ID 3B 

8117 Halifax River 

Ocean 1 

Coastal Fecal Coliform 

(Col2) 

ID 3B 

8118 Halifax River 

Ocean 2 

Coastal Fecal Coliform 

(Col2) 

ID 3B 

8119 Halifax River 

Ocean 3 

Coastal Fecal Coliform 

(Col2) 

ID 3B 

2363B Halifax River Estuary Fluoride ID 3B 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2363J Palm Coast Estuary Nutrients 

(Histchla) 

ID 3B 

2634A Tomoka 

River 

Estuary Fluoride ID 3B 

2666A Sweetwater 

Creek 

Stream Unionized 

Ammonia 

ID 3B 

2674A Spruce 

Creek 

Estuary Aluminum ID 3B 

2674A Spruce 

Creek 

Estuary Arsenic ID 3B 

2674A Spruce 

Creek 

Estuary Cadmium ID 3B 

2674A Spruce 

Creek 

Estuary Chromium3 ID 3B 

2674A Spruce 

Creek 

Estuary Lead ID 3B 

2674A Spruce 

Creek 

Estuary Nickel ID 3B 
214 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2674A Spruce 

Creek 

Estuary Selenium ID 3B 

2674A Spruce 

Creek 

Estuary Zinc ID 3B 

2472 Red House 

Branch 

Stream Cadmium ID 3B 

2472 Red House 

Branch 

Stream Copper ID 3B 

2472 Red House 

Branch 

Stream Iron ID 3B 

2472 Red House 

Branch 

Stream Lead ID 3B 

2472 Red House 

Branch 

Stream Nickel ID 3B 

2472 Red House 

Branch 

Stream Selenium ID 3B 

2491 San 

Sebastian River 

Stream Arsenic ID 3B 

2491 San 

Sebastian River 

Stream Copper ID 3B 

2491 San 

Sebastian River 

Stream Iron ID 3B 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2491 San 

Sebastian River 

Stream Selenium ID 3B 

2499 Oyster Creek Stream Turbidity ID 3B 2502 Salt Run Estuary Fecal Coliform 

(Col2) 

ID 3B 

2520 Wildwood 

Creek 

Stream Copper ID 3B 

2520 Wildwood 

Creek 

Stream Iron ID 3B 

2520 Wildwood 

Creek 

Stream Lead ID 3B 

2520 Wildwood 

Creek 

Stream Nickel ID 3B 

2520 Wildwood 

Creek 

Stream Selenium ID 3B 

8122 Matanzas 

River Ocean 

Coastal Fecal Coliform 

(Col4) 

ID 3B 

2363H St. Augustine 

Inlet 

Estuary Fecal Coliform 

(Col3) 

ID 3B 

2550 Unnamed 

Drain 

Stream Fecal Coliform 

(Col2) 

ID 3B 
216 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2550 Unnamed 

Drain 

Stream Fecal Coliform 

(Col4) 

ID 3B 

2553 Cracker 

Branch (Pellicer Creek) 

Stream Arsenic ID 3B 

2553 Cracker 

Branch (Pellicer Creek) 

Stream Berylium ID 3B 

2553 Cracker 

Branch (Pellicer Creek) 

Stream Cadmium ID 3B 

2553 Cracker 

Branch (Pellicer Creek) 

Stream Chromium3 ID 3B 

2553 Cracker 

Branch (Pellicer Creek) 

Stream Copper ID 3B 

2553 Cracker 

Branch (Pellicer Creek) 

Stream Lead ID 3B 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2553 Cracker 

Branch (Pellicer Creek) 

Stream Nickel ID 3B 

2553 Cracker 

Branch (Pellicer Creek) 

Stream Selenium ID 3B 

2553 Cracker 

Branch (Pellicer Creek) 

Stream Silver ID 3B 

2553 Cracker 

Branch (Pellicer Creek) 

Stream Zinc ID 3B 

2577 Stevens 

Branch 

Stream Berylium ID 3B 

2577 Stevens 

Branch 

Stream Cadmium ID 3B 

2577 Stevens 

Branch 

Stream Chromium3 ID 3B 

2577 Stevens 

Branch 

Stream Copper ID 3B 

2577 Stevens 

Branch 

Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

ID 3B 
218 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2577 Stevens 

Branch 

Stream Fecal Coliform ID 3B 

2577 Stevens 

Branch 

Stream Iron ID 3B 

2577 Stevens 

Branch 

Stream Lead ID 3B 

2577 Stevens 

Branch 

Stream Nickel ID 3B 

2577 Stevens 

Branch 

Stream Selenium ID 3B 

2577 Stevens 

Branch 

Stream Silver ID 3B 

2577 Stevens 

Branch 

Stream Turbidity ID 3B 

2577 Stevens 

Branch 

Stream Unionized 

Ammonia 

ID 3B 

2577 Stevens 

Branch 

Stream Zinc ID 3B 

8120 Pellicer 

Creek Ocean 1 

Coastal Fecal Coliform 

(Col2) 

ID 3B 

8121 Pellicer 

Creek Ocean 2 

Coastal Fecal Coliform 

(Col2) 

ID 3B 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

8121 Pellicer 

Creek Ocean 2 

Coastal Fecal Coliform 

(Col4) 

ID 3B 

2363D Palm Coast Estuary Nutrients 

(Histchla) 

ID 3B 

2363F ICWW Estuary Nutrients 

(Histchla) 

ID 3B 

2580B Pellicer 

Creek 

Stream Berylium ID 3B 

2580B Pellicer 

Creek 

Stream Fluoride ID 3B 
220 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2400 Smith Creek Stream Nutrients 

(Histchla) 

ID 3B 

8123 Tolomato 

River Ocean 1 

Coastal Fecal Coliform 

(Col2) 

ID 3B 

8125 Tolomato 

River Ocean 3 

Coastal Dissolved 

Oxygen 

ID 3B 

8125 Tolomato 

River Ocean 3 

Coastal Fecal Coliform 

(Col2) 

ID 3B 

2320A Lake Vedra Estuary Copper ID 3B 2320A Lake Vedra Estuary Lead ID 3B 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2451 Stokes 

Creek 

Estuary Nutrients 

(Histchla) 

ID 3C 

2666 Unnamed 

Ditch (B-19 Canal) 

Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

ND 3C Low 2011 

2666 Unnamed 

Ditch (B-19 Canal) 

Stream Nutrients 

(Chla) 

ND 3C Low 2011 

2634 Tomoka 

River 

Stream Copper PL 3C 
222 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2634 Tomoka 

River 

Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

PL 3C Low 2011 

2634 Tomoka 

River 

Stream Lead PL 3C Low 2011 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2635 Grover 

Branch 

Stream Biology PL 3C 

2635 Grover 

Branch 

Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

PL 3C 
224 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2641 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

PL 3C 

2642 Unnamed 

Branch 

Estuary Saxitoxin PL 3C 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2645 Mizners 

Branch 

Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

PL 3C 
226 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2646 Little 

Tomoka River 

Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

PL 3C 

2647 Holly Hill 

Ditch 

Stream Biology PL 3C 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2664 Reed Canal Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

PL 3C 
228 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2670 Halifax Canal Stream Nutrients 

(Chla) 

PL 3C 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2672 Rose Bay Estuary Nutrients 

(Chla) 

PL 3C Low 2011 

2672 Rose Bay Estuary Saxitoxin PL 3C 
230 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2673 Unnamed 

Drain 

Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

PL 3C 

2674 Spruce 

Creek 

Stream Biology PL 3C 

2678 Turnbull Bay Estuary Saxitoxin PL 3C 2678 Turnbull Bay Estuary Biology PL 3C 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2679 Unnamed 

Drain 

Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

PL 3C 
232 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2681 Glencoe 

Ditches 

Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

PL 3C 

8117 Halifax River 

Ocean 1 

Coastal Saxitoxin PL 3C 

8118 Halifax River 

Ocean 2 

Coastal Saxitoxin PL 3C 

8119 Halifax River 

Ocean 3 

Coastal Saxitoxin PL 3C 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2363A Halifax River Estuary Nutrients 

(Chla) 

PL 3C Low 2011 
234 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2363A Halifax River Estuary Saxitoxin PL 3C 2363B Halifax River Estuary Saxitoxin PL 3C 

2363C Tomoka 

Basin 

Estuary Saxitoxin PL 3C 

2363J Palm Coast Estuary Saxitoxin PL 3C 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2634A Tomoka 

River 

Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

PL 3C 

2634A Tomoka 

River 

Estuary Saxitoxin PL 3C 

2666A Sweetwater 

Creek 

Stream Biology PL 3C 
236 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2666A Sweetwater 

Creek 

Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

PL 3C 

2674A Spruce 

Creek 

Estuary Saxitoxin PL 3C 

2674B Strickland 

Bay 

Estuary Saxitoxin PL 3C 

8117A Toronita Coastal Saxitoxin PL 3C 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

8117B Dunlawton Coastal Saxitoxin PL 3C 

8117C Hilton Coastal Saxitoxin PL 3C 8117D Silver Beach Coastal Saxitoxin PL 3C 

8117E Main Street Coastal Saxitoxin PL 3C 

8117F Seabreeze 

Blvd 

Coastal Saxitoxin PL 3C 

8118A Granda Blvd Coastal Saxitoxin PL 3C 8118B Bicentennial 

Park 

Coastal Saxitoxin PL 3C 
238 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2472 Red House 

Branch 

Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

PL 3C 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2491 San 

Sebastian River 

Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

PL 3C 

2493 Moultrie 

Creek 

Stream Biology PL 3C 
240 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2535 Moses Creek Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

PL 3C 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2550 Unnamed 

Drain 

Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

PL 3C 

2553 Cracker 

Branch (Pellicer Creek) 

Stream Biology PL 3C 
242 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2363F ICWW Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

PL 3C 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2580B Pellicer 

Creek 

Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

PL 3C Low 2011 

2580B Pellicer 

Creek 

Stream Silver PL 3C 
244 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2400 Smith Creek Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

PL 3C 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2406 Deep Creek 

Upper 

Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

PL 3C 
246 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2442 Marshall 

Creek 

Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

PL 3C 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2451 Stokes 

Creek 

Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

PL 3C 
248 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2674 Spruce 

Creek 

Stream Iron RA 4C 

2634A Tomoka 

River 

Estuary Iron RA 4C Low 2011 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2674A Spruce 

Creek 

Estuary Iron RA 4C 

2493 Moultrie 

Creek 

Stream Iron RA 4C 
250 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA's 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected Year 

for TMDL 

Development 

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL 

= Verified List; PL = 

Planning List; RA = 

Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = 

Insufficient Data; ND = 

No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

2580B Pellicer 

Creek 

Stream Iron RA 4C 

1The designation "stream" includes canals, rivers, and sloughs. The designation “lake” includes some marshes. 2The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 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 impaired for one or more designated uses; 3d—Meets Verified List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses; 

4a–Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete; 4b–Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because an existing or proposed pollutant control mechan

assurance that the water will attain standards in the future; 

4c–Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because the impairment is not caused by a pollutant; and 5–Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required.
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

Table D.2: Water Quality Monitoring Stations Used in the Assessment for the Upper East Coast Basin, by Planning Unit 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

Halifax River Unit 

2647 

HOLLY HILL 

DITCH STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010479 

HOLLY HILL CANAL AT 11TH ST. 

AND US HWY 1 1996 19

2647 

HOLLY HILL 

DITCH STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010072 Holly Hill Ditch @ Daytona Rd. 2005 20

2647 

HOLLY HILL 

DITCH STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010073 Holly Hill Ditch @ RR Bridge 2005 20

2647 

HOLLY HILL 

DITCH STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010074 Holly Hill Ditch @ Alta Rd. 2005 20

2647 

HOLLY HILL 

DITCH STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010479 Holly Hill Ditch @ Ridgewood 2005 20

8117 

HALIFAX RIVER 

OCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH VOLUSIA284 FL779322 2000 20

8117 

HALIFAX RIVER 

OCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH VOLUSIA285 FL258263 2000 20

8117 

HALIFAX RIVER 

OCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH VOLUSIA287 FL150971 2000 20

8117 

HALIFAX RIVER 

OCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH VOLUSIA288 FL298308 2000 20

8117 

HALIFAX RIVER 

OCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH VOLUSIA3 SEABREEZE BLVD 

8117 

HALIFAX RIVER 

OCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH VOLUSIA338 FL770421 2000 20

8117 

HALIFAX RIVER 

OCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH VOLUSIA4 MAIN STREET 

8117 

HALIFAX RIVER 

OCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH VOLUSIA5 SILVER BEACH 

8117 

HALIFAX RIVER 

OCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH VOLUSIA6 HILTON 

8117 

HALIFAX RIVER 

OCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH VOLUSIA7 DUNLAWTON 

8117 

HALIFAX RIVER 

OCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH VOLUSIA8 TORONITA 

2674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 112WRD 02248000 

SPRUCE CREEK NR SAMSULA, 

FLA. 1964 19
252 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

2674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010332 

SPRUCE CREEK AT SPRUCE 

CREEK BLVD. 1998 19

2674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010539 Spruce Creek at C.R. 4118 2674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010539 Spruce Creek at Pioneer Trail 1999 202674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 

21FLKWAT127SPRUCE 

CREEK 

2674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLKWATSPRUCE CREEK1 

SPRUCE CREEK IN VOLUSIA CO.-

SEE NOTE 

2674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLKWATSPRUCE CREEK2 

SPRUCE CREEK IN VOLUSIA CO.-

SEE NOTE 

2674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLKWATSPRUCE CREEK3 

SPRUCE CREEK IN VOLUSIA CO.-

SEE NOTE 

2674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 

21FLKWATSPRUCECREEK11 

2674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 

21FLKWATSPRUCECREEK21 

2674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 

21FLKWATSPRUCECREEK31 

2674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLKWATVOL-SP-CREEK-1 Volusia-Spruce Creek-1-1 1995 202674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLKWATVOL-SP-CREEK-2 Volusia-Spruce Creek-2-2 1995 202674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLKWATVOL-SP-CREEK-3 Volusia-Spruce Creek-3-3 1995 202674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLSJWM02248000 SPRUCE CREEK NEAR SAMSULA 1995 202674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010081 

Spruce Creek @ 25m north of Creek 

Crossing Rd. 2005 20

2674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010082 Spruce Creek @ Lacey Rd. 2005 202674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010083 Spruce Creek @ Pell Rd. 2005 202674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010093 Spruce Creek @ Covered Bridge 2005 202678 TURNBULL BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010542 Turnbull Creek at S.R. 44 2678 TURNBULL BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010542 Turnbull Creek at S.R. 44 1999 192678 TURNBULL BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMTRBCK 

TURNBULL CREEK UPSTR 

TURNBULL BAY 1993 19

2678 TURNBULL BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLWPB 20010735 

TURNBULL CREEK @ JUNGLE 

ROAD 2003 20

2678 TURNBULL BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLWPB 20010736 

TURNBULL CREEK @ PIONEER 

TRAIL 2003 20

2678 TURNBULL BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010173 

Turnbull Bay @ 350M NW of 

Turnbull Bay Road 2005 20

2678 TURNBULL BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010174 

Turnbull Bay @ .7 miles NW of 

Turnbull Bay Road 2005 20
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

2678 TURNBULL BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010175 

Turnbull Bay @ 1.15 miles NW of 

Turnbull Bay Rd 2005 20

2678 TURNBULL BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010176 

Turnbull Bay @ 1.6 NW of Turnbull 

Bay Road 2005 20

2678 TURNBULL BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010177 

Turnbull Bay @ 2 miles NW of 

Turnbull Bay Rd 2005 20

2678 TURNBULL BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLMRC TB9060 

Turnbull Bay - 2878 Sunset Dr, New 

Smyrna Beach 2006 20

2363C TOMOKA BASIN ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010568 

TOMOKA BASIN, MIDDLE OF THE 

BASIN 1985 19

2363C TOMOKA BASIN ESTUARY 3M 21FLKWAT127TOMOKA-11 2363C TOMOKA BASIN ESTUARY 3M 21FLKWAT127TOMOKA-21 2363C TOMOKA BASIN ESTUARY 3M 21FLKWAT127TOMOKA-31 2363C TOMOKA BASIN ESTUARY 3M 21FLKWAT127TOMOKA-41 2363C TOMOKA BASIN ESTUARY 3M 21FLKWAT127TOMOKA-51 2363C TOMOKA BASIN ESTUARY 3M 

21FLKWATVOL-TOTOMOKA-1 Volusia-Tomoka-1 2000 20

2363C TOMOKA BASIN ESTUARY 3M 

21FLKWATVOL-TOTOMOKA-2 Volusia-Tomoka-2 2000 20

2363C TOMOKA BASIN ESTUARY 3M 

21FLKWATVOL-TOTOMOKA-3 Volusia-Tomoka-3 2000 20

2363C TOMOKA BASIN ESTUARY 3M 

21FLKWATVOL-TOTOMOKA-4 Volusia-Tomoka-4 2000 20

2363C TOMOKA BASIN ESTUARY 3M 

21FLKWATVOL-TOTOMOKA-5 Volusia-Tomoka-5 2000 20

2363C TOMOKA BASIN ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL03 

HALIFAX RIVER CENTER OF 

TOMOKA BASIN 1991 19

2363C TOMOKA BASIN ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-003 

Halifax River, center of Tomoka 

Basin 1999 20

8118 

HALIFAX RIVER 

OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH VOLUSIA1 BICENTENNIAL PARK 

8118 

HALIFAX RIVER 

OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH VOLUSIA2 GRANDA BLVD 

8118 

HALIFAX RIVER 

OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH VOLUSIA282 FL441626 2000 20

8118 

HALIFAX RIVER 

OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH VOLUSIA283 FL750562 2000 20
254 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

2674B 

STRICKLAND 

BAY AT US # ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010835 STRICKLAND BAY AT US #1 1975 19

2674B 

STRICKLAND 

BAY AT US # ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMSPRCK 

SPRUCE CREEK AT STRICKLAND 

BAY 1993 19

2674B 

STRICKLAND 

BAY AT US # ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010185 

Strickland Bay @ 875M East 

(Downstream) of RR Crossing 2005 20

2674B 

STRICKLAND 

BAY AT US # ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010186 

Strickland Bay @ 525M East 

(Downstream) of RR Crossing 2005 20

2674B 

STRICKLAND 

BAY AT US # ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010187 

Strickland Bay @ 425M NE 

(Downstream) of RR Crossing 2005 20

2674B 

STRICKLAND 

BAY AT US # ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010188 

Strickland Bay @ 100M East 

(Downstream) of RR Crossing 2005 20

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010409 

HALIFAX R 50 Y N DAYTONA BCH 

STP 1971 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010410 

HALIFAX R AT ICWW MARKERS 

42 & 4 1971 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010411 

HALIFAX R 50 Y S DAYTONA BCH 

STP 1971 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010412 

HALIFAX R .75M S PT ORNG 

CAUSEWA 1971 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010413 

HALIFAX R .6M S PT ORNG 

CAUSEWAY 1971 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010414 

HALIFAX RIV S PT ORANGE 

CAUSEWAY 1971 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010415 

HALIFAX R 100YDS S PT ORNG 

CSEWA 1971 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010416 

HALIFAX R 100YDS N PT ORNG 

CSEWA 1971 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010417 

HALIFAX R .75M S PT ORNG 

CAUSEWA 1971 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010418 

HALIFAX R .6M S PT ORNG 

CAUSEWAY 1971 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010419 

HALIFAX R .4M S PT ORNG 

CAUSEWAY 1971 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010420 

HALIFAX R 300YDS S PT ORNG 

CSEWA 1971 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010421 

HALIFAX R 100YDS S PT ORNG 

CSEWA 1971 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010422 

HALIFAX R 100YDS N PT ORNG 

CSEWA 1971 19
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010423 

HALIFAX R INTRACOAST WAT 

MARK 59 1971 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010424 

HALIFAX R BET ICWW MARKERS 

57 &5 1971 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010425 

HALIFAX RIV INTCOAST WAT 

MARK 57 1941 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010426 

HALIFAX R 150YDS S PT ORNG 

CSEWA 1971 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010427 

HALIFAX R 200YDS N PT ORNG 

CSEWA 1971 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010428 

HALIFAX R NR PORT ORNG STP 

EFF 1973 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010429 

HALIFAX R. 50 YDS. EAST OF 

PORT ORANGE CANAL 1996 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010437 

HALIFAX R CONF SPRUCE CR 

AND ICW 1973 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010439 

HALIFAX R. 50 YDS. EAST OF 

REED CANAL 1996 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010608 

HALIFAX R. 0.5 MI. S. OF PORT 

ORANGE OUTFALL 1995 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010610 

HALIFAX R. 100 YDS. N. OF 

DAYTONA OUTFALL 1996 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010611 

HALIFAX R. 100 YDS. S. OF 

DAYTONA OUTFALL 1996 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010041 

HALIFAX R 100YDS S DAYTONA 

BH ST 1968 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010042 

HALIFAX R 100YDS S DAYTONA 

BH ST 1968 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010043 

HALIFAX R 200YDS S ICWW 

MARKER 4 1968 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010044 

HALIFAX R 100YDS S REED CL 

OUTLE 1968 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010045 

HALIFAX R 100 FT N PORT 

ORANG BR 1968 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010046 

HALIFAX R 150YDS S PT ORNG 

STP 1968 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010047 

HALIFAX R AT ICWW MARKER # 

58 1968 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010048 HALIFAX R.AT ICWW MARKER 1 1968 192363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010836 

HALIFAX R. JUST NO. OF PONCE 

INL 1978 19
256 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010947 

HALIFAX R IN SO CNTR 

DAYTONA OUTFALL 1984 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010948 

HALIFAX R 300YD WEST ICWW 

MARK 4 1984 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010949 

HALIFAX R IN ICWW CHAN BET 

MK485 1983 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010951 

HALIFAX RIVER AT ICWW 

MARKER NUMBER 63 1983 19

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLFMRIHAL200109 Halifax - Port Orange 2001 202363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLFMRIHAL200110 Halifax - Daggett Island 2001 202363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLFMRIHAL200111 Halifax - End of Inlet Harbor Road 2001 202363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 

21FLKWATHALIFAXRIVER11 

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 

21FLKWATHALIFAXRIVER21 

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 

21FLKWATHALIFAXRIVER31 

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLKWATVOL-HA-RIVER-1 Volusia-Halifax River-1-1 2001 202363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLKWATVOL-HA-RIVER-2 Volusia-Halifax River-2-2 2001 202363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLKWATVOL-HA-RIVER-3 Volusia-Halifax River-3-3 2001 202363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL13 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICWW CM44 1991 192363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL14 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICWW CM47 1991 192363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL15 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICWW CM56 1991 192363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL16 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICWW CM57 1991 192363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL17 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICWW CM63 1991 192363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL18 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICWW CM 1 1991 192363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL19 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICWW CM7 1992 192363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-014 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 47 1999 202363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-015 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 56 1999 202363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-016 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 57 1999 202363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-017 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 63 1999 202363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-018 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 1 1999 202363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-019 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 7 1999 202363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010410 

Halifax River at ICWW channel 

markers #42 and #43,midchannel 2005 20

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010427 

Halifax Rvr 200 yd north of Port 

Orange Causeway 2005 20
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010429 

Halifax Rvr 50 yd east of entrance to 

Port Orange Canal 2005 20

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010948 

Halifax River 300 yd west of ICWW 

channel marker #46 2005 20

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010949 

Halifax River between ICWW 

channel markers #48 and #50 2005 20

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLFMRIFLE200506 Halifax River/Mosquito Lagoon 2005 202363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010126 

Halifax River @ ICWW Channel 

Marker # 44 2005 20

2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMNCBHL14 Halifax River at ICW CM 47 2005 202363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMNCBHL18 Halifax River at ICW CM 1 2005 20

2634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 112WRD 02247488 

ELEVENTH STREET CANAL NEAR 

HOLLY HILL, FL 

2634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 112WRD 02247500 

TOMOKA RIVER NR DAYTONA 

BEACH, FLA. 

2634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 112WRD 02247508 

ELEVENTH ST CANAL NR HOLLY 

HILL, FL 

2634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 112WRD 02247510 

TOMOKA RIVER NR HOLLY HILL, 

FLA. 1964 19

2634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010572 

TOMOKA RIVER BETWEEN 

AIRPORT DITCH AND ISLAND 1985 19

2634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010573 

TOMOKA RIVER EAST FORK 

AROUND ISLAND 1985 19

2634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010574 

TOMOKA RIVER AT INTERSTATE 

95 BRIDGE 1985 19

2634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010578 

TOMOKA RIVER AT STATE 

ROUTE 40 BRIDGE 1985 19

2634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010579 

TOMOKA RIVER AT ELEVENTH 

STREET BRIDGE 1985 19

2634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010596 Tomoka River at U.S. Highway 92 2634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010830 

TOMOKA RIVER AT SR 40 

TOMOKA RD 1975 19

2634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010579 Tomoka River at 11th Street Bridge 2000 202634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010596 Tomoka River at U.S. Highway 92 2000 202634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLGW 3516 

TOMOKA RIVER AT ELEVENTH 

STREET BRIDGE 1998 20
258 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

2634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLSJWM27010579 

TOMOKA RIVER AT 11TH STREET 

BRIDGE 1995 19

2634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLSJWMTR11 

TOMOKA RIVER @ 11TH STREET 

BRIDGE 1993 19

2634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLSJWMTRUS1 

TOMOKA RIVER @ OLD DIXIE 

HWY BRDG 1993 19

2634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLVEMDTR03 

TOMOKA RIVER UPSTREAM OF 

S.R. 40 BRIDGE 1993 19

2634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLVEMDTR04 

TOMOKA RIVER UPSTREAM OF 

11TH ST. BRIDGE 1993 19

2634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLVEMDTR05 

TOMOKA RIVER UPSTREAM OF 

U.S. 92 BRIDGE 1993 19

2634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLVEMDVC-077 

Tomoka River, from upstream side 

of S.R. 40 1999 20

2634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLVEMDVC-078 

Tomoka River, from upstream side 

of LPGA Blvd. 1999 20

2634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLVEMDVC-079 

Tomoka River, from upstream side 

of U.S. 92 1999 20

2634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLWPB 20010739 TOMOKA RIVER @ 11TH STREET 2003 202634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLWPB 20010740 

TOMOKA RIVER @ STATE 

HIGHWAY 40 2003 20

2634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010075 Tomoka River @ I-4 2005 202634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010574 Tomoka River at Interstate 95 bridge 2005 202634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010830 

Tomoka River at SR 40 (Tomoka 

Road) 2005 20

2634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLSJWMNCBTR05 

Tomoka River upstream of U.S. 92 

Bridge 2005 20

2645 

MIZNERS 

BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010595 Mizners Branch at S.R. 40 

2645 

MIZNERS 

BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010595 Mizners Branch at S.R. 40 2000 20

2645 

MIZNERS 

BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010067 Mizner's Branch @ hand Rd. 2005 20

2645 

MIZNERS 

BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010068 Mizner's Branch @ Falls Rd. 2005 20

2645 

MIZNERS 

BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010069 

Mizner's Branch @ Walkway east of 

Horseshoe Falls Rd. 2005 20

2645 

MIZNERS 

BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010070 Mizner's Branch @ Main Trail Rd. 2005 20
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

2646 

LITTLE TOMOKA 

RIVER STREAM 3F 112WRD 02247600 

LITTLE TOMOKA RIVER NR 

ORMOND BEACH, FLA. 

2646 

LITTLE TOMOKA 

RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010577 

LITTLE TOMOKA RIVER AT 

TYMBER RD. BRIDGE 1985 19

2646 

LITTLE TOMOKA 

RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010583 

Little Tomoka River at Breakaway 

Trail 

2646 

LITTLE TOMOKA 

RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010583 

Little Tomoka River at Breakaway 

Trail 2000 20

2646 

LITTLE TOMOKA 

RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010139 

Little Tomoka River @ SR 40, 150M 

West of Old Tomoka Rd. 2005 20

2646 

LITTLE TOMOKA 

RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010577 

Little Tomoka River at Tymber Road 

Bridge 2005 20

2640 

UNNAMED 

BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010597 

Strickland Creek 200m upstream of 

Tomoka River 

2641 

UNNAMED 

BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010469 

North Ormond Airport Ditch at 

Airport Road (aka B 1996 19

2641 

UNNAMED 

BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010142 

Unnamed Branch @ Bear Creek 

Path 2005 20

2641 

UNNAMED 

BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010143 Unnamed Branch @ Wall Av 2005 20

2642 

UNNAMED 

BRANCH ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010570 

SOUTH DITCH TO TOMOKA 

RIVER 1985 19

2656 UNNAMED DITCH STREAM 3F 112WRD 02247485 BAYLESS BLVD CANAL DAYTONA 

2674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 112WRD 02248050 

SPRUCE CREEK NR PORT 

ORANGE, FLA. 

2674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 112WRD 02248053 

SPRUCE CREEK NR NEW 

SMYRNA BEACH,FL 

2674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMSPRCR 

SPRUCE CREEK 100 M 

UPSTREAM FROM ICWW 1992 19

2674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMUEC014 SPRUCE CREEK AT AIRPORT RD 1992 192674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDSC01 

SPRUCE CREEK CENTER 

BRIDGE ON U.S. HWY 1 1991 19

2674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDSC02 

SPRUCE CREEK WEST OF SSC 

RAILROAD 1991 19

2674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDSC04 

SPRUCE CREEK WEST OF 

AIRPORT RD. 1991 19
260 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

2674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDSC05 

SPRUCE CREEK AT DOCK AT 

GAMBLE PLACE 1991 19

2674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-072 

Spruce Creek, from dock at 

Riverwood, W. of SCL Railroad 1999 20

2674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-073 

Spruce Creek, from W. side of 

Moody Bridge on Airport Rd. 1999 20

2674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-074 

Spruce Creek, from dock at Gamble 

Place 1999 20

2674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLWPB 20010737 

SPRUCE CREEK @ CYPRESS 

HEAD DEVELOPMENT 2003 20

2674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLWPB 20010738 

SPRUCE CREEK @ AIRPORT 

ROAD 2003 20

2674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010193 

Spruce Creek @ 675m upstream of 

RR bridge 2005 20

2674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010194 

Spruce Creek @ 0.68 miles 

upstream of RR bridge 2005 20

2674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010195 

Spruce Creek @ 0.87 miles 

upstream of RR bridge 2005 20

2674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010196 

Spruce Creek @ 1.07 miles 

upstream of RR bridge 2005 20

2674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010197 

Spruce Creek @ 1.3 miles upstream 

of RR bridge 2005 20

2675 SAND CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010538 Sand Creek at C.R. 415 2675 SAND CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010538 Sand Creek at C.R. 415 1999 202675 SAND CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010080 

Sand Creek @ Tributary just south 

of Lakeside Dr. 2005 20

2675 SAND CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010092 

Sand Creek @ Unnamed Rd. .5 

miles West of Tomoka Farms Rd. 2005 20

2664 REED CANAL STREAM 3F 112WRD 02248025 

REED CANAL AT SOUTH 

DAYTONA,FL 

2664 REED CANAL STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010483 

REED CANAL AT US HWY 1 

DAYTONA BEACH 1996 19

2664 REED CANAL STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010122 

Reed Canal @ Upstream of 

Confluence with Halifax River 2005 20

2664 REED CANAL STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010124 Reed Canal @ Lantern Drive 2005 202664 REED CANAL STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010125 Reed Canal @ Saul Street 2005 20
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

2664 REED CANAL STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010483 

Reed Canal at US Hwy 1 in South 

Daytona Beach 2005 20

2670 HALIFAX CANAL STREAM 3M 112WRD 02248030 

HALIFAX CANAL NR HARBOUR 

OAKS,FL 

2670 HALIFAX CANAL STREAM 3M 21FLKWAT127HALIFAX RIVE 2670 HALIFAX CANAL STREAM 3M 21FLVEMDVC-070 

Rose Bay, from S. side of Main 

Street bridge in Harbor Oaks 1999 20

2670 HALIFAX CANAL STREAM 3M 21FLCEN 27010166 

Halifax Canal @ 300m East of 

Ridgewood Blvd. 2005 20

2670 HALIFAX CANAL STREAM 3M 21FLCEN 27010167 

Halifax Canal @ 225M West of 

Ridgewood Blvd 2005 20

2670 HALIFAX CANAL STREAM 3M 21FLCEN 27010168 

Halifax Canal @ 450M West of 

Ridgewood Blvd 2005 20

2672 ROSE BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLKWAT127ROSE BAY-11 2672 ROSE BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLKWAT127ROSE BAY-21 2672 ROSE BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLKWAT127ROSE BAY-31 2672 ROSE BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLKWATVOL-RO-SEBAY-1 Volusia-Rose Bay-1 2001 202672 ROSE BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLKWATVOL-RO-SEBAY-2 Volusia-Rose Bay-2 2001 202672 ROSE BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLKWATVOL-RO-SEBAY-3 Volusia-Rose Bay-3 2001 202672 ROSE BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDRB01 

ROSE BAY WEST OF HWY U.S. 1 

BRIDGE 1991 19

2672 ROSE BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDRB02 

ROSE BAY SOUTH OF NOVA RD. 

BRIDGE 1991 19

2672 ROSE BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010161 

Rose Bay @ 425m SE of Boat 

Ramp 2005 20

2672 ROSE BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010162 

Rose Bay @ 275m ESE of Boat 

Ramp 2005 20

2672 ROSE BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010163 

Rose Bay @ 125m NE of Boat 

Ramp 2005 20

2672 ROSE BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010164 

Rose Bay @ 235m North of Boat 

Ramp 2005 20

2672 ROSE BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010165 

Rose Bay @ 450m North of Boat 

Ramp 2005 20

2673 UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010537 

Unnamed drain of Spruce Creek at 

C.R. 421 1998 19

2673 UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010537 

Unnamed drain of Spruce Creek at 

C.R. 421 1999 20

2673 UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010096 

Unnamed Drain @ Tomoka Farms 

Road 2005 20
262 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

2673 UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010097 Unnamed Drain @ Old Dayton Road 2005 202673 UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010098 Unnamed Drain @ Avalado Road 2005 202673 UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010099 

Unnamed Drain @ Old Samsula 

Road 2005 20

2666A 

SWEETWATER 

CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010536 Sweetwater Creek at C.R. 421 1998 19

2666A 

SWEETWATER 

CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010536 Sweetwater Creek at C.R. 421 1999 20

2666A 

SWEETWATER 

CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010189 

Sweetwater Creek @ 50M South of 

Hawk's Ridge 2005 20

2666A 

SWEETWATER 

CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010190 Sweetwater Creek @ Williams Rd. 2005 20

2666A 

SWEETWATER 

CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010191 Sweetwater Creek @ Taylor Rd. 2005 20

2666A 

SWEETWATER 

CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010192 

Sweetwater Creek @ Ocean Oaks 

Apts 2005 20

8119 

HALIFAX RIVER 

OCEAN 3 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH FLAGLER105 FL401816 2000 20

8119 

HALIFAX RIVER 

OCEAN 3 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH FLAGLER106 FL673203 2000 20

8119 

HALIFAX RIVER 

OCEAN 3 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH FLAGLER349 FL240520 2002 20

8119 

HALIFAX RIVER 

OCEAN 3 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH FLAGLER5 

FLAGLER PIER @ FLAGLER 

BEACH 

8119 

HALIFAX RIVER 

OCEAN 3 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH FLAGLER6 GAMBLE ROGERS STATE PARK 

2620 BULOW CREEK STREAM 3M 21FLFMRIHAL200130 Halifax - Tolomato River 2001 202620 BULOW CREEK STREAM 3M 21FLSJWMBUL BULOW CREEK AT LOW BRIDGE 1986 202620 BULOW CREEK STREAM 3M 21FLCEN 27010108 

Bulow Creek @ Upstream of 

confluence of Halifax River 2005 20

2620 BULOW CREEK STREAM 3M 21FLCEN 27010109 

Bulow Creek @ 275m upstream of 

confluence with Halifax River 2005 20

2620 BULOW CREEK STREAM 3M 21FLCEN 27010110 

Bulow Creek @ 490m upstream of 

confluence with Halifax River 2005 20

2620 BULOW CREEK STREAM 3M 21FLCEN 27010111 

Bulow Creek @ 705m upstream of 

confluence of Halifax River 2005 20
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

2620 BULOW CREEK STREAM 3M 21FLCEN 27010112 

Bulow Creek @ 920m upstream of 

confluence with Halifax River 2005 20

2363J PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010020 

HALIFAX RIVER NORTH AT ICWW 

CHANNEL MARKER 26 1992 19

2363J PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010025 

HALIFAX CR IN COAST WWAY 

MARK 29 1968 19

2363J PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010106 

ICWW MARKER 19 AT FLAGLER 

BEACH 1971 19

2363J PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL01 

HALIFAX RIVER NEAR 

HIGHBRIDGE RD. 1991 19

2363J PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL02 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICWW CM 29 1991 192363J PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMFLB 

ICWW under the Highway 100 

Bridge in Flagler Beach 2004 20

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010401 

HALIFAX R NR MARKERS S 

TOMOKA BA 1971 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010402 

HALIFAX R 50 Y N ORMOND BCH 

STP 1971 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010403 HALIFAX R A ICWW MARKER 16 1971 192363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010404 

HALIFAX R 50 Y S ORMOND BCH 

STP 1971 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010405 

HALIFAX R 50 Y N HOLLY HILL 

STP 1971 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010406 

HALIFAX R BET ICWW MARKERS 

27& 2 1971 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010407 

HALIFAX R 50 Y S HOLLY HILL 

STP 1971 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010408 

HALIFAX R SE COR RV YACHT 

CLB BS 1971 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010436 

HALIFAX R CONF TOMOKA R 

AND ICWW 1973 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010438 PONCE DE LEON INLET CENTER 1973 192363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010468 

HALIFAX R. AT ICWW CM 9 EAST 

SIDE OF CHANNEL 1996 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010567 

HALIFAX RIVER SOUTH TIP OF 

TOMOKA STATE PARK 1985 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010026 

HALIFAX R 1ST MARK S TOMOKA 

BASN 1968 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010027 

HALIFAX R 1ST MARK S TOMOKA 

B 10 1968 19
264 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010028 

HALIFAX R INT COAST WWAY 

MARK 4 1968 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010029 

HALIFAX R 150YDS S ORMOND 

BCH ST 1968 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010031 

HALIFAX R 150YDS S ICWW 

MARKER 1 1968 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010032 

HALIFAX R 150YDS S ICWW 

MARKER 1 1968 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010033 

HALIFAX R 150YDS S HOLLY HILL 

ST 1968 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010034 

HALIFAX R 150YDS S HOLLY HILL 

ST 1968 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010035 

HALIFAX R 150YDS S HOLLY HILL 

ST 1968 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010036 

HALIFAX R SILVER BCH 

MEMORIAL BR 1968 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010037 

HALIFAX R 100 FT N SI BCH MEM 

BR 1968 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010038 

HALIFAX R 100 FT N SI BCH MEM 

BR 1968 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010039 

HALIFAX R CTR YACHT CLUB 

BASIN 1968 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010831 

HALIFAX RIVER AT ICW #12 

MIDCHAN 1975 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010832 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICW #22 1975 192363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010940 

HALIFAX RIV 300YD W OF ICWW 

11 1983 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010941 

SEGMENT 27.1CA BODY OF 

WATE 1984 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010942 

HALIFAX RIVER AT ICWW 

MARKER 19 1984 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010943 

HALIFAX RIVER AT ICWW 

MARKER 21 1983 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010944 

HALIFAX RIVER AT ICWW 

MARKER 24 1984 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010945 

HALIFAX R 200YD WEST ICWW 

MARK 3 1981 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010946 

HALIFAX R MIDCHAN ICWW AT 

MAIN ST 1984 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010950 

HALIFAX RIVER AT SEABREEZE 

BRIDGE 1983 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLFMRIHAL200107 Halifax - Intracoastal Waterway 2001 20
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLFMRIHAL200108 Halifax - Intracoastal Waterway 2001 202363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWM27010037 

HALIFAX RIVER 100 FT N SI BEACH MEMORIAL BRIDGE 1995 20

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMHR29 HALIFAX RIVER @ CM 29 1993 192363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMHR40OB 

HALIFAX R SOUTH SIDE SR 40 IN 

ORMOND BEACH 1991 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMHR92B HALIFAX RIVER @ SR 92 BRIDGE 1993 192363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMHR92DB 

HALIFAX R NORTH SIDE SR 92 IN 

DAYTONA BEACH 1991 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMUEC015 PONCE INLET NEAR MOUTH 1992 192363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL04 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICWW CM 6 1993 192363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL05 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICCW CM 11 1991 192363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL06 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICCW CM 16 1991 192363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL07 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICCW CM 21 1991 192363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL08 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICWW CM 25 1993 192363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL09 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICCW CM 30 1991 192363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL10 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICWW CM 33 1993 192363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL11 

HALIFAX RIVER 100 YDS N. OF 

ORANGE AVE. BRIDGE 1991 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL12 

HALIFAX RIVER AT ENTRANCE 

TO HALIFAX HARBOR 1991 19

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-005 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 11 1999 202363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-006 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 16 1999 202363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-007 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 21 1999 202363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-008 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 25 1999 202363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-009 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 30 1999 202363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-010 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 33 1999 202363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-011 

Halifax River, at ICWW CM 36, N of 

Orange Ave Bridge 1999 20

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-012 

Halifax River, at entrance to Halifax 

Harbor Marina, CM 11 1999 20

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010119 Halifax River @ Silver Beach Rd. 2005 202363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010120 

Halifax River @ International 

Speedway Dr. 2005 20
266 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010945 

Halifax River 200 yd west of ICWW 

channel marker #30 2005 20

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010946 

Halifax River ICWW channel at Main 

Street Bridge, midchannel 2005 20

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010950 

Halifax River approximately 100 yd 

north of Seabreeze Bridge 2005 20

2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLFMRIFLEALT158 IRL 2005 202363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLFMRISTR200432 Halifax River 2004 202363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010121 

Halifax River @ Entrance to Marina 

on ICWW 2005 20

2634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMSJB-LR-1032 

Tomoka River State Park NE of 

Tomoka Estates 2002 20

2634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 112WRD 02247598 

TOMOKA RIVER NR ORMOND 

BEACH,FL 

2634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010569 

TOMOKA RIVER DOWNSTREAM 

OF SOUTH DITCH 1985 19

2634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010023 TOMOKA R AT US HW # 1 1962 192634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010024 TOMOKA R OLD DIXIE HWY BR 1968 192634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010023 Tomoka River at US Highway 1 2000 202634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010024 Tomoka River at Old Dixie Highway 2000 202634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWM27010024 

TOMOKA RIVER AT OLD DIXIE 

HWY BRIDGE 1995 20

2634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMTOMKA 

TOMOKA RIVER TOMOKA ST PK 

UPSTR OF RT 5A BRIDGE 1992 19

2634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDTR01 

TOMOKA RIVER AT OLD DIXIE 

HIGHWAY 1993 19

2634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDTR02 

TOMOKA RIVER DOWNSTREAM 

OF U.S. 1 BRIDGE 1993 19

2634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-075 

Tomoka River, from upstream side 

of CR4011, by Tomoka S.P. 1999 20

2634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-076 

Tomoka River, from downstream 

side of U.S. 1 1999 20

2634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010113 

Tomoka River @ 800m upstream of 

Old Dixie Hwy Bridge 2005 20

2634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010114 

Tomoka River @ 1.5 miles 

downstream of US 1 bridge 2005 20
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

2634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010569 

Tomoka Rvr 0.25 mi downstream of 

confluence with south ditch 2005 20

2635 

GROVER 

BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010575 

GROOVER BRANCH AT TYMBER 

RD. BRIDGE 1985 19

2635 

GROVER 

BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010580 

Groover Branch at Airport Road 

Bridge 

2635 

GROVER 

BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010580 

Groover Branch at Airport Road 

Bridge 2000 20

2635 

GROVER 

BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010140 Groover Branch @ Dimmers Rd 2005 20

2635 

GROVER 

BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010141 

Groover Branch@Driveway W of 

TimberCreek .5 miles N of AP rd 2005 20

2635 

GROVER 

BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010575 

Groover Branch at Tymber Road 

Bridge 2005 20

2635 

GROVER 

BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010582 

Groover Branch at Tymber Run 

Road 2005 20

2654 

DRAINAGE 

CANALS STREAM 3F 112WRD 02247480 

TIGER BAY CANAL NR DAYTONA 

BCH, FL 1979 19

2654 

DRAINAGE 

CANALS STREAM 3F 112WRD 02247481 THAYER CANAL AT 11TH STREET 

2654 

DRAINAGE 

CANALS STREAM 3F 112WRD 02247483 TAYLOR CANAL ALONG US 92 

2654 

DRAINAGE 

CANALS STREAM 3F 112WRD 02247484 AMANDA'S DITCH NR DAYTONA 

2654 

DRAINAGE 

CANALS STREAM 3F 112WRD 02247496 

THAYER CANAL NR DAYTONA 

BCH, FL 1983 19

2654 

DRAINAGE 

CANALS STREAM 3F 112WRD 290944081064200 

US HWY 92 CANAL NR DAYTONA 

BCH, FL 

2666 UNNAMED DITCH STREAM 3F 112WRD 02248002 B-19 CANAL AT PELICAN BAY 2666 UNNAMED DITCH STREAM 3F 112WRD 02248004 

B-19 CANAL AT WILLOW RUN 

BLVD 

2666 UNNAMED DITCH STREAM 3F 112WRD 02248006 B-19 CANAL AT SR 415 ,PORT OR 2679 UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010540 

Unnamed drain into Spruce Creek at 

Martin Dairy R 

2679 UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010540 

Unnamed ditch@E of Martin Dairy 

R,0.5miles N of Pioneer Tr R 1999 20

2679 UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010084 

Unnamed Ditch @ Pioneer Trail 

Bridge 2005 20

2679 UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010085 Unnamed Ditch @ I-95 2005 20
268 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

2679 UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010090 

Unnamed Ditch @ E. of Martin Dairy 

Rd, 1.25 miles N of PT rd 2005 20

2679 UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010091 Unnamed Ditch @ 2005 202681 

GLENCOE 

DITCHES STREAM 3F 112WRD 02248060 

TURNBULL CREEK NR NEW 

SMYRNA BEACH,FL 

2681 

GLENCOE 

DITCHES STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010541 Glencoe Ditch at Turnbull Bay Road 

2681 

GLENCOE 

DITCHES STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010541 Glencoe Ditch at Turnbull Bay Road 1999 20

2681 

GLENCOE 

DITCHES STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010115 

Glencoe Ditches @ Captain Butler 

Rd. 2005 20

2681 

GLENCOE 

DITCHES STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010116 

Glencoe Ditches @ Mooneyham 

(Williams) Rd 2005 20

2681 

GLENCOE 

DITCHES STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010117 

Glencoe Ditches @ 225m South of 

Turnbull Bay Rd 2005 20

2681 

GLENCOE 

DITCHES STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010118 

Glencoe Ditches @ 225m North of 

Turnbull Bay Rd. 2005 20

Matanzas River Unit 

2491 

SAN SEBASTIAN 

RIVER STREAM 3F 112WRD 02246895 

SAN SEBASTIAN RIVER AT 

ST.AUGUSTINE,FL 

2491 

SAN SEBASTIAN 

RIVER STREAM 3F 112WRD 295333081191401 

SJ-90 MARSH NR ST. 

AUGUSTINE, FL 

2491 

SAN SEBASTIAN 

RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010141 SAN SEBASTIAN R @ US 1 1989 20

2491 

SAN SEBASTIAN 

RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLSJWMSSB San Sebastian River @ U.S. 1 1985 20

2491 

SAN SEBASTIAN 

RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLSJWMSSEB 

SAN SEBASTIAN RIVER AT 

MARKER 8 1992 19

2491 

SAN SEBASTIAN 

RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010058 SAN SEBASTIAN R @ SR 16 2005 20

2491 

SAN SEBASTIAN 

RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010935 

SAN SEBASTIAN RIVER AT CM 

NO. 27 2005 20

2363H 

ST AUGUSTINE 

INLET ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010131 

ST AUGUSTINE INLET @ 

MARKER #2 1973 20

2363H 

ST AUGUSTINE 

INLET ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010136 

 TOLOMOTO R SO OF 

VILANO BCH BRID 1976 20
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

2472 

RED HOUSE 

BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010059 

RED HOUSE BR @ LEWIS 

SPEEDWAY 2005 20

2472 

RED HOUSE 

BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010061 

RED HOUSE BR @ WOODLAWN 

RD 2005 20

2520 

WILDWOOD 

CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010189 

WILDWOOD CR. @ WILDWOOD 

RD. 2001 20

2520 

WILDWOOD 

CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010064 

WILDWOOD CR S FT PEYTON 

CIR 2005 20

2493 

MOULTRIE 

CREEK STREAM 2 112WRD 02246900 

MOULTRIE CREEK AT SHWY 207 

NR ST AUGUSTINE, FLA. 

2493 

MOULTRIE 

CREEK STREAM 2 112WRD 02247000 

MOULTIRE CREEK NR ST. 

AUGUSTINE, FLA. 

2493 

MOULTRIE 

CREEK STREAM 2 112WRD 02247015 

MOULTRIE CREEK AT 

MOULTRIE,FL 

2493 

MOULTRIE 

CREEK STREAM 2 112WRD 294927081192501 

SJ-97 CORBETT NR MOULTRIE 

CREEK 

2493 

MOULTRIE 

CREEK STREAM 2 21FLA 27010188 MOULTRIE CREEK AT CR 207 2000 20

2493 

MOULTRIE 

CREEK STREAM 2 21FLSJWMMCICW MOULTRIE CREEK OFF ICWW 1993 20

2493 

MOULTRIE 

CREEK STREAM 2 21FLSJWMMTC MOULTRIE CREEK AT SR 207 1984 20

2493 

MOULTRIE 

CREEK STREAM 2 21FLA 27010055 MOULTRIE CR @ US 1 2005 20

2493 

MOULTRIE 

CREEK STREAM 2 21FLGW 21201 MTC 2004 20

2499 OYSTER CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLVOL ICW130 OYSTER CREEK-ST. AUGUSTINE 1995 192499 OYSTER CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010056 OYSTER CR @ DIXIE HWY 2005 202499 OYSTER CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010057 OYSTER CR @ WHITNEY RD 2005 202513 

UNNAMED 

BAYOU ESTUARY 3M 112WRD 295132081164801 SJ-92 ANASTASIA WATER PLANT 1977 20

8122 

MATANZAS 

RIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLSEAS88SEAS050 

South of Devils Elbow Fish Camp 

east shore 1978 20

8122 

MATANZAS 

RIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLSEAS88SEAS150 Marina south of SR 206 bridge 

8122 

MATANZAS 

RIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLSEAS88SEAS155 CM 60 

8122 

MATANZAS 

RIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLSEAS88SEAS191 CM 70 
270 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

8122 

MATANZAS 

RIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 112WRD 294602081151901 

SJ-94 HOWARD AT CRESCENT 

BEACH, FL 

8122 

MATANZAS 

RIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 112WRD 294927081161601 

SJ-93 ST AUGUSTINE BCH & 

TENNIS RESORT 

8122 

MATANZAS 

RIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLA 27010097 

ICWW MARKER 60 N CRESCENT 

BCH BR 1971 20

8122 

MATANZAS 

RIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLA 88050SEAS 

South of Devils Elbow Fish Camp 

east shore 1978 20

8122 

MATANZAS 

RIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLA 88150SEAS Marina south of SR 206 bridge 1978 20

8122 

MATANZAS 

RIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLA 88155SEAS CM 60 1995 20

8122 

MATANZAS 

RIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLA 88191SEAS CM 70 1993 20

8122 

MATANZAS 

RIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS2 CRESCENT BEACH 

8122 

MATANZAS 

RIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS241 FL620625 2000 20

8122 

MATANZAS 

RIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS242 FL192350 2000 20

8122 

MATANZAS 

RIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS243 FL601572 2000 20

8122 

MATANZAS 

RIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS244 FL300583 2000 20

8122 

MATANZAS 

RIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS3 

ST AUGUSTINE BCH OCEAN 

TRACE 

8122 

MATANZAS 

RIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS4 ST AUGUSTINE BCH A STREET 

8122 

MATANZAS 

RIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS5 ANASTASIA STATE PARK 

2514 

UNNAMED 

SLOUGH STREAM 3F 112WRD 295047081193001 SJ-0096 

2535 MOSES CREEK STREAM 3F 112WRD 02247027 

MOSES CREEK NR MOULTRIE, 

FLA. 

2535 MOSES CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010050 MOSES CR AT US 1 2000 20
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

2535 MOSES CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLSJWMMOC 

MOSES CREEK OFF ST 

AUGUSTINE SHORES 1987 19

2535 MOSES CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLVOL HID010 

HIDDEN CR. UPSTRM OF CONFL 

WITH MOSES CR 1996 19

2535 MOSES CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLVOL ICW190 

MOSES CR APPROX 0.5 MI 

UPSTRM OF I.C.W. 1996 19

2535 MOSES CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010051 MOSES CR @ CR 206 2004 202502 SALT RUN ESTUARY 3M 21FLSEAS92SEAS773 Creek mouth E shore of Salt Run 2502 SALT RUN ESTUARY 3M 21FLSEAS92SEAS774 Drainage ditch at S end of Salt Run 2502 SALT RUN ESTUARY 3M 21FLSEAS92SEAS777 

Southernmost dock in Salt Run 

mainland 

2502 SALT RUN ESTUARY 3M 21FLSEAS92SEAS778 Salt Run between Jet Ski signs 2502 SALT RUN ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010138 

 SALT RUN OFFSHORE 

FROM LIGHTHOUS 1980 20

2502 SALT RUN ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 92773SEAS Creek mouth E shore of Salt Run 1979 202502 SALT RUN ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 92774SEAS Drainage ditch at S end of Salt Run 1979 202502 SALT RUN ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 92777SEAS 

Southernmost dock in Salt Run 

mainland 1993 20

2502 SALT RUN ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 92778SEAS Salt Run between Jet Ski signs 1995 202502 SALT RUN ESTUARY 3M 21FLFMRIHAL200104 Halifax - Salt Run 2001 202502 SALT RUN ESTUARY 3M 21FLVOL ICW170 

SALT RUN-LIGHTHOUSE PIER ST 

AUGUSTINE 1996 19

2502 SALT RUN ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010137 

 SALT RUN OFFSHORE 

FROM ANASTASIA 2004 20

2363G 

MATANZAS 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLGTM GTMSSNUT 

San Sebastian & Matanzas River 

confluence Channel Marker 1 2002 20

2363G 

MATANZAS 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010155 

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AT 

EAST CREEK 1985 20

2363G 

MATANZAS 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010156 ICW @ CM 43 ST JOHNS CO 1985 20

2363G 

MATANZAS 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010157 ICW AT CM 21 1992 19

2363G 

MATANZAS 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010158 ICW AT ASD WWTP POD 1992 19

2363G 

MATANZAS 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010159 ICW AT CM 18 1992 19

2363G 

MATANZAS 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010160 ICW 50 FEET NORTH OF SR 312 1992 19
272 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

2363G 

MATANZAS 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010161 ICW AT CM 12 1992 19

2363G 

MATANZAS 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010132 

ICWW NR MARKER #13 NR 

MATANGAS R 1973 19

2363G 

MATANZAS 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010133 

ICWW MARKER 35 NR 

MATANZAS R 1973 20

2363G 

MATANZAS 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010139 

 MATANZAS R 1/2 MI S 

OF BRIDGE 1981 20

2363G 

MATANZAS 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010140 

MATANZAS R BY CHANNEL 

MARKER NO 1978 19

2363G 

MATANZAS 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLFMRIHAL200105 Halifax - Matanzas River 2001 20

2363G 

MATANZAS 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSJWMMR312 MATANZAS RIVER AT CR 312 1991 20

2363G 

MATANZAS 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLVOL ICW150 

I.C.W. ST. AUGUSTINE N OF 

SR312 1995 19

2363G 

MATANZAS 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLVOL ICW210 I.C.W. ST. AUGUSTINE 1995 19

2363G 

MATANZAS 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSJWMJXTR21 

Matanzas River north of Crescent 

Beach @ SR206 Bridge 1997 20

Pellicer Creek Unit 

2551 LAKE TRIPLET LAKE 3F 112WRD 02247200 

FISH SWAMP OUTLET NR 

SUMMER HAVEN, FLA. 

2551 LAKE TRIPLET LAKE 3F 112WRD 294011081193802 

LAKE TRIPLET (.3 MI SSE OF 

CENTER) 

2551 LAKE TRIPLET LAKE 3F 112WRD 294011081193804 

LAKE TRIPLET (.3 MI N OF 

CENTER) 

2551 LAKE TRIPLET LAKE 3F 112WRD 294011081193805 LAKE TRIPLET (AT CENTER) 

2580C 

PELLICER 

CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLSJWMUEC006 

PELLICER CREEK AT RR 

TRESTLE 1992 19

2580C 

PELLICER 

CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLSJWMUEC009 

PELLICER CREEK PRINGLE 

BRIDGE BEFORE FORK 1992 19

2577 

STEVENS 

BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010070 STEVENS BR. OFF CR 204 1998 20

2577 

STEVENS 

BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLSJWMUEC008 

PELLICER CREEK STEVENS 

BRIDGE BEHIND CEMETERY 1992 19

8120 

PELLICER 

CREEK OCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH FLAGLER104 FL493550 2000 20
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

8120 

PELLICER 

CREEK OCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH FLAGLER3 VARN PARK/BEVERLY BEACH 

8120 

PELLICER 

CREEK OCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH FLAGLER318 FL283799 2000 20

8120 

PELLICER 

CREEK OCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH FLAGLER4 PICKNICKERS/BEVERLY BEACH 

2553 

CRACKER 

BRANCH BLACKWATER 3F 21FLA 27010060 CRACKER BR. @ CR 204 1998 20

2553 

CRACKER 

BRANCH BLACKWATER 3F 21FLSJWMUEC005 

PELLICER CREEK CRACKER 

BRIDGE OFF US 1 1992 19

2553 

CRACKER 

BRANCH BLACKWATER 3F 21FLA 27010063 CRACKER BR 1.3 MILE N CR 204 2005 20

2363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 1113S000120915-D 

PALM COAST ICW N FRM CLUB 

HSE WW 1976 19

2363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 1113S000120920-D 

PALM COAST ICW N FRM CLUB 

HSE WW 1976 19

2363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 1113S000120925-D 

PALM COAST ICW N FRM CLUB 

HSE WW 1976 19

2363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 1113S000120930-D 

PALM COAST ICW N CLUB HSE 

WW ENT 1976 19

2363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 1113S000120935-D 

PALM COAST JUNC.CLB HSE WW 

& ICW 1976 19

2363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 1113S000120940-D 

PALM COAST CLB HSE WW 

INLND ICW 1976 19

2363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 1113S000120945-D 

PALM COAST CLB HSE WW 

INLND ICW 1976 19

2363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 1113S000120950-D 

PALM CAOST 100' FRM HEAD 

C.H.WW 1976 19

2363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 1113S000120960-D 

PALM COAST 400' FRM HEAD 

C.H. WW 1976 19

2363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 1113S000120965-D 

PALM COAST 1000' FRM HEAD 

C.H.WW 1976 19

2363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010150 

 ICWW FLAGLER PALM 

COAST MID CANA 1978 20

2363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010102 

ICWW MARKER AT ITT NP PALM 

CST C 1971 20

2363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010103 ICWW AT ST JOE CANAL 1971 202363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010104 ICWW MARKER 1 AT FOX CUT 1971 202363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010105 ICW @ CM 3 S FOX CUT 1971 20
274 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

2363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMPALMC 

MAIN CANAL TO PALM COAST 

UPSTREAM OF BRIDGE 1992 19

2363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMJXTR26 ICWW marker @ Fox Cut 1997 20

2597 HULETT BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLSJWMUEC010 

PELLICER CREEK HUTLETT 

BRIDGE 50 M ABOVE MOUTH 1992 19

2580A 

PELLICER 

CREEK STREAM 2 21FLGTM GTMPCNUT Pellicer Creek 2002 20

2580A 

PELLICER 

CREEK STREAM 2 112WRD 2940090811 

PELLICER CREEK NEAR 

ESPANOLA, FL 

2550 UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM 3F 21FLSEAS88SEAS017 Up creek southwest of CM 78 1978 202550 UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM 3F 21FLA 88017SEAS Up creek southwest of CM 78 1978 208121 

PELLICER 

CREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLSEAS88SEAS030 

Culvert south of boat ramp east of 

CM 72 1978 20

8121 

PELLICER 

CREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLSEAS88SEAS031 Mouth of creek east of CM 75 1978 20

8121 

PELLICER 

CREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLSEAS88SEAS032 Up creek from station 31 1986 20

8121 

PELLICER 

CREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLSEAS88SEAS055 

Mouth of residential canal south of 

inlet 1995 20

8121 

PELLICER 

CREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLSEAS88SEAS061 

East of Summer Haven at northwest 

turn 1978 20

8121 

PELLICER 

CREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLSEAS88SEAS081 Mouth of creek southwest of CM 85 1978 20

8121 

PELLICER 

CREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLSEAS88SEAS091 

Tip of small island east of 

Rattlesnake Is 1978 20

8121 

PELLICER 

CREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLA 88030SEAS 

Culvert south of boat ramp east of 

CM 72 1978 20

8121 

PELLICER 

CREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLA 88031SEAS Mouth of creek east of CM 75 1978 20

8121 

PELLICER 

CREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLA 88032SEAS Up creek from station 31 1986 20

8121 

PELLICER 

CREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLA 88055SEAS 

Mouth of residential canal south of 

inlet 1995 20

8121 

PELLICER 

CREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLA 88061SEAS 

East of Summer Haven at northwest 

turn 1978 20
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

8121 

PELLICER 

CREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLA 88081SEAS Mouth of creek southwest of CM 85 1978 20

8121 

PELLICER 

CREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLA 88091SEAS 

Tip of small island east of 

Rattlesnake Is 1978 20

8121 

PELLICER 

CREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH FLAGLER1 MARINELAND BEACH 

8121 

PELLICER 

CREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH FLAGLER102 FL384046 2000 20

8121 

PELLICER 

CREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH FLAGLER103 FL401201 2000 20

8121 

PELLICER 

CREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH FLAGLER2 WASHINGTON OAKS BEACH 

8121 

PELLICER 

CREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS1 MATANZAS INLET 

8121 

PELLICER 

CREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS240 FL446186 2000 20

2363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS010 Mouth of creek southeast of CM 79 1978 202363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS011 

Across from Fort Matanzas at creek 

mouth 1978 20

2363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS012 Up creek from station 11 1978 202363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS015 Up creek from station 10 1978 202363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS100 CM 80A 2363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS130 CM 72 2363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS171 

Mouth of creek southwest of CM 

83A 

2363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS172 Up creek from station 171 2363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS174 Up creek from station 189 2363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS183 West of CM 64 lease 55-AQ-015 2363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS185 Up creek west of CM 75 2363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS187 Creek mouth west of CM 75 2363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS189 

Mouth of 2nd creek southwest of 

CM 81C 

2363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS190 Southwest of SR 206 bridge 2363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLGTM GTMFMNUT Matanzas River Channel Marker 75 2002 202363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010098 

ICWW AT CHANNEL CUT TO 

MATANZAS 1971 20
276 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

2363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88010SEAS Mouth of creek southeast of CM 79 1978 202363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88011SEAS 

Across from Fort Matanzas at creek 

mouth 1978 20

2363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88012SEAS Up creek from station 11 1978 202363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88015SEAS Up creek from station 10 1978 202363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88100SEAS CM 80A 1995 202363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88130SEAS CM 72 1995 202363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88171SEAS 

Mouth of creek southwest of CM 

83A 1978 20

2363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88172SEAS Up creek from station 171 1981 202363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88174SEAS Up creek from station 189 1993 202363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88183SEAS West of CM 64 lease 55-AQ-015 1993 202363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88185SEAS Up creek west of CM 75 1993 202363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88187SEAS Creek mouth west of CM 75 1993 202363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88189SEAS 

Mouth of 2nd creek southwest of 

CM 81C 1993 20

2363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88190SEAS Southwest of SR 206 bridge 1993 202363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLFMRIHAL200106 Halifax - Intracoastal Waterway 2001 20

2580B 

PELLICER 

CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010016 PELLICER CR AT US 1 1961 20

2580B 

PELLICER 

CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLSJWMPEL PELLICER CREEK AT US 1 1984 20

2363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS101 Mouth of creek northwest of CM 86 2363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS102 Upstream from station 101 2363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS176 Culvert on west shore of Summer Is 2363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 1113S000120900-D 

PALM COAST ICW N FRM CLUB 

HSE WW 1976 19

2363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 1113S000120905-D 

PALM COAST ICW N FRM CLUB 

HSE WW 1976 19

2363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 1113S000120910-D 

PALM COAST ICW N FRM CLUB 

HSE WW 1976 19

2363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010149 

 ICWW FLAGLER PALM 

COAST NORTH CN 1980 20

2363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010099 

ICWW MARKER 87 AT 

MARINELAND 1971 20

2363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010100 

ICWW MARKER 94 AT PELLICER 

CR CO 1971 20

2363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010101 

ICWW MARKER 108 AT LONG CR 

CONF 1971 20
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

2363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010142 ICW N OF MARINELAND 1995 192363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010143 ICW S OF MARINELAND 1995 202363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010144 ICW BETWEEN CM 100 & 102 1995 192363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88101SEAS Mouth of creek northwest of CM 86 1978 202363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88102SEAS Upstream from station 101 1981 202363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88176SEAS Culvert on west shore of Summer Is 1993 202363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSJWMMAT 

MATANZAS R S OF WASHINGTON 

OAKS MKR 109 1986 20

2363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSJWMMRT 

Confluence of Pellicer Creek and 

ICWW 1986 20

2363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLVOL ICW220 I.C.W. PARK-FLAGLER CO. 1995 192363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS105 

ICWW @CM 86 near Flagler Co. 

line 1997 20

Tolomato River Unit 

2487 

ROBINSON 

CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS085 

Up Robinson Creek as far as 

possible 1992 20

2487 

ROBINSON 

CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010152 

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AT 

ROBINSON CREEK 1985 20

2487 

ROBINSON 

CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010178 

ROBINSON CR N PRONG NW OF 

FORK 1995 20

2487 

ROBINSON 

CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010179 

ROBINSON CR S PRONG SW FO 

FORK 1995 20

2487 

ROBINSON 

CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92085SEAS 

Up Robinson Creek as far as 

possible 1992 20

2487 

ROBINSON 

CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLFMRIHAL200129 Halifax - Tolomato River 2001 20

2468 

CASA COLA 

CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS195 

Up Casa Cola Creek as far as 

possible 

2468 

CASA COLA 

CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010151 

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AT 

CASA COLA CREEK 1985 20

2468 

CASA COLA 

CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010173 

CASA COLA CR N PRONG NEAR 

WEST BEND 1995 20

2468 

CASA COLA 

CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010174 CASA COLA CR AT MOUTH 1995 20

2468 

CASA COLA 

CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92195SEAS 

Up Casa Cola Creek as far as 

possible 1992 20

2468 

CASA COLA 

CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLSJWMCCC CASA COLA CREEK 1986 20
278 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

2470 

SOMBRERO 

CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS205 

Up Sombrero Creek as far as 

possible 

2470 

SOMBRERO 

CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92205SEAS 

Up Sombrero Creek as far as 

possible 1992 20

2470 

SOMBRERO 

CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010010 

SOMBRERO CR AT N BEND AB 

ICW 2004 20

2470 

SOMBRERO 

CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010054 

SOMBRERO CR 50 M BELOW 

FORK 2004 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS010 

W end of basin adjacent to St. Aug. 

Airport 1978 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS015 ICWW CM 48 1978 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS021 

Northernmost marker Lease 1088 in 

XimaniesC. 1978 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS065 

Creek mouth E shore north of 

ICWW CM 55 1993 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS071 W shore W of ICWW CM 55 1978 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS081 Mouth of Robinson Creek 1978 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS091 Mouth of Pancho Creek 1978 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS141 

Creek on E shore north of ICWW 

CM 51 

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS145 ICWW CM 51 

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS161 Mouth of airport canal 

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS190 Mouth of Casa Cola Creek 

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS200 Mouth of Sombrero Creek 

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS210 ICWW CM 47 

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS601 Mouth of Deep Creek 

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS606 ICWW CM 45 

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS609 

Mouth of creek on E shore N of 

ICWW CM 44 

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS610 ICWW CM 44 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS612 ICWW CM 38 

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS613 Mouth of Stokes Creek 

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS614 Creek E of ICWW CM 35 

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS615 Spartina flats NE of ICWW CM 33 

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS620 

Midway between ICWW CMs 28 & 

29 

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS621 W shore across from ICWW CM 24 

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLGTM GTMPINUT Pine Island Channel Marker 25 2002 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 112WRD 295502081175401 SJ-0091 

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 112WRD 295713081203401 SJ-0089 1978 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 20030446 ICW @ PLANTATION CANAL 1995 19

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010175 

ICW @ UNNAMED CR SE OF 

XIMANIES CR 1995 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010177 ICW @ DITCH SE OF AIRPORT 1995 19

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010123 ICW AT POWERLINES 1973 19

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010124 ICW AT WARDS LANDING 1973 19

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010125 

ICWW DK NR QUONSET HUT DPC 

#5 1973 19

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010126 ICWW DK PAINTED DPC #6 1973 19

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010127 

ICWW RED CHANNEL MARKER 

#2 1973 19

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010128 

CREEK 1/2 MILE FROM BRIDGE 

ICWW 1973 19

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010130 

ICWW CONF TOLOMATO R & 

GUANO R 1973 19

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010145 ICWW ST JOHNS #9 1977 19

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010146 

ICWW 10 MARKER 21 TOLOMATO 

RIVER 1977 19
280 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010147 ICWW ST JOHNS #11 MARKER 30 1977 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92010SEAS 

W end of basin adjacent to St. Aug. 

Airport 1978 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92015SEAS ICWW CM 48 1978 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92021SEAS 

Northernmost marker Lease 1088 in 

XimaniesC. 1978 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92041SEAS Camanche Cove Marina 1978 19

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92065SEAS 

Creek mouth E shore north of 

ICWW CM 55 1993 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92071SEAS W shore W of ICWW CM 55 1978 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92081SEAS Mouth of Robinson Creek 1978 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92091SEAS Mouth of Pancho Creek 1978 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92141SEAS 

Creek on E shore north of ICWW 

CM 51 1978 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92145SEAS ICWW CM 51 1992 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92161SEAS Mouth of airport canal 1981 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92190SEAS Mouth of Casa Cola Creek 1978 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92200SEAS Mouth of Sombrero Creek 1986 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92210SEAS ICWW CM 47 1993 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92601SEAS Mouth of Deep Creek 1978 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92602SEAS E Tip of Pine Island 1978 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92606SEAS ICWW CM 45 1978 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92609SEAS 

Mouth of creek on E shore N of 

ICWW CM 44 1978 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92610SEAS ICWW CM 44 1992 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92612SEAS ICWW CM 38 1978 20
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92613SEAS Mouth of Stokes Creek 1978 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92614SEAS Creek E of ICWW CM 35 1978 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92615SEAS Spartina flats NE of ICWW CM 33 1979 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92620SEAS 

Midway between ICWW CMs 28 & 

29 1986 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92621SEAS W shore across from ICWW CM 24 1979 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLFMRIHAL200101 Halifax - Tolomato River 2001 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLFMRIHAL200102 Halifax - Tolomato River 2001 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLFMRIHAL200103 Halifax - Tolomato River 2001 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSJWMTOL 

TOLOMATO RIVER AT SPANISH 

LANDING 1986 20

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLVOL ICW050 I.C.W. AT PALM VALLEY BRIDGE 1995 19

2363I 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSJWMJXTR17 

Confluence of Tolomato and Guana 

Rivers - ICWW 1997 20

2320 GUANA RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS600 Tip of Guana River at dam 2320 GUANA RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS617 

Smith's lease mid-way up Guana 

River 

2320 GUANA RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS618 Mouth of Guana River 2320 GUANA RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010168 GUANA LAKE @ BOAT RAMP 1995 202320 GUANA RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010169 

GUANA LAKE APPROX 50 YARDS 

S OF DAM 1995 20

2320 GUANA RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010148 ICW AT GUANA RIVER 1980 202320 GUANA RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92600SEAS Tip of Guana River at dam 1992 202320 GUANA RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92617SEAS 

Smith's lease mid-way up Guana 

River 1978 20

2320 GUANA RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92618SEAS Mouth of Guana River 1978 202320 GUANA RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSJWMGAR 

GUANA RIVER 100 meters south of 

the Dam 1986 20

2320 GUANA RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLVOL ICW110 GUANA RIVER DAM 1995 198125 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER OCEAN 3 COASTAL 3M 21FLA 27010180 LAKE VEDRA AT SOLANA RD. 1996 19
282 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

8125 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER OCEAN 3 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS246 FL881296 2000 20

8125 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER OCEAN 3 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS247 FL644388 2000 20

8125 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER OCEAN 3 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS7 MICKLER'S LANDING 

8125 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER OCEAN 3 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS8 SOLANA RD 

2320A LAKE VEDRA ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010181 LAKE VEDRA AT CORONA RD. 1996 202320A LAKE VEDRA ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010182 

PONTE VEDRA LAKE AT 

SAWGRASS 1996 20

2320A LAKE VEDRA ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010110 

PONTE VEDRA COUNTRY CLUB 

LAGOON 1972 19

2320A LAKE VEDRA ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010111 

PONTE VEDRA COUNTRY CLUB 

LAGOON 1972 19

2320A LAKE VEDRA ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010112 

PONTE VEDRA LAGOON #3 - OFF 

FAIR 1972 19

2320A LAKE VEDRA ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010113 

PONTE VEDRA #4 AT RUTILE DR 

BRID 1972 19

2435 CAPO CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010019 CAPO CR 300 M AB MOUTH 2004 202435 CAPO CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010052 CAPO CR @ 1st NE BEND 2004 202451 STOKES CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS619 Up Stokes Creek as far as possible 2451 STOKES CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010170 

STOKES CR N PRONG NEAR 

WEST BEND 1995 19

2451 STOKES CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010171 

STOKES CR S PRONG S MEDICIS 

ISLAND 1995 20

2451 STOKES CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010172 STOKES CR AT MOUTH 1995 192451 STOKES CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010185 STOKES CR 1/4 MILE AB MOUTH 1999 202451 STOKES CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92619SEAS Up Stokes Creek as far as possible 1986 202451 STOKES CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLSJWMSTOKESCR Stokes Creek 1997 208123 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER OCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLSEAS92SEAS111 Fishing pier E of ICWW CM 52 

8123 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER OCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLA 92111SEAS Fishing pier E of ICWW CM 52 1979 20

8123 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER OCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS245 FL156952 2000 20

8123 

TOLOMATO 

RIVER OCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS6 VILANO BEACH 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description 

Beginning 

Year 

End

Ye

2477 XIMANIES CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010053 XMANIES CR @ 1st SE BEND 2004 202483 PANCHO CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS095 Up Pancho Creek as far s possible 1992 202483 PANCHO CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92095SEAS Up Pancho Creek as far s possible 1992 202483 PANCHO CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010191 PANCHO CR ABOVE MOUTH 2004 202483 PANCHO CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010192 

PANCHO CR @ 1ST NORTH 

BEND ABOVE ICW 2004 20

2400 SMITH CREEK STREAM 3M 21FLA 27010065 

SMITH CREEK SOUTH FORK 300 

M AB MOUTH 2005 20

2400 SMITH CREEK STREAM 3M 21FLA 27010066 

SMITH CREEK SOUTH FORK 50 M 

AB MOUTH 2005 20

2400 SMITH CREEK STREAM 3M 21FLA 27010067 

SMITH CREEK NORTH FORK @ 

2ND SOUTH BEND 2005 20

2400 SMITH CREEK STREAM 3M 21FLSJWMSMITHSCR Smith's Creek 1997 202442 

MARSHALL 

CREEK STREAM 3M 21FLA 27010183 

MARSHALL CR 3/4 MILE AB 

MOUTH 1999 20

2442 

MARSHALL 

CREEK STREAM 3M 21FLA 27010184 MARSHALL CR AT MOUTH 1999 20

2406 

DEEP CREEK 

UPPER STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010166 DEEP CR AT SWEETWATER CR 1995 20

2406 

DEEP CREEK 

UPPER STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010190 

DEEP CREEK AT TRAIL 

(WOODEN) BRIDGE 2001 20

2406A 

DEEP CREEK 

LOWER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010165 DEEP CREEK AT MOUTH 1995 20

2457A 

ST. MARKS 

POND ESTUARY ESTUARY 2 112WRD 300036081213501 SJ-88 CHARD NR STOKEE CREEK 

2647 

HOLLY HILL 

DITCH STREAM 3F 112WRD 02247509 

ELEVENTH STREET CANAL AT 

HOLLY HILL,FL 
284 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

Appendix E: Permitted Discharge Facilities, Superfund Sites, and Landfills in t

Coast Basin, by Planning Unit 

Table E.1: Permitted Facilities with Discharges to Surface Water and Ground Water, by Planning Unit 

Facility ID Name Facility Type1 Status NPD

Tolomato River Planning Unit

FL0117897 Sawgrass WWTF DW A Y FL0117951 Ponte Vedra WWTF DW A Y 

FLA011765 North Beach Utilities WWTF DW A N 

FLG110334 Rinker Materials–North St. Augustine Facility CBP A Y 

FLA011773 Ponce de Leon WWTF DW A N 

Matanzas River Planning Unit 

FLA011761 J C 'S Car Wash IW A N FLA016927 FDOT–St. Augustine Maintenance IW A N FLA011769 Moultrie Woods WWTF DW A N 

FL0043109 State Road 16 WWTF DW A Y FL0021938 St. Augustine WWTF No. 1 DW A Y 

FLA011783 South Gate Carwash IW N N 

FL0038831 Anastasia Island WWTF DW A Y 

FLA011791 Spanish Trail Mobile Home Park WWTF DW A N 

FLG110373 Florida Rock Industries–St. Augustine CBP A Y 

FLA011781 Wagon Wheel Mobile Home Park WWTF DW A N 

FL0117471 State Road 207 WWTF DW A Y 

FLG110563 Tarmac–St. Augustine Facility CBP A Y 

FLA011762 Wildwood/Oakridge Apartments WWTF DW C N 

Pellicer Creek Planning Unit 

FL0039756 Beverly Beach WWTF DW A Y 

FLA011602 Dunes Community Development District WWTF DW A N FLA011611 Flagler-by-the-Sea WWTF DW A N FLA011784 Charlie T'S Truckstop WWTF DW C N 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

Facility ID Name Facility Type1 Status NPD

FLA011797 Dairy Queen Restaurant WWTF DW A N FLA011599 Matanzas Shores WWTF DW A N FLA011593 Maritime I Estates DW A N FLA011612 Marine Park of Flagler WWTF DW A N FLA011604 Maritime Estates II DW A N 

FLRNEE181 Ascom Energy Systems NEX A Y 

FLA011595 Palm Coast Intracoastal Waterway WWTF DW A N 

FLRNEE282 City of Palm Coast Wastewater Treatment Plant NEX A Y 

FLA175463 Grand Haven District Reuse Water Treatment Facility (CDD) DW A N 

FL0116009 Palm Coast WWTF DW A Y 

Halifax River Planning Unit 

FLA011164 Oceanaire Condo (DW) DW A N FLA011188 Seabridge WWTF (DW) DW A N FLA011176 VCUD/Pelican Dunes (DW) DW A N FLA011603 Holiday Travel Park DW A N FLA011601 Bulow Village WWTF DW A N FLA011597 Plantation Bay WWTF DW A N 

FL0043125 VCUD/Highbridge Park Reverse Osmosis Water Treatment Plant IW A Y 

FLA011131 VCUD/Halifax Plantation WWTF DW A N FLA011192 Kingston Shores Condos (DW) DW A N 

FL0026611 Flagler Beach WWTF DW A Y 

FLA017453 VCUD/Halifax Plantation RO (IW) IW A N FLA011185 Madeira Villa Condos North (DW) DW A N FLA011151 Windemere Shores Condo (DW) DW A N FLA011252 Ormond Beach Surfside Club North WWTF DW A N FLA011116 VCUD/Sunny 

Beach WWTF DW A N 

FLA011156 Van Lee Condominiums (DW) DW A N FLA011162 Ocean House Condo (DW) DW A N FLA011167 Sand Dunes Condo WWTF (DW) DW A N 
286 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

Facility ID Name Facility Type1 Status NPD

FLA011170 Ormondy Condominium (DW) DW A N FLA011178 Ocean Shore Plaza WWTF DW A N FLA011183 Madeira Villa South (DW) DW A N FLA011184 Madeira Villa Central (DW) DW A N FLA011206 Ormond Oceanside Condo (DW) DW A N FLA011253 Ormond Surfwide Club South WWTF DW A N FLA011259 Regency Plaza Condominium (DW) DW A N FLA011117 VCUD/Leeward Wind WWTF DW A N FLA111554 Gemini Condominiums (DW) DW A N FLA017020 VCUD/Ocean Dunes Condo (DW) DW A N FLA011174 Ocean Watch WWTF DW A N FLA011122 VCUD/Atlantic 22 Condo (DW) DW A N FLA011150 Mariners Bay Condo (DW) DW A N FLA011161 Seascape Condominium WWTF DW A N FLA011160 Indies House Condo (DW) DW A N FLA011171 Sunrise Condominium DW A N FLA011213 Traders Inn Beach Club WWTF (DW) DW A N FLA011120 VCUD/Tiffany Condominium WWTF DW A N FLA011157 Fairwind Shores (DW) DW A N FLA011205 Comfort Inn/Ormond Beach (DW) DW A N FLA011146 Scottish Inn(DW) DW A N FLA011169 Villages of Pine Run (DW) DW A N FLA011226 Super 8 Motel/Ormond Beach WWTF DW A N FLA011239 Encore Superpark aka Sunshine Holiday Camper Resort (DW) DW A N FLA011242 Ramada Inn (I-95) DW A N FLA016726 Ormond Septic Systems RMF RES A N FLA011152 Ocean Shore (DW) DW A N FLA011196 Villa Sereno Condo (DW) DW A N FLA011272 Winchester Manor (DW) DW A N 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

Facility ID Name Facility Type1 Status NPD

FLA011228 Camino Real Apartments WWTF DW A N FLA011247 VCUD/Spanish Waters (DW) DW A N FLA011153 Starboard Lights Condominium WWTF DW A N FLA011215 Ormond Breakers Condominium , STP DW A N FLA011225 Aquarius Condo (DW) DW A N FLA011233 Corinthian Villas (DW) DW A N FLA011240 Ormond by the Sea (DW) DW A N FLA011236 Emerald Palms WWTF DW A N 

FLRNEE153 Airport NEX A Y 

FLA011193 Tymber Creek (DW) DW A N 

FLG110216 Rinker Materials/Ormond Beach Concrete Batch Plant CBP A Y FLG910598 BP Station #24650 (IW) PET A Y 

FLRNEE154 Southland NEX A Y 

FL0020532 Ormond Beach WWTF DW A Y FL0037877 VCDSWM/Tomoka Farms Road Landfill IWTP IW A Y 

FLA017086 Florida N-Viro/Tomoka RMF (DW) RES A N FLA016692 Ringhaver/Tomoka Farms Road/Equipment Wash Recycle System IW A N 

FLG110452 Tarmac/Daytona Beach CBP A N FLG110462 Cemex/Daytona Beach CB Plant (IW) CBP A Y 

FLRNEE148 Vehicle Maintenance Facility NEX A Y 

FLA011274 Konny’s Coin Laundry (IW) IW A N FLA011125 VCUD/Northeast Barn/Equipment & Truck Wash Recycle System IW A N FLA016556 VCSB/Daytona Beach Bus Wash Facility IW A N 

FL0027677 City of Holly Hill DW A Y 

FLRNEE285 Airborne Freight Corp. NEX A Y 

FLA111392 Daytona Beach Westside Regional WWTF DW A N 

FL0025984 Daytona Beach/Bethune Point WWTF DW A Y 

FLA112551 Battelle Florida Material Research Center IW N N FLA011201 Mansfield Mobile Home Park, STP DW A N 
288 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

Facility ID Name Facility Type1 Status NPD

FLA011224 Colony in the Woods (DW) DW A N 

FLG110181 Rinker Materials/South Daytona Concrete Batch Plant CBP A N 

FL0020559 City of Port Orange WWTF DW A Y 

FLA011181 Double D Mobile Ranch WWTF DW A N FLA185086 VCUD/Spruce Creek (IW) IW A N FLA011113 VCSB Samsula Elementary School (DW) DW A N FLA011173 Sugar Mill Ruins Travel Park WWTF DW A N FLA011256 Sugar Mill Country Club (DW) DW A N FLA011209 El Dorado Mobile Home Community (DW) DW A N 

FLRNEE083 New Smyrna Beach–Reddy Plant #343 NEX A Y 

FL0172090 New Smyrna Beach Water Reclamation Facility (DW) DW A Y 

FLA011249 Tropical Chevron/New Smyrna (DW) DW A N FLA011243 Sugar Mill MHP (DW) DW A N 

1 CBP – Concrete batch plant 

 DW – Domestic waste  IW – Industrial waste  NEX – No exposure certification  PET – Petroleum 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

Table E.2: Superfund Sites, by Planning Unit 

Planning 

Unit Site Name City County District Program Status Operation 

Matanzas 

River 000000000043 

Control 

Products 

Associated 

St. 

Augustine 

St 

Johns Northeast State Funded Delisted Pesticide/ Insecticide/ Herbicide 
290 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

Table E.3: Permitted Landfill Facilities, by Planning Unit 

Facility Name Address City County Department District Status1 Facility T

Tolomato River Planning Unit 

Nine Mile Composting 

Facility Cof 

445 A International Golf 

Pkwy St. Augustine St. Johns Northeast J Solid Wa

Nine Mile Road 

Southland CDS 

445 A International Golf 

Pkwy St. Augustine St. Johns Northeast A Solid Wa

Nine Mile Rd Materials 

Recovery Facility 4454 Nine Mile Rd St. Augustine St. Johns Northeast J Solid Wa

Matanzas River Planning Unit 

Anastasia Island Off State Rd 3 & Fish Island Rd St. Augustine St. Johns Northeast K Solid Wa

St. Augustine Beach 

LF End of Pope Rd St. Augustine Beach St. Johns Northeast K Solid Wa

Ravenswood Dump Ravenswood Dr & Volusia St St. Augustine St. Johns Northeast K Solid Wa

Hicks Land Clearing & 

Fill Dirt CDS, LCD 3445 Old Moultrie Rd St. Augustine St. Johns Northeast A Solid Wa

St. Augustine Transfer 

Station (TS) Holmes Blvd St. Augustine St. Johns Northeast I Solid Wa

16th Street Collection 

Center WTC (Waste 

Tires) 

840 W 16th St St. Augustine St. Johns Northeast J Solid Wa

Ravenswood Recyling 

Collection Center WTC 

(Waste Tires) 

870 Pacific Blvd St. Augustine St. Johns Northeast J Solid Wa

Old City Materials 

Recovery Facility 

(MRF) 

3953 Deerpark Blvd Elkton St. Johns Northeast I Solid Wa

Saint Johns Pk 2 Miles E of St. Augustine Beach St. Augustine Flagler Northeast J Solid Wa

Pellicer Creek Planning Unit 

LCD of Flagler Hwy US 1 Bunnell Flagler Northeast A Solid Wa

William Paterson 

(C&D) CDS Old Kings Rd N Palm Coast Flagler Northeast J Solid Wa
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper E

Facility Name Address City County Department District Status1 Facility T

Halifax River Planning Unit 

Flagler County Central 

Landfill LFC1 (Old 

Kings Rd) 

Old Kings Rd 1 Mile S 

State Rd 100 Bunnell Flagler Northeast District K Solid Wa

Tomoka Farms Road 

Landfill 1990 Tomoka Farms Rd Daytona Beach Volusia Central A Solid Wa

Flagler County Class III 

LF 1.7 Miles S State Rd 100 Bunnell Flagler Northeast District I Solid Wa

Ormond Beach Nova 

Road Landfill III 520 North Nova Rd Ormond Beach Volusia Central District K Solid Wa

Port Orange Landfill Herbert St, East of Clyde Morris Blvd Port Orange Volusia Central District J Solid Wa

Tomoka Farms Road 

Landfill 1990 Tomoka Farms Rd Daytona Beach Volusia Central District A Solid Wa

Kirton C&D LF (East)—

Land Clearing Debris 

Only 

1630 Tomoka Farms Rd Daytona Beach Volusia Central District A Solid Wa

Flagler County Ditch 

Cleaning @ C&D Fac 

(SW0) 

1700 S Old Kings Rd Flagler Flagler Northeast District A Solid Wa

Daytona Beach 

International Airport 

General Aviation 

Develt 

700 Catalina Drive, Suite 

110 Daytona Beach Volusia Central District P Solid Wa

New Smyrna Beach 

Airport Landfill 1800 Turnbull Bay Rd New Smyrna Beach Volusia Central District K Solid Wa

Ormond Beach Nova 

Road Landfill III 520 North Nova Rd Ormond Beach Volusia Central District K Solid Wa

Port Orange Landfill Herbert St, East of Clyde Morris Blvd Port Orange Volusia Central District J Solid Wa

Flagler County C&D 

CDS 

1 Mile S State Rd 100 

Old Kings Rd Bunnell Flagler Northeast District A Solid Wa

Kirton-Self C&D 

Landfill (West) 

West of Tomoka Farm 

Rd, 1/4 Miles South of I-4 Daytona Beach Volusia Central District A Solid Wa

Klenk C&D 3555 Jackson St Port Orange Volusia Central District A Solid Wa
292 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

Facility Name Address City County Department District Status1 Facility T

Port Orange 

Incinerator 4625 Recreation Dr Port Orange Volusia Central District I Solid Wa

Tomoka Farms Road 

Landfill 1990 Tomoka Farms Rd Daytona Beach Volusia Central District A Solid Wa

Airport Used Auto 

Parts Salvage Yard 1295 Kenard St New Smyrna Beach Volusia Central District P Solid Wa

Reti Co Inc. 1527 Pine St Holly Hill Volusia Central District P Solid Wa

Tire City Waste Tire 

Processing 892 S Nova Rd Ormond Beach Volusia Central District P Solid Wa

Ormond Beach 

Transfer Station 450 North Orchard St Ormond Beach Volusia Central District A Solid Wa

Ormond Beach Nova 

Road Landfill III 520 North Nova Rd Ormond Beach Volusia Central District K Solid Wa

Flagler County Waste 

Tire Collection Center 1700 Old Kings Rd Bunnell Flagler Northeast District A Solid Wa

Flagler County Waste 

Tire Collection Center 1700 Old Kings Rd Bunnell Flagler Northeast District A Solid Wa

1 Status: 

A – Active J – Closed, No Monitoring K – Closed, Monitored P – Permitted I – Inactive 

2 100 Class I Landfill 

 200 Class II Landfill  300 Class III Landfill  310 Land Clearing Debris  320 Yard Trash Composting with Disposal  500 Other Disposal Facility  520 Old Dump  540 Construction/Demolition Debris  610 Incineration  630 Other Treatment  710 Waste Tire Processing Facility  750 Transfer Station Processing Facility  751 Waste Tire Collection Center  810 Material Recovery  900 Other Volume Reduction/Resource Recovery Facility 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 293

Appendix F: Level I Land Use in the Upper East Coast Basin, by 

Planning Unit 

Level 1 Description Acres Square 

Miles 

Percentage 

of Unit 

Tolomato River Planning Unit 

1000 Urban and Built-up 7,346 12 12.9 

2000 Agriculture 241 0.4 0.4 

3000 Rangeland 2,400 4 4.2 

4000 Upland Forests 19,359 30 34.0 

5000 Water 6,447 10 11.3 

6000 Wetlands 20,171 32 35.4 

7000 Barren Land 260 0.4 0.5 

8000 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 795 1 1.4 

 TOTAL 57,019 90 100 

Matanzas River Planning Unit 

1000 Urban and Built-up 16,822 26 23.6 

2000 Agriculture 864 1 1.2 

3000 Rangeland 3,925 6 5.5 

4000 Upland Forests 24,866 39 34.9 

5000 Water 5,764 9 8.1 

6000 Wetlands 17,971 28 25.2 

7000 Barren Land 174 0.3 0.2 

8000 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 932 2 1.3 

 TOTAL 71,318 111 100 

Pellicer Creek Planning Unit 

1000 Urban and Built-up 19,644 31 19.1 

2000 Agriculture 248 0.4 0.2 

3000 Rangeland 4,663 7 4.5 

4000 Upland Forests 39,822 62 38.7 

5000 Water 5,114 8 5.0 

6000 Wetlands 31,275 49 30.4 

7000 Barren Land 853 1 0.8 

8000 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 1,266 2 1.2 

 TOTAL 102,885 160 100 

Halifax River Planning Unit 

1000 Urban and Built-up 54,293 85 25.6 

2000 Agriculture 7,037 11 3.3 

3000 Rangeland 12,588 20 5.9 

4000 Upland Forests 57,260 90 27.0 

5000 Water 14,723 23 7.0 

6000 Wetlands 57,475 90 27.1 

7000 Barren Land 1,292 2 0.6 

8000 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 7,229 11 3.4 

 TOTAL 211,897 332 100 
294 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

Appendix G: Documentation Provided during Public Comment 

Period 

Public Workshops 

Two noticed public workshops were held to present the draft Upper East Coast Verified List and 

take comments. 

Date: July 27, 2006 

Time: 9AM 

Location: Edgewater Public Library, Edgewater, FL 

Note: The Indian River Lagoon draft verified list was also presented at this meeting. 

Attendees: 14 

Comments: Public comments received at this meeting were focused on the Indian River 

Lagoon basin. 

Date: July 27, 2006 

Time: 2PM 

Location: St. Johns County Main Library, St. Augustine, FL 

Attendees: 5 

Comments: Attendees provided no formal public comments. 

The following display ad was placed in local papers within the appropriate timeframe to meet 

public noticing requirements: 

In addition, both meetings were advertised through the Department’s Upper East Coast Basin 

email distribution list.
Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 295

Following changes to the Impaired Waters Rule, a new list of impaired waters is being presented October 3 

and 4, 2007, and any related public comments will be made available. 

Public Comments Received on the Draft Verified List

The following public comments were received on the draft Upper East Coast Basin Verified List. 

These comments were addressed to the greatest extent possible during development of the final 

draft Verified List. 

Submitted by: Jan Miller, Environmental Scientist III, Northern Coastal Basin Program, St. Johns 

River Water Management District. 

Date: August 21, 2006 

Content Summary: 

• Some areas that are classified as Class II waters according to 62-302 FAC are not 

classified as Class II in the Impaired Waters Rule (IWR) database. Proper identification 

of Class II waters in the Upper East Coast is of utmost importance since it may lead to 

TMDL development for areas not currently targeted for remediation. (Note – commentor 

provided a table identifying specific WBIDs of concern and suggested changes) 

• WBID boundary changes are needed to better reflect tidal flushing and circulation 

influences and allow for WBID boundaries to better reflect significant watershed 

boundaries. (Note – commentor provided a table identifying WBIDs of concern specific to 

this stormwater issue) 

• The commentor expressed concern about including J- and T-coded data in the IWR 

assessment. The commentor felt this data should not be used, or at least should be 

examined to identify and remove obvious outliers. 

• An issue with missing data was identified. The commentor requested that the list not be 

finalized until this issue is resolved. 

Submitted by: Carolyn Farmer, BCI Engineers and Scientists, under contract with Volusia County 

Date: April 17, 2007 

Content Summary: 

• U-coded data should be closely evaluated before using such in trace metal 

evaluations. 

• Elevated iron may be due to a natural condition. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration

Bureau of Watershed Restoration

2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3565

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

(850) 245-8561

www.dep.state.fl.us/water