# 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 

# 5 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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.ht m

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.ht m

2004 305(b) Report http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/docs/2004_Integrated_Report.pd f

Criteria for Surface Water Quality Classifications http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/surface.ht m

Status/Assessment Reports http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/stat_rep.ht m

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. 

# 7 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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 EnvironmentalProtection’s (Department’s) watershed management approach for restoring and protecting water resources and addressing Total Maximum DailyLoad (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). TMDLsmust 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, thereport 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 localagencies 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 achievingwater 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 

# 9 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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,

1 4 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 meetingstandards 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 a re 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 a re 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: 

# 11 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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,

1 9 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 ca nt 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 significant 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 surficial 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 

# 13 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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 potentialimpairment 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 themixing 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 causedby 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. 

# 15 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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 

# 17 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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

T able 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 Cree k 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

N ortheast 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 

# 19 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

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

# 21 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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 3provide an integrated assessment for the Upper East Coast Basin, by planning unit. Appendix A describes the legislative and regulatory background forTMDL 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

STO rage and RET rieval 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 classification 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 nodesignated 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. 

# 23 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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 describeshow 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 waterquality, 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, provideslistings 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, TMDLallocation and implementation, and the development of a Basin Management

Action Plan. 

# 25 Noteworthy 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 theTolomato 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 expandingwestward 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 

# 27 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# (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 

# 29 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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 majorityof 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

o f 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 

# 31 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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): theNorth 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 theTolomato, 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 areasin 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 SurfaceWater 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

Oc ean and the drainage divide formed by the Talbot Terrace (25 to 42 feetabove 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, fineto-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 

# 33 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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, phosphaticsand, 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 confined 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 Eoceneage; 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 confined, 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 flowing 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 asdrinking 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 

# 35 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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 AreasThe SJRWMD has designated much of St. Johns and Volusia Count ies, and portions of Flagler County, as Priority Water Resource CautionAreas, 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 ofpolluted 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

si gnifi 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 andland 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 includeLocal Government Cooperative Stormwater Program–Priority Watersheds; North Peninsula Wastewater and Reuse–Phase 1; North Peninsula Swale and Stormwater Improvements–Phase 1; Raleigh Drive, Atlanta 

# 37 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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. AugustineDrainage 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 flooding, 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 effluent 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 programthrough 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 fish species. Over time, however, stormwater runoff, leaking septic systems, and restricted water flow 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, andpartnerships 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. 

# 39 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# The mission of the reserve system is “to promote stewardship of thenation’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, certification, and continuing education for professional fertilizer applicators. It applies specifically 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 developinterim 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 efficiency 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 inresponse 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. 

# 41 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# • Aquaculture Best Management Practices: As directed by the1998 Florida legislature, DACS worked cooperatively with industry, state agencies, and the environmental community to develop a comprehensive BMP manual for aquaculture. Florida law requiresthat 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 certified 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 fromthe 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 theassessment 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 generaldescription 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 discretesources 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.

. 

# 43 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# Update on Strategic Monitoring and DataGathering Activities During Phase 2

During Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle, strategic monitor

ing 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 Protec

tion’s (Department’s) Northeast District staff and included both chemical and biological monitoring and data upload to STO rage and RET rieval (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 appli

cable 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 monitor

ing 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. Environ

mental 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 descrip

t ion 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

r ecord 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

c ontributed 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% 

# 45 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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 qual

ity 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 require

ments 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 water bodies 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, suf

ficiency 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 (attain

ing some uses but with insufficient data to assess completely) than Category 1 (attaining all uses), because monitoring programs can sometimes pro

vide 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 water

bodies 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 physi

cal 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 pollut

ant 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 Assess

ment Report; waterbodies with water quality impair

ments due to other causes, or
unknown causes, are listed under Category 4c

. Although

TMDLs are not established for Category 4c waterbod

ies, these waterbodies still may be addressed through a watershed management program (for example, the Kissimmee River restoration)

. 

# 47 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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. Planningunits 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 define 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. 

# 49 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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 about200 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, St okes 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 

# 51 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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 

# 53 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

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

WBID Waterbody
Segment Waterbody
Type 1 

# Class 2 

# 1998
303(d) List

Parameters

of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3



# Potentially
Impaired (Cat.
3c) for Listed

Parameters 4 

# Verified Impaired
(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c,
or 5) for Listed

Parameters 5 

# Not Impaired
(Cat. 2) for

Listed

Parameters EPA’s
305(b)/303(d)
Integrated Report

Assessment
Category for

WBID 6



# 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
Type 1 

# Class 2 

# 1998
303(d) List

Parameters

of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3



# Potentially
Impaired (Cat.
3c) for Listed

Parameters 4 

# Verified Impaired
(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c,
or 5) for Listed

Parameters 5 

# Not Impaired
(Cat. 2) for

Listed

Parameters EPA’s
305(b)/303(d)
Integrated Report

Assessment
Category for

WBID 6



# 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) 

# 55 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# WBID Waterbody
Segment Waterbody
Type 1 

# Class 2 

# 1998
303(d) List

Parameters

of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3



# Potentially
Impaired (Cat.
3c) for Listed

Parameters 4 

# Verified Impaired
(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c,
or 5) for Listed

Parameters 5 

# Not Impaired
(Cat. 2) for

Listed

Parameters EPA’s
305(b)/303(d)
Integrated Report

Assessment
Category for

WBID 6



# 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
Type 1 

# Class 2 

# 1998
303(d) List

Parameters

of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3



# Potentially
Impaired (Cat.
3c) for Listed

Parameters 4 

# Verified Impaired
(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c,
or 5) for Listed

Parameters 5 

# Not Impaired
(Cat. 2) for

Listed

Parameters EPA’s
305(b)/303(d)
Integrated Report

Assessment
Category for

WBID 6



# 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 

# 57 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# WBID Waterbody
Segment Waterbody
Type 1 

# Class 2 

# 1998
303(d) List

Parameters

of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3



# Potentially
Impaired (Cat.
3c) for Listed

Parameters 4 

# Verified Impaired
(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c,
or 5) for Listed

Parameters 5 

# Not Impaired
(Cat. 2) for

Listed

Parameters EPA’s
305(b)/303(d)
Integrated Report

Assessment
Category for

WBID 6



# 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
Type 1 

# Class 2 

# 1998
303(d) List

Parameters

of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3



# Potentially
Impaired (Cat.
3c) for Listed

Parameters 4 

# Verified Impaired
(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c,
or 5) for Listed

Parameters 5 

# Not Impaired
(Cat. 2) for

Listed

Parameters EPA’s
305(b)/303(d)
Integrated Report

Assessment
Category for

WBID 6



# 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 

# 59 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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 andconditionally 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 significant 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 definition 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 ofthe 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 surfacewaters 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 noPhase 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 acomprehensive 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/orprograms 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. 

# 61 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# Environmental remediation activities cover a broad spectrum of cleanup programs. Theseinclude 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, runoffmay 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 apipe, 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 Remediationinstitutions) 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 solventcleanup 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 importantpart 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 threatto public health or the environment. Sites are listed on the NPLupon 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. TheEPA Superfund program administers the cleanup of NPL sites.

The Department’s state-funded cleanup program administers thecleanup of contaminated hazardous waste sites when enforcement action taken against a responsible party is unsuccessful or when no responsible party is
identified. 

# Noteworthy 

# 62 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 summarizesthe 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 

# 63 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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
Type 1 

# Class 2 

# 1998
303(d) List

Parameters

of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3



# Potentially
Impaired (Cat.
3c) for Listed

Parameters 4 

# Verified Impaired
(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c,
or 5) for Listed

Parameters 5 

# Not Impaired
(Cat. 2) for

Listed

Parameters EPA’s
305(b)/303(d)
Integrated Report

Assessment
Category for

WBID 6



# 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 

# 65 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# Table 3.7 (continued)

WBID Waterbody
Segment Waterbody
Type 1 

# Class 2 

# 1998
303(d) List

Parameters

of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3



# Potentially
Impaired (Cat.
3c) for Listed

Parameters 4 

# Verified Impaired
(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c,
or 5) for Listed

Parameters 5 

# Not Impaired
(Cat. 2) for

Listed

Parameters EPA’s
305(b)/303(d)
Integrated Report

Assessment
Category for

WBID 6



# 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. Approximately19 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). Thesehuman 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. 

# 67 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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/orprograms 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 

# 69 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

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

WBID Waterbody
Segment Waterbody
Type 1 

# Class 2 

# 1998
303(d) List

Parameters

of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3



# Potentially
Impaired (Cat.
3c) for Listed

Parameters 4 

# Verified Impaired
(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c,
or 5) for Listed

Parameters 5 

# Not Impaired
(Cat. 2) for

Listed

Parameters EPA’s
305(b)/303(d)
Integrated Report

Assessment
Category for

WBID 6



# 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
Type 1 

# Class 2 

# 1998
303(d) List

Parameters

of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3



# Potentially
Impaired (Cat.
3c) for Listed

Parameters 4 

# Verified Impaired
(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c,
or 5) for Listed

Parameters 5 

# Not Impaired
(Cat. 2) for

Listed

Parameters EPA’s
305(b)/303(d)
Integrated Report

Assessment
Category for

WBID 6



# 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 

# 71 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# Table 3.8 (continued)

WBID Waterbody
Segment Waterbody
Type 1 

# Class 2 

# 1998
303(d) List

Parameters

of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3



# Potentially
Impaired (Cat.
3c) for Listed

Parameters 4 

# Verified Impaired
(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c,
or 5) for Listed

Parameters 5 

# Not Impaired
(Cat. 2) for

Listed

Parameters EPA’s
305(b)/303(d)
Integrated Report

Assessment
Category for

WBID 6



# 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
Type 1 

# Class 2 

# 1998
303(d) List

Parameters

of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3



# Potentially
Impaired (Cat.
3c) for Listed

Parameters 4 

# Verified Impaired
(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c,
or 5) for Listed

Parameters 5 

# Not Impaired
(Cat. 2) for

Listed

Parameters EPA’s
305(b)/303(d)
Integrated Report

Assessment
Category for

WBID 6



# 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 ), Turbidity 3c

2674A Spruce

Creek Estuary IIIM Saxitoxin Copper, DO,
Fecal Coliforms,
Iron, Mercury in

Fish, Nutrients
(Chlorophyll a ) Nutrients (Chlorophyll a ), Turbidity 5

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) 

# 73 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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. Approximately26 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). Thesehuman 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. 

# 75 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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 discussionand 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 ain 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

i n the basin: the surficial 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 severalstream 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

a s 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. 

# 77 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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 presentat 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 identifi ed with a natural source, and

elevated iron concentrations are common in the surficial 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 

# 79 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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 OxygenDO levels can be depressed in surface water systems because of nutrien t enrichment and/or biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Low DO canalso be attributed to poor water circulation caused by stream channelization or disruption in fl ows. In addition, ground water inflows, 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 edList, 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 su mmarizes 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). 

# 81 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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 surficial 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 withthe 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-specific 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 

# 83 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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 vestreams 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, nitrogenappears 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 identified 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 TolomatoRiver (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. 

# 85 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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 surficial 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 MaximumDaily 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 ofimpairment in the waterbodies listed for iron, and ground-water-delivered iron is significant. 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 thepublic 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 publichad 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 

# 87 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# Identification of Impaired Waters

As discussed in Chapter 2, waters on the Verifi ed and Planning Lists must meet specifi c thresholds and data sufficiency 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 sufficient data to be analyzed in accordance with the requirements of the IWR will remain on the 1998 303(d) list of impaired waters maintained by the 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 theentire 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 commentperiod 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

Ve rifi 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 criteriaare 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 thebasin 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

Class 1 

# 1998 303(d)

Parameter

of Concern Parameters
Identified Using
the Impaired

Surface

Waters Rule Priority

for TMDL
Development 2 

# Projected

Year for

TMDL
Development 2 

# Comments 3


# (# 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. 

# 89 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# WBID Waterbody
Segment Waterbody
Type Waterbody

Class 1 

# 1998 303(d)

Parameter

of Concern Parameters
Identified Using
the Impaired

Surface

Waters Rule Priority

for TMDL
Development 2 

# Projected

Year for

TMDL
Development 2 

# Comments 3


# (# 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

Class 1 

# 1998 303(d)

Parameter

of Concern Parameters
Identified Using
the Impaired

Surface

Waters Rule Priority

for TMDL
Development 2 

# Projected

Year for

TMDL
Development 2 

# Comments 3


# (# 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 valuefor 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) 

# 91 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# WBID Waterbody
Segment Waterbody
Type Waterbody

Class 1 

# 1998 303(d)

Parameter

of Concern Parameters
Identified Using
the Impaired

Surface

Waters Rule Priority

for TMDL
Development 2 

# Projected

Year for

TMDL
Development 2 

# Comments 3


# (# 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

Class 1 

# 1998 303(d)

Parameter

of Concern Parameters
Identified Using
the Impaired

Surface

Waters Rule Priority

for TMDL
Development 2 

# Projected

Year for

TMDL
Development 2 

# Comments 3


# (# 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) 

# 93 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# WBID Waterbody
Segment Waterbody
Type Waterbody

Class 1 

# 1998 303(d)

Parameter

of Concern Parameters
Identified Using
the Impaired

Surface

Waters Rule Priority

for TMDL
Development 2 

# Projected

Year for

TMDL
Development 2 

# Comments 3


# (# 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

Class 1 

# 1998 303(d)

Parameter

of Concern Parameters
Identified Using
the Impaired

Surface

Waters Rule Priority

for TMDL
Development 2 

# Projected

Year for

TMDL
Development 2 

# Comments 3


# (# 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)

2 

# Priority 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 origi nally low. In the case of mercury in fish, the priority remains low. Where a parameter was only identified as impaired under the IW R, priorities of high, medium, or low were used.

3 

# Planning 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) 

# 95 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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 31 1

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 inthese 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)

. 

# 97 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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 sufficient 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 Verifi ed 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 

# 99 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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 Verified 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 fish (due to the current insuffi cient understanding of how mercury cycles in the
environment); 

# 101 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# • Canals, urban drainage ditches, and other artificial 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 ownevaluation 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 qualityinformation 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

H alifax 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 

# 103 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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 E stuary 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 

# 105 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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 ofa 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 specific 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 flow 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 commonlylisted 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

T MDL 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. 

# 107 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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 stormwaterdischarges, 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’sNPDES 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 byestablishing 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 ApproachesThe FWRA designates the Department as the lead agency in coordin ating 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. 

# 109 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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. 

# 111 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

# 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 TribeWater 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 Regula tory Background on the Watershed Management Approach and the Impl ementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads ................................................................................................................... . 115 Federal and State Legislation on Surface Wate r Quality and Total Maximum Daily Loads ...... 115 Determining Impairment Based on the Stat e’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 fo r 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 Evaluatio n of Pollution Control Mechanisms ............................. 127 Responsible Parties for Reasonabl e 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 Wa ter 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 Reducti ons from Restoration Actions ..................................................... 131

New Sources/ Growth ............................................................................................................ ...... 131 Examples of Reasonable Progress ............................................................................................... 131 Long-Term Requirements ........................................................................................................ ... 132



# Appendix C: Methodology for Determ ining 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 Ca tegories 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 Repor t (Master List) for the Upper East Coast Basin, by Planning Unit ...................................................................................... 142 Table D.2: Water Quality Monitoring Statio ns 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 Disc harges 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 Surf ace 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 biolog ical integrity of th e 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 wate rs” (33 U.S.C. § 1251[a][1]). Section 305(b) of the Clean Wate r 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, chem ical, biological, and cultural features of

each river basin in Florida. This initial assessment provides a co mmon factual basis for identifying information sources and major issu es, 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 Wa ter 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 th ese 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 thes e 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 u se (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 th e environmental group Earthjustice over Florida’s TMDL Program. The Consent Decr ee 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 la wsuit and in recognition of the important role that TMDLs play in re storing state waters, the 1999 Fl orida legislature enacted the Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA) (Cha pter 99-223, Laws of Florida). The act clarified the Florida Department of Envir onmental Protection’s (Department) statutory authority to establish TMDLs, required th e 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 im paired waters developed using this new methodology, and directed the Department to es tablish an Allocation Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC) to address the allocation pr ocess 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) lis t submitted to the EPA in 1998 is for planning purposes only.



# • Requires the Department to adopt 303(d) listi ng criteria (that is, the methodology used to define impaired waters) by rule.



# • Requires the Department to verify impairm ent 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, lis t 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 Febr uary 2001 addressing the allocation process.



# • Authorizes the Department to develop basin plans to implement TMDLs, coordinating with the water management districts, the Florida Depa rtment of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS), the Soil and Water Conservation Distri cts, regulated parties, and environmental groups in assessing waterbodies for impairm ent, 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 dev elop 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 ad opted by rule and the Department verifies their effectiveness, then implementation will provi de a presumption of compliance with water quality standards.



# • Directs the Department to document the effect iveness of the combined regulatory/voluntary approach and report to the legislature by January 1, 2005. The report will include participation rates and recommendat ions for statutory changes.



# Determining Impairment Based on the State’s Impaired Surface Waters Rule

Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Wate r Act and the FWRA describe impaired waters as those waterbodies or waterbody se gments that do not meet applicable water quality standards. “Impairment” is a broa d term that includes designated uses, water quality criteria, the Florida antidegrada tion 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 Fl orida Environmental Regulation Commission on April 26, 2001. It provides a science-ba sed methodology for evaluating water quality data in order to identify impaired waters, and establishes specific criteria for impairment based on chemical parameters, the interpretatio n 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/R ules/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 statisti cal 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 narr ative 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 (t hat 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 demons trate 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 disc harge, 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, econ omic, and environmental costs of such applicability outweigh the benefits.



# Determining impairment in individual water bodies takes place in two phases. First, in each river basin the Department evaluate s the existing water quality data, using the methodology prescribed in the IWR, to de termine 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 poten tially 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 pr oduced 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 Pla nning List. The Depart ment is required to develop TMDLs for waters on the Verified List under Subsection 403.067(4), F.S. A watershed management plan (called a Basi n 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 Secretar ial Order in accordance with the FWRA. Once adopted, the list is submitted to the EP A 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 fr amework for implementing TMDLs as required by the federal and state governments. The a pproach 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 regulator y boundaries. Federal, state, regional, tribal, and local governments identify watersheds not meeting clean water or other natural resource goals and work coope ratively to focus resources and implement effective strategies to rest ore 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 si ngle solutions to water resource issues, it is intended to improve the health of su rface water and ground water resources by strengthening coordination among such act ivities 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 wate rshed basis, this approach is intended to protect and enhance the ecol ogical structure, function, a nd integrity of Florida’s watersheds. It provides a framework for sett ing priorities and focu sing the Department’s resources on protecting and restoring water quality, and ai ms to increase cooperation among state, regional, local, a nd federal interests. By emphasizing public involvement, the approach encourages stewardship by all Fl oridians 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 multiage ncy projects. It avoids duplication by building on existing assessments and restorat ion 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 load ings allocated, as part of a watershed management cycle that rotates through the st ate’s 52 river basins ove r 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 pr oposed 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 Mo nitoring and Assessment. Additional data are collected through strategic monitoring and uploaded to STORET. The data are used to verify whether potentially impaired wa ters in each basin are impa ired 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 provid es an updated and more thorough evaluation of water quality, associated bi ological 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 po llutant loadings from point and nonpoint

sources will be allocated and reduced in order to meet TMDL requirements. The plans will include regulator y and nonregulatory (i.e., volunt ary) and structural and nonstructural strategies, and existing manageme nt plans will be used where feasible. The involvement and support of affected stakeh olders 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, in forming stakeholders and the public, and monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the plan.

To implement the watershed cycle, the stat e’s river basins have been divided into five groups within each of the Department’s si x 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 rota tion schedule for TMDL developm ent and implementation, shows that it will take nine years to complete one full cycle of the state. The watershed management cycle is an iterati ve, or repeated, proce ss. One of its key components is that the effec tiveness of management activ ities (TMDL implementation) will be monitored in successive cycles. M onitoring conducted in Phase 2 of subsequent

# Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

# 121

cycles will be targeted at evaluating whethe r water quality objectives are being met and whether individual waters are no longer impaired. The Department also will track the implementation of scheduled restoration activ ities, 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

Yea r 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

1 s t 

# Five-Year Cycle – High-Priority Waters 2 n d 

# Five-Year Cycle – Medium-Priority Waters

Note: Projected years for Phases 3, 4, and 5 may chang e due to accelerated local activities, length of plan development, legal challenges, etc.122Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastFigure 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, organizati ons, and individuals w ho contribute to these discharges will be asked to share the res ponsibility 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

N ATIONAL 

# P OLLUTANT 

# D ISCHARGE 

# E LIMINATION 

# S YSTEM 

# P ERMITS


# All point sources that discharge to surf ace waterbodies require an NPDES permit. These permits can be classified into two t ypes: 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 De partment 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 NP DES municipal stormwater permits, the Department intends to insert the followi ng 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

D OMESTIC AND 

# I NDUSTRIAL 

# W ASTEWATER 

# P ERMITS


# In addition to NPDES-permitted facilities, a ll of which discharge to surface waters, Florida also regulates domes tic and industrial wastewater discharges to ground water via land application. Since ground wa ter and surface water are so intimately linked in much of the state, reductions in loadings from th ese 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 modi fications of the existing state permits.

F LORIDA 

# S TORMWATER 

# /E NVIRONMENTAL 

# R ESOURCE 

# P ERMITS


# With the implementation of the state’s st ormwater 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 No rthwest Florida Water Management District, new development projects receive an Envir onmental Resource Permit that combines stormwater flood protection, stormwater trea tment, and wetland protection/mitigation into a single permit. These permits are desi gned to obtain 80 percent average annual load reduction of total suspended solids. This le vel of treatment may n eed to be increased, depending on the allocation of load reductions, especially for nutrients. For example, the St. Johns River Water Management District recently adopted basi n-specific criteria for the Lake Apopka watershed that require th e phosphorus loading from new development not to exceed predevelopment phosphorus loading.

L OCAL 

# L AND 

# D EVELOPMENT 

# C ODES


# Since structural stormwater treatment prac tices can only achieve certain levels of load reductions, and because the hydrologic changes accompanying urban development often cause ecological impacts to aquatic sy stems, local land development codes that promote “low-impact development” are an im portant 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 protecti on of vegetation, promote the protection and restoration of riparian buffers along streams and lakes, and adopt the principles of the Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Progr am in local landscaping codes.

B EST 

# M ANAGEMENT 

# P RACTICES


# Typically, BMPs refer to a practice or co mbination of practices that, based on sound science and best professional judgment, are determined to be the most effective and practicable means of reduci ng nonpoint source pollutant di scharges and improving water quality. Both economic and technological cons iderations are included in the evaluation of what is practicable. BMPs may include stru ctural controls (such as retention areas or detention ponds) or nonstr uctural controls (such as street sweeping or public education). Many BMPs have been developed for urban st ormwater to reduce pollutant loadings and peak flows. These BMPs accommodate site-specific conditions, including soil type, slope, depth to ground water, and th e 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 th e BMP development process for agricultural operations. In essence, IMs ar e 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 ag ricultural nonpoint s ources. Once verified, agricultural operations that have implemented BMPs will receive a waiver of liability and presumption of compliance similar to th at granted a developer who obtains an

Environmental Resource Permit.

O THER 

# S TRATEGIES


# 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, othe r possible strategies for meeting TMDLs, restoring water quality, and preventing the fu rther degradation of Florida’s watersheds include cost sharing, waste minimization, pollu tion prevention, new approaches to land use design and development, and pollutant trading. The Department will assemble a Technical Advisory Committee to help devel op a pollutant-trading ru le, which must be reviewed by the legislature prior to its adop tion. The Department will also continue to

work with local stakeholders on TMDL a llocation issues and im plementation plans.

Sources of Information

For additional information on the Depart ment’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 (excep t 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 imp lementing TMDLs, contact Jan MandrupPoulsen at (850) 245-8448. Additional informa tion is available on the Department’s Web site at www.dep.state.fl.us/w ater/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 Developmen t of Documentation To Provide Reasonable Assurance that Proposed Pollu tion 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, wh en evaluating whether there is sufficient

reasonable assurance that:

1. Proposed pollution control mechanisms (typically described in watershed management or restoration plans) addre ssing impaired waters will result in the attainment of applicable water quality st andards (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 rela ted 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 establis h specific criteria on

what constitutes reasonable assurance.

It should be noted that the term “reas onable assurance” is used throughout many Department programs and rules, and this guidance specifically addresses the issues

related to the “reasonabl e assurance” provided by proposed pollution control mechanisms. This guidance should not be us ed to evaluate the meaning of reasonable assurance in other contexts, par ticularly 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 qua lity 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 purs uant to the Florida Watershe d 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 stat e’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 in clude waters with TMDLs and waters impaired by pollution).



# Current Rule Text Relating to Evaluati on of Pollution Co ntrol 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 im paired, the Department shall evaluate whether existing or proposed technol ogy-based effluent limitations and other pollution control programs under local, state, or federal authority are sufficient to

result in the attainment of a pplicable water qua lity 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 futu re and is expected to make reasonable progress towards attainment of water qual ity 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 assuran ce that the waterbody segment will attain applicable water qu ality standards.



# Responsible Parties for Reason able Assurance Demonstration

It is ultimately the Department’s responsib ility to assure adequate documentation in

the administrative record whenever the De partment 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 wa ter and those to not list a wa ter for a given pollutant). However, the Department expects that local st akeholders will often offer to prepare the necessary documentation to demonstrate re asonable assurance th at 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-sp ecific Verified Lists as part of its watershed management cycle, which rotates th rough all of the state’ s basins over a fiveyear, five-phased cycle 1 

# . During the first phase of the cycle, the Department will assess water quality in the basin and prepare a dr aft Planning List of potentially impaired waters. The Department and interested part ies will then have approximately one year (Phase 2) to monitor waters on the pla nning list and prepare documentation, as appropriate, to provide reasonable assurance th at impaired waters will be restored. The Department will review submittals from interested parties during Phase 2, before adopting the Verified List for the basin cont aining 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, stat e, or federal authority.” A pollution control program will be considered "under loca l, state, or federal authority" if the program is subject to or re quired 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 action s 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 pr ograms of EPA, the Department, and the water management di stricts, and reducti ons at these nonpoint sources will be voluntary. In fact, pollu tion control mechanisms for these nonpoint sources would be voluntary even if a TMDL we re 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 mainta in 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 pl an 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 tw o years, but Florida plan s 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 impaire d 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 reasona ble assurance addressing only selected pollutants, which could result in the Department not listi ng the waterbody segment for those pollutants, but still listing it for othe rs. In this event, TMDLs will only be developed for the remaining listed pollutants.



# Information To Consider and Docu ment 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 a nd watershed, the watershed/8-digit cataloging unit code, the NHD identifier (whe n 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 identifie d 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 Qua lity or Aquatic Ecological Goals —a description of the water qua lity–based targets or aqua tic ecological goals (both interim and final) that have been established for the pollutant(s) of concern, the averaging period for any numeric water qu ality goals, a discussion of how these goals will result in the rest oration 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 actio ns are needed.

3. A Description of the Proposed Man agement Actions To Be Undertaken

— names of the responsible participating en tities (government, private, others), a summary and list of existing or propos ed management activities designed to restore water quality, the geographic scope of any proposed management activities, documentation of the estimat ed pollutant load reduction and other benefits anticipated from implementation of individual management actions, copies of written agreements committing pa rticipants to the management actions, a discussion on how future growth and new sources will be addressed, confirmed sources of funding, an implementation sc hedule (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 qua lity monitoring program to be implemented (including station locations, parameters sampled, a nd 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 res ponsible monitoring a nd reporting entity; the frequency and format for reporting results; the freque ncy 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 impl ementation of the management actions or if management actions are not co mpleted on schedule, and a process for notifying the Department that these corre ctive actions are being implemented.



# Water Quality–Based Targets and Aquatic Ecological Goals

Some of the most important elements liste d 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 e quate 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 hydrodyna mic/water quality model. In some cases, there may be sufficient hi storical data (pal eolimnological data, loadings from periods predating the impairmen t, or baseline data for Outstanding Florida

Waters 2 

# , for example) that could be used to dete rmine an appropriate water quality target. In other cases, simplified modeling (incl uding 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 qual ity target may have been developed that would be scientifically equiva lent to (or act as the basis for) a TMDL, but the target has not been administratively adopted as a TM DL. In each of these cases, a sound water quality target could be used to evalua te whether the proposed pollution control mechanisms will sufficiently reduce loadings to meet the assimilative capacity of the water in question and result in at tainment 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 designa ted uses. Examples of such interim targets are provided in the last section of this docum ent, 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 expre ssed in a variety of ways and need not be expressed as “daily lo ads.” Annual averages or medians are often appropriate for some parameters, but shorte r-term (seasonal, for example) averages maybe 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 wate r quality target.



# Estimates of Pollutant Reducti ons 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 po llutant of concern to a level that will restore the water’s designated uses, documentation should address how the reductions were calculated, in cluding providing documented values from the scientific

literature for reductions attri buted 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 documenta tion 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 mu st 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 agricultura l development that results in increased nutrient loading from stor mwater, 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 progre ss towards restoration of the designated uses of the impaired water. Possible exampl es of reasonable progre ss 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 reducti on (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 decreas e (or alternatively, a percent decrease consistent with meeting the water quality ta rget by the specified date) in the annual average concentration of the polluta nt(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 meas ured by bioassessment procedures similar to those used to determine impairment and conducted in si milar conditions; or

• Adoption of a local ordinance that specifica lly provides water quality goals, restricts growth or loads tied to the pollutant(s ) of concern, and provides an enforcement option if the proposed management measur e(s) are not implemented as required.

Reasonable progress must be made by the ti me 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 y ears, and the IWR was specifically worded to allow a longer time frame for requiring reas onable progress in the event that the listing cycle changes.



# Long-Term Requirements

If at any time the Department determines that reasonable assu rance and reasonable progress are not being met, the order adopti ng the Verified List will be amended to include the waterbody on the Ve rified 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 guida nce memo, contact Daryll Joyner of the Department’s Bureau of Watershed Ma nagement in Tallahassee at 850-245-8431.

# Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

# 133

Appendix C: Methodology fo r Determining Impairment Based on the Impaired Sur face 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 Identifi cation of Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) (Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Co de [F.A.C.]). The rule establishes specific criteria and thresholds for impairment, in addition to data sufficiency and data quality requirements. The methodology describe d in the rule is based on a statistical approach designed to provide greater confid ence 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/lega l/Rules/shared/ 62-303/62-303.pdf. As part of the watershed management appr oach, for each river ba sin 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 wate rs 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 Planni ng 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 me thodology in Part III, Section 62-303.400, F.A.C., the Department will determine if wa ters 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 year s should not be used to verify impairment. The Verified List will be adopted by Secr etarial 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 pr eviously, 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 attain ment status for both the state’s 305(b) report and the state’s 303(d) list of impaired wa ters, the Department uses EPA terminology when assessing waters for use attainment. The water quality evaluations and decision processes for listing impaired waters that ar e 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 as signed 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 qua lity for each basin statewide includes an analysis of quantitative data from a vari ety of sources, many of which are readily available to the public. These sources in clude the EPA’s Legacy and modernized

STO rage and RET rieval (STORET) databases, the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Department, the Florida Department of Hea lth (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 da ta 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 da ta quality assuranc e/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 d ecreased dramatically, and lingering problems have temporarily reduced STORET’s importance as a statewide data source. It houses only about 5 percent of th e statewide IWR Database. Approximately 35 percent of the data used in the IWR assessment was provided by individual organizations that for various r easons, such as time constraints or resource limitations, were not able to en ter their data into the nationa l database. The organizations providing the largest datasets in clude the South Florida, Sout hwest Florida, and St. Johns River Water Management Distri cts; the USGS; and the University of Florida LakeWatch volunteer monitoring group. Severa l of these databases are read ily available to the public

# Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

# 135

via the Internet: the South Florid a 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 Verifi ed List assessment, the window is 7.5 years (for the IWR Database), and the Planni ng List assessment window is 10 years. Table

C.2 shows the periods of record for the Verifi ed and Planning List s 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 Planni ng 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 qualit y in individual river basins in Florida, three categories of data—chemistry data, biological data, and fish consumption advisories—were evaluated to determine pot ential impairments for the designated use attainment categories discussed earlier: aqua tic 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 independe nt 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 indi cators (numeric water quality criteria, nutrient thresholds, biological thresholds, and toxicity data).

# 136 Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast

E XCEEDANCES OF 

# N UMERIC 

# W ATER 

# Q UALITY 

# C RITERIA


# 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. Wa ter quality information from point sources

or wells was excluded. Monito ring stations were classified as one of five waterbody types—spring, stream, lake, estuary, or black water—based on criter ia described in the latest 305(b) report. The assessmen ts 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 include d a minimum of 10 temporally independent samples from th e 10-year period of record shown in Table C.2, unless there were 3 exceedances of water qua lity or 1 exceedance of an acute toxicity criterion in a 3-year period. The screeni ng methodology for the Verified List requires at least 20 samples from the last 5 years pr eceding 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 act ual 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 tw o exceptions. First, unionized ammonia data were not analyzed by the program, but rath er with an Excel spreadsheet. Second, because the full complexity of the pH criter ion 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 identific ation numbers (WBIDs ), waterbody types, and parameters obtained from the STORET Da tabase were conducted using Access, SAS statistical software, and Ar cView geographic information system (GIS) applications The data for metals and conventional para meters 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 exceedan ces. A waterbody was placed on the Planning List if there was at least 80 percent confiden ce 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

E XCEEDANCES OF 

# N UTRIENT 

# T HRESHOLDS


# The state currently has a narra tive nutrient criterion instead of a numeric value for

nutrient thresholds. The narrative criterion states, “In no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of wa ter be altered so as to cau se an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna.” The IWR provides an interpretation of the

narrative nutrient crite rion. In general, the TSI and the annual mean chlorophyll a values are the primary means for assessing whethe r 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 (e ither in density or aerial c overage) of seagrasses or other submerged aquatic vegetation, changes in al gal species richness, and excessive diel oxygen swings. Potential nutrient impairment was evalua ted 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 nitr ogen 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 ( μ g/L), or if annual mean chlorophyll a values increased by more than 50 percen t over historical values for at least two consecutive years. For streams, a wate r was considered nutri ent enriched if the annual mean chlorophyll a values were greater than 20 μ g/L, or if the annual mean increased by more than 50 percent over hist orical 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 cons idered 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.

E XCEEDANCES OF 

# B IOLOGICAL 

# T HRESHOLDS



# 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 th e generation and analysis of bioassessment

data. These are referenced in the individua l bioassessment data tabl es contained in the Status Reports. The purpose behind using a bioassessment methodology in surface water

characterizations is that bi ological components of the envi ronment manifest long-term water quality conditions and thus provide a bette r indication of a wate rbody’s true health than discrete chemical or physical measurements alone. Similar to water quality criteria,

bioassessment methods involve the identific ation 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 assessm ents, the reference condition data were used to establish expected scores, ranging from best to wors t, for various measures of community structure and function, such as numbe rs or percentages of particular species or feeding groups. Data on community stru cture and function from waters of unknown quality in the same region as reference waters were compared with the expected scores of

metrics to evaluate th eir biological integrity. Metrics (e.g., number of taxa, percent Dipt era, percent filter feeders) were used independently and as an aggr egated group called an index. Indices have advantages over individual metrics in that they can integrat e several related metrics into one score that reflects a wider range of biol ogical variables. A number of bioassessment metrics and indices exist for assessing populations of plan t and animal life, including fish, diatoms (e.g., microscopic algae and unicellular plankt on), and macroinvertebrates (e.g., insects, crayfish, snails, and mussels). Only macroinvertebrate data from ambient si tes 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 Di scharge Elimination System (NPDES) fifth-year insp ections, but excluded data fr om effluent outfalls from discharging facilities, or data from monitoring sites not cl early established to collect ambient water quality data. Because s ite-specific habitat and physicochemical assessment information (e.g., percent suitable m acroinvertebrate habita t, 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 a nd Verified Lists were obtained from the Department’s Biological Database (SBI O) 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 proce dures referenced in the IWR (Section 62- 303.330, F.A.C.).

The data from these databases are used w ithout 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, a nd dry seasons are fall and winter, although conditions can vary in the state as a whole.

L AKE 

# C ONDITION 

# I NDEX


# The scoring of the individual metrics of the Lake Condition Index (LCI), except percent Diptera, was performed acco rding 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 percen tile of the reference population and B

= observed value

An average LCI score was cal culated by averaging the scor es 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 bioassess ments. A poor or very poor rating based on the average score constituted a failed bioassessment, based on the IWR.

S TREAM 

# C ONDITION 

# I NDEX


# 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; pe rcent filter feeders; and Florida Index. A poor or very poor rating based on the total sc ore constituted a failed bioassessment, based on the IWR. The Water Quality Status Repor ts contain definitions and specific methods for the generation and analysis of bioassessment data.

B IO 

# R ECON


# 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 wate r was deemed “impaired” based on the IWR.

B IOLOGICAL 

# I NTEGRITY 

# S TANDARD


# 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 th e Biological Integrity St andard of Subsection 62-302.530(11), F.A.C. One failure of the sta ndard meant that a waterbody segment was listed as potentially impaired.

E VALUATION OF 

# T OXICITY 

# D ATA


# Although the IWR describes the use of toxicity data for the assessment of aquatic life-based attainment, no ambient toxicity da ta 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 b acteriological data,

• The waterbody segment included a bathing area for which a local health department or county government issued closures, advi sories, 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 dur ing a calendar year based on previous bacteriological data or on de rived relationships between bact eria levels and rainfall or

flow.

Fish and Shellfish Consumption Attainment

For Class I, II, or III waters, a waterbody wa s 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 appr oved for shellfish harvesting but were downgraded to a more restrictive classificat ion were listed as potentially impaired.

Drinking Water Attainment and Protection of Human Health

For Class I waters, a waterbody was potenti ally impaired if it did not meet the applicable Class I water quality criteria.

# Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast 

# 141

Appendix D: Integrated Assess ment (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 iden tification numbers (WBIDs). Information in this appendix was obtaine d from an inventory of the Legacy and modernized STORET databases, as well as data contributed dire ctly to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (D epartment) by individual data providers.

Table D.2 includes only stations with data from the Planning and Verified assessment periods.142Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastTable D.1: Integrated Water Quality Report (Master List) for the Upper East Coast Basin, by Planning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2620 Bulow Creek Stream AluminumNI2PP - 0/50 VP - 0/482620 Bulow Creek Stream ArsenicNI2PP - 5/59 VP - 3/492620 Bulow Creek Stream CadmiumNI2PP - 0/54 VP - 0/412620 Bulow Creek Stream CopperNI2PP - 12/57 VP - 5/442620 Bulow Creek Stream LeadNI2PP -4/56 VP - 1/382620 Bulow Creek Stream NickelNI2PP -12/55 VP - 5/432620 Bulow Creek Stream Nutrients(Chla)NI2Annual averages didnot exceed the 20μg/L threshold forstreams. Annualaverages: 1994 -17.17 μg/L; 1996 -6.98 μg/L; 1997 - 6.76μg/L; 1998 - 9.39μg/L; 1999 - 10.28μg/L;2001 - 14.08μg/L; 2002 - 9.86μg/L;2004 - 13.97μg/L.Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast143WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2620 Bulow Creek Stream Nutrients(Histchla)NI 2 Annual averagechlorophyll a valuesdid no exceed thehistorical minimum of10.1 ug/L by morethan 50% for at leasttwo consecutiveyears. Annualaverages: 1994 -17.17 μg/L; 1996 -6.98 μg/L; 1997 - 6.76μg/L; 1998 - 9.39μg/L; 1999 - 10.28μg/L; 2001 - 14.08μg/L; 2002 - 9.86μg/L; 2004 -13.97μg/L.2620 Bulow Creek Stream SeleniumNI2PP - 3/50 VP - 0/642620 Bulow Creek Stream TurbidityNI2PP - 0/61 VP - 0/462620 Bulow Creek Stream ZincNI2PP - 0/60 VP - 0/422634 TomokaRiverStream Arsenic NI 2 PP - 0/12 VP - 0/4144Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2634 TomokaRiverStream Biology NI 2 "Excellent" SCI scorein 1992, 1993 (2),1994(2), 1995, 1996,1998, 2000 (2);"Good" SCI scores in2000 and 2003;"Poor" SCI in 2005.Possible referencestream.2634 TomokaRiverStream Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP - 41/267 VP -20/150 .2634 TomokaRiverStream Fluoride NI 2 PP - 0/54 VP - 0/782634 TomokaRiverStream Iron NI 2 PP - 13/31 . VP -2/21 .2634 TomokaRiverStream Nutrients(Chla)NI 2 No annual averageexceeds the 20 μg/Lthreshold for streams.Annual averages are:1994 - 4.25 μg/L,1995- 3.34, 1996 - 2.32μg/L, 1997 - 2.26μg/L, 1998 - 2.49μg/L, 1999 - 3.69μg/L, 2000 - 2.65μg/L, 2001 - 1.78μg/L, 2002 - 1.88μg/L, 2003 - 2.20μg/L, 2004 - 1.55μg/L. .Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast145WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2634 TomokaRiverStream Nutrients(Histchla)NI 2 No two consecutiveyears of annualaverage chlorophyll avalues exceeded thehistorical minimum of2.05 ug/L by morethan 50%. Annualaverages are: 1994 -4.25 μg/L,1995 - 3.34,1996 - 2.32 μg/L,1997 - 2.26 μg/L,1998 - 2.49 μg/L,1999 - 3.69 μg/L,2000 - 2.65 μg/L,2001 - 1.78 μg/L,2002 - 1.88 μg/L,2003 - 2.20 μg/L,2004 - 1.55 μg/L.2634 TomokaRiverStream Turbidity NI 2 PP - 3/278 VP -1/1472634 TomokaRiverStream UnionizedAmmoniaNI 2 PP - 0/102 VP - 0/972634 TomokaRiverStream Zinc NI 2 PP - 2/28 VP - 0/02635 GroverBranchStream Turbidity NI 2 PP - 0/1 VP -0/242645 MiznersBranchStream Biology NI 2 "Excellent" SCI in2000; "Good" SCI in2000.146Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2645 MiznersBranchStream Iron NI 2 PP - 0/1 VP - 0/212645 MiznersBranchStream Turbidity NI 2 PP - 0/1 VP - 0/212646 LittleTomokaRiverStream Biology NI 2 "Healthy" Biorecons in1997, 1998 (3), one"Suspect" Biorecon in1998; two "Excellent"SCI scores in 2000;one "Healthy"Biorecon in 2003.2646 LittleTomokaRiverStream TurbidityNI2PP - 0/1 VP - 0/222664 Reed Canal Stream Fecal ColiformNI2PP - 1/1 VP -0/202664 Reed Canal Stream TurbidityNI2PP - 0/1 VP -0/202670 Halifax Canal Stream DissolvedOxygenNI 2 PP - 4/25 VP - 5/352670 Halifax Canal Stream TurbidityNI2PP - 0/22 VP - 0/222672 Rose Bay Estuary Fecal ColiformNI2PP -20/114 VP -1/39Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast147WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2672 Rose Bay Estuary Nutrients(Histchla)NI 2 No two consecutiveyears of annualaverage chlorophyll avalues exceeded thehistorical minimum of7.73 ug/L by morethan 50%. Annualaverages: 1994 -15.40 μg/L; 1995 -8.27 μg/L; 1996 - 7.41μg/L; 1997 - 6.80μg/L; 1998 - 8.99μg/L; 2001 - 9.92μg/L; 2002 - 10.94μg/L; 2003 - 15.33μg/L; 2005 - 5.40μg/L.2672 Rose Bay Estuary TurbidityNI2PP - 0/118 VP - 0/02673 UnnamedDrainStream Nutrients(Chla)NI 2 Annual average doesnot exceed the 20μg/L threshold forstreams. Only annualaverage is from 2005- 2.65 μg/L.2673 UnnamedDrainStream Turbidity NI 2 PP - 0/2 VP - 2/262674 SpruceCreekStream Arsenic NI 2 PP - 0/31 VP - 0/302674 SpruceCreekStream Cadmium NI 2 PP - 0/28 VP - 0/32148Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2674 SpruceCreekStream Chromium3 NI 2 PP - 0/31 VP - 0/332674 SpruceCreekStream Copper NI 2 PP - 1/52 VP - 1/33Nutrients (Chla)2674 SpruceCreekStream DissolvedOxygenNI 2 PP - 9/52 VP - 9/59. Nutrients (Chla)2674 SpruceCreekStream Lead NI 2 PP - 3/39 VP - 3/26Nutrients (Chla)2674 SpruceCreekStream Nickel NI 2 PP - 0/34 VP - 0/33Nutrients (Chla)2674 SpruceCreekStream Nutrients(Chla)NI 2 Annual average for1997 exceeds thethreshold of 20 μg/Lfor streams. Annualaverages: 1995 - 8.48ug/L; 1996 - 1.08μg/L, 1997 - 21.22ug/L; 1998 - 9.06ug/L; 1999 - 1.57μg/L, 2000 - 2.82μg/L, 2001- 7.56 ug/L;2002 - 1.25 μg/L;2003 - 2.19 μg/L;2005 - 2.80 μg/L.Nutrients (Chla)Delist since theannual for every yearafter 1997 has beenless than thethreshold.Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast149WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2674 SpruceCreekStream Nutrients(Histchla)NI 2 The historic minimumannual chlorophyllaverage of 10.19 ug/Lwas not exceeded bymore than 50% fortwo consecutiveyears. Annualaverages: 1995 - 8.48ug/L; 1996 - 1.08μg/L, 1997 - 21.22ug/L; 1998 - 9.06ug/L; 1999 - 1.57μg/L, 2000 - 2.82μg/L, 2001- 7.56 ug/L;2002 - 1.25 μg/L;2003 - 2.19 μg/L;2005 - 2.80 μg/L.2674 SpruceCreekStream Selenium NI 2 PP - 0/31 VP - 0/332674 SpruceCreekStream Turbidity NI 2 PP - 1/54 VP - 1/34Nutrients (Chla)2674 SpruceCreekStream UnionizedAmmoniaNI 2 PP - 0/49 VP - 0/31Nutrients (Chla)2674 SpruceCreekStream Zinc NI 2 PP - 0/52 VP - 0/33Nutrients (Chla)2675 Sand Creek Stream BiologyNI2"Healthy" Biorecon in1999.2675 Sand Creek Stream TurbidityNI2PP - 0/1 VP - 0/212678 Turnbull Bay Estuary TurbidityNI2PP - 0/13 VP - 0/13150Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2679 UnnamedDrainStream Turbidity NI 2 PP - 0/1 VP - 0/242681 GlencoeDitchesStream Turbidity NI 2 PP - 0/1 VP - 0/238117 Halifax RiverOcean 1Coastal Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP= 0/591VP=1/11608118 Halifax RiverOcean 2Coastal Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP - 0/232 VP -0/4408119 Halifax RiverOcean 3Coastal Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP - 0/326 VP -0/5812363A Halifax River Estuary DissolvedOxygenNI 2 PP - 4/497 VP -1/2152363A Halifax River Estuary Fecal ColiformNI2PP - 3/532 VP -0/202 .Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast151WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2363A Halifax River Estuary Nutrients(Histchla)NI 2 No two consecutiveyears of annualaverage chlorophyll avalues exceeded thehistorical minimum of6.87 ug/L by morethan 50%. Annualaverages: 1994 - 7.95μg/L, 1995 - 6.13μg/L, 1996 - 6.95μg/L, 1997 - 6.91μg/L, 1998 - 6.43μg/L, 1999 - 8.27μg/L, 2000 - 5.58μg/L, 2001 - 4.42μg/L, 2002 - 5.47μg/L, 2003 - 11.43μg/L.2363A Halifax River Estuary TurbidityNI2PP - 0/535 VP -0/1482363B Halifax River Estuary AluminumNI2PP - 2/32 VP - 2/692363B Halifax River Estuary ArsenicNI2PP - 8/31 VP - 8/682363B Halifax River Estuary CadmiumNI2PP - 1/26 VP - 1/632363B Halifax River Estuary DissolvedOxygenNI 2 PP - 18/748 VP -16/4382363B Halifax River Estuary Fecal ColiformNI2PP -9/723 VP -4/2772363B Halifax River Estuary LeadNI2PP -2/47 VP - 4/312363B Halifax River Estuary NickelNI2PP -4/26 VP - 0/43152Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2363B Halifax River Estuary Nutrients(Chla)NI 2 No annual averageexceeds the 11 μg/Lthreshold forestuaries. Annualaverages: 1994 -10.30 μg/L, 1995 -5.94 μg/L, 1996 - 6.45μg/L, 1997 - 6.84μg/L, 1998 - 7.07μg/L, 1999 - 9.40μg/L, 2000 - 7.72μg/L, 2001 - 5.68μg/L, 2002 - 8.01μg/L, 2003 - 5.36μg/L, 2004 - 5.74μg/L, 2005 - 3.79μg/L. .Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast153WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2363B Halifax River Estuary Nutrients(Histchla)NI 2 No two consecutiveyears of annualaverage chlorophyll avalues exceeded thehistorical minimum of5.71 ug/L by morethan 50%. Annualaverages: 1994 -10.30 μg/L; 1995 -5.94 μg/L; 1996 - 6.45μg/L; 1997 - 6.84μg/L; 1998 - 7.07μg/L; 1999 - 9.40μg/L; 2000 - 7.24μg/L; 2001 - 5.73μg/L; 2002 - 8.23μg/L; 2003 - 5.36μg/L; 2004 - 5.74μg/L; 2005 - 3.79μg/L.2363B Halifax River Estuary SeleniumNI2PP - 0/31 VP - 0/442363B Halifax River Estuary TurbidityNI2PP - 12/746 VP -4/2242363B Halifax River Estuary ZincNI2PP -1/51 VP - 0/352363C TomokaBasinEstuary DissolvedOxygenNI2PP - 5/82 VP -4/372363C TomokaBasinEstuary Fecal ColiformNI2PP - 0/82 VP - 0/35154Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2363C TomokaBasinEstuary Nutrients(Chla)NI 2 No annual averageexceeds the 11 μg/Lthreshold forestuaries. Annualaverages: 1994 - 9.21μg/L; 1995 - 4.30μg/L; 1996 - 4.73μg/L; 1997 - 4.31μg/L; 1998 - 5.48μg/L; 1999 - 6.92μg/L; 2000 - 4.66μg/L; 2001 - 2.82μg/L.2363C TomokaBasinEstuary Nutrients(Histchla)NI 2 No two consecutiveyears of annualaverage chlorophyll avalues exceeded thehistorical minimum of5.15 ug/L by morethan 50%. Annualaverages: 1994 - 9.21μg/L; 1995 - 4.30μg/L; 1996 - 4.73μg/L; 1997 - 4.31μg/L; 1998 - 5.48μg/L; 1999 - 6.92μg/L; 2000 - 4.66μg/L; 2001 - 2.82μg/L.2363C TomokaBasinEstuary TurbidityNI2PP - 3/80 0/24Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast155WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2363J Palm Coast Estuary DissolvedOxygenNI 2 PP - 9/130 VP -1/182363J Palm Coast Estuary Fecal ColiformNI2PP - 0/137 VP - 0/22363J Palm Coast Estuary Nutrients(Chla)NI 2 No annual averageexceeds the 11 μg/Lthreshold forestuaries. Annualaverages: 1994 - 5.48μg/L; 1995 - 5.80μg/L; 1996 - 5.65μg/L; 1997 - 4.28μg/L; 1998 - 4.98μg/L; 2005 - 7.91μg/L.2363J Palm Coast Estuary TurbidityNI2PP - 0/132 VP -0/182634A TomokaRiverEstuary Aluminum NI 2 PP - 1/32 VP - 1/642634A TomokaRiverEstuary Arsenic NI 2 PP - 7/31 VP - 7/632634A TomokaRiverEstuary Cadmium NI 2 PP - 1/28 VP - 1/402634A TomokaRiverEstuary Copper NI 2 PP - 15/49 VP - 5/492634A TomokaRiverEstuary Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP -8/186 VP -3/612634A TomokaRiverEstuary Lead NI 2 PP - 1/51 VP -3/53156Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2634A TomokaRiverEstuary Nickel NI 2 PP - 4/27 VP -4/532634A TomokaRiverEstuary Nutrients(Chla)NI 2 No annual averageexceeds the 11 μg/Lthreshold forestuaries. Annualaverages: 1994 - 9.50μg/L, 1995 - 8.26μg/L, 1996 - 5.79μg/L, 1997 - 4.30μg/L, 1998 - 5.41μg/L, 1999 - 6.34μg/L, 2000 - 7.41μg/L, 2001 - 7.96μg/L, 2002 - 4.47μg/L, 2003 - 7.91μg/L, 2004 - 7.15μg/L, 2005 - 4.38μg/L. .Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast157WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2634A TomokaRiverEstuary Nutrients(Histchla)NI 2 No two consecutiveyears of annualaverage chlorophyll avalues exceeded thehistorical minimum of5.85 ug/L by morethan 50%. Annualaverages: 1994 - 9.50μg/L, 1995 - 8.26μg/L, 1996 - 5.79μg/L, 1997 - 4.30μg/L, 1998 - 5.41μg/L, 1999 - 6.34μg/L, 2000 - 7.41μg/L, 2001 - 7.96μg/L, 2002 - 4.47μg/L, 2003 - 7.91μg/L, 2004 - 7.15μg/L, 2005 - 4.38μg/L.2634A TomokaRiverEstuary Selenium NI 2 PP - 0/31 VP - 0/482634A TomokaRiverEstuary Turbidity NI 2 PP - 2/215 VP -1/832634A TomokaRiverEstuary Zinc NI 2 PP - 0/52 VP - 0/46158Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2666A SweetwaterCreekStream Nutrients(Chla)NI 2 Annual average doesnot exceed the 20μg/L threshold forstreams. Only annualaverage is from 2005- 2.29 μg/L.2666A SweetwaterCreekStream Turbidity NI 2 PP - 0/2 VP - 0/262674A SpruceCreekEstuary Nutrients(Histchla)NI 2 No two consecutiveyears of annualaverage chlorophyll avalues exceeded thehistorical minimum of5.60 ug/L by morethan 50%. Annualaverages: 1994 - 6.04μg/L; 1995 - 5.46μg/L; 1996 - 11.74μg/L; 1997 - 4.16μg/L; 1998 - 9.80μg/L; 1999 - 5.30μg/L; 2000 - 3.82μg/L; 2001 - 5.96μg/L; 2003 - 12.05μg/L: 2005 - 2.95ug/L. Nutrients (Chla)2674A SpruceCreekEstuary Turbidity NI 2 PP - 2/310 VP -0/76 Nutrients(Chla)Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast159WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2674B StricklandBayEstuary DissolvedOxygenNI 2 PP - 0/1 VP - 3/262674B StricklandBayEstuary Turbidity NI 2 PP - 0/1 VP - 0/202472 Red HouseBranchStream Nutrients(Chla)NI 2 Annual average doesnot exceed the 20μg/L threshold forstreams. Only annualaverage is from 2005- 2.71 μg/L.2472 Red HouseBranchStream Turbidity NI 2 PP - 0/0 VP - 1/222472 Red HouseBranchStream UnionizedAmmoniaNI 2 PP - 0/0 VP - 0/212491 SanSebastianRiverStream Fecal Coliform NI 2PP - 6/65 VP - 2/49160Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2491 SanSebastianRiverStream Nutrients(Chla)NI 2 No annual averageexceeds the 20 μg/Lthreshold for streams.Annual averages:1997 - 2.92 μg/L;1998 - 3.42 μg/L;1999 - 9.38 μg/L;2000 - 3.92 μg/L;2001 - 5.23 μg/L;2002 - 4.38 μg/L;2003 - 3.51 μg/L;2004 - 3.18 μg/L;2005 - 4.12 μg/L.2491 SanSebastianRiverStream Nutrients(Histchla)NI 2 No two consecutiveyears of annualaverage chlorophyll avalues exceeded thehistorical minimum of4.04 ug/L by morethan 50%. Annualaverages: 1997 - 2.92μg/L; 1998 - 3.42μg/L; 1999 - 9.38μg/L; 2000 - 3.92μg/L; 2001 - 5.23μg/L; 2002 - 4.38μg/L; 2003 - 3.51μg/L; 2004 - 3.18μg/L; 2005 - 4.12μg/L.Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast161WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2491 SanSebastianRiverStream Turbidity NI 2 PP - 0/82 VP -0/912491 SanSebastianRiverStream UnionizedAmmoniaNI 2 PP - 0/0 VP - 0/202493 MoultrieCreekStream Aluminum NI 2 PP - 0/48 VP - 0/342493 MoultrieCreekStream Arsenic NI 2 PP - 0/56 VP - 0/502493 MoultrieCreekStream Cadmium NI 2 PP - 0/58 VP - 0/532493 MoultrieCreekStream Copper NI 2 PP - 3/57 VP - 0/502493 MoultrieCreekStream DissolvedOxygenNI 2 PP - 9/140 VP -8/1612493 MoultrieCreekStream Fluoride NI 2 PP - 0/0 VP - 0/212493 MoultrieCreekStream Lead NI 2 PP - 1/57 VP - 0/502493 MoultrieCreekStream Manganese NI 2 PP - 0/48 VP - 0/322493 MoultrieCreekStream Nickel NI 2 PP - 4/55 VP - 2/48162Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2493 MoultrieCreekStream Nutrients(Chla)NI 2 No annual averageexceeds the 20 μg/Lthreshold for streams.Annual averages:1994 - 1 μg/L; 1996 -1.25 μg/L; 1997 - 2.59μg/L; 1998 - 3.17μg/L; 1999 - 1.48μg/L; 2000 - 3.85μg/L; 2001 - 3.40μg/L; 2002 - 2.93μg/L; 2003 - 2.70μg/L; 2004 - 2.41μg/L; 2005 - 2.30μg/L.Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast163WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2493 MoultrieCreekStream Nutrients(Histchla)NI 2 Annual averagechlorophyll a valuesdid not exceed thehistorical minimum of3.85 ug/L by morethan 50% for at leasttwo consecutiveyears. Annualaverages: 1994 - 1μg/L; 1996 - 1.25μg/L; 1997 - 2.59μg/L; 1998 - 3.17μg/L; 1999 - 1.48μg/L; 2000 - 3.85μg/L; 2001 - 3.40μg/L; 2002 - 2.93μg/L; 2003 - 2.70μg/L; 2004 - 2.41μg/L; 2005 - 2.30μg/L.2493 MoultrieCreekStream Selenium NI 2 PP - 0/48 VP - 0/532493 MoultrieCreekStream Turbidity NI 2 PP - 0/140 VP -0/1442493 MoultrieCreekStream Zinc NI 2 PP - 0/37 VP - 0/322499 Oyster Creek Stream DissolvedOxygenNI 2 PP - 5/17 VP - 4/202502 Salt Run Estuary DissolvedOxygenNI 2 PP - 15/450 VP -9/252164Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2502 Salt Run Estuary Fecal ColiformNI2PP - 13/686 VP -0/3592502 Salt Run Estuary Nutrients(Chla)NI2Annual average doesnot exceed the 11μg/L threshold forestuaries. Onlyannual average isfrom 2005 - 7.42 μgL.2502 Salt Run Estuary TurbidityNI2PP - 0/661 VP -0/3372520 WildwoodCreekStream Biology NI 2 "Excellent" SCI in20012520 WildwoodCreekStream DissolvedOxygenNI 2 PP - 0/1 VP - 2/232520 WildwoodCreekStream Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP - 0/1 VP - 0/232520 WildwoodCreekStream Nutrients(Chla)NI 2 Annual average doesnot exceed the 20μg/L threshold forstreams. Only annualaverage is from 2005- 1 μg/L.2520 WildwoodCreekStream Turbidity NI 2 PP - 0/1 VP - 0/232520 WildwoodCreekStream UnionizedAmmoniaNI 2 PP - 0/1 VP - 0/23Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast165WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2535 Moses Creek Stream BiologyNI2"Suspect" Biorecon in1995, "Healthy"Biorecon in 1996,"Suspect" Biorecon in2000; two "Excellent"SCIi scores in 1996,"Excellent" SCI scorein 2000.2535 Moses Creek Stream Fecal ColiformNI2PP - 1/1 VP - 0/312535 Moses Creek Stream Nutrients(Chla)NI2Annual average doesnot exceed the 20μg/L threshold forstreams. Only annualaverage is from 2005- 1.81 μg/L.2535 Moses Creek Stream TurbidityNI2PP - 0/1 VP - 0/312535 Moses Creek Stream UnionizedAmmoniaNI 2 PP - 0/1 VP - 0/288122 MatanzasRiver OceanCoastal Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP - 3/1281 VP -2/9922363G MatanzasRiverEstuary Aluminum NI 2 PP - 1/31 VP - 3/672363G MatanzasRiverEstuary Arsenic NI 2 PP - 13/40 VP -10/652363G MatanzasRiverEstuary Cadmium NI 2 PP - 0/36 VP - 2/66166Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2363G MatanzasRiverEstuary Copper NI 2 PP - 0/61 VP -5/502363G MatanzasRiverEstuary DissolvedOxygenNI 2 PP - 16/347 VP -2/2462363G MatanzasRiverEstuary Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP - 37/203 VP -9/1102363G MatanzasRiverEstuary Fecal Coliform(Col3)NI 2 Not Impaired for the14 #/100 mL criterion2363G MatanzasRiverEstuary Manganese NI 2 PP - 0/32 VP - 0/642363G MatanzasRiverEstuary Nickel NI 2 PP - 8/32 VP - 6/50Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast167WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2363G MatanzasRiverEstuary Nutrients(Chla)NI 2 No annual averageexceeds the 11 μg/Lthreshold forestuaries. Annualaverages: 1994 - 4.16μg/L; 1995 - 3.62μg/L; 1996 - 2.86μg/L; 1997 - 2.35μg/L; 1998 - 4.06μg/L; 1999 - 5.26μg/L; 2000 - 3.44μg/L; 2001 - 4.58μg/L; 2002 - 3.89μg/L; 2003 - 3.23μg/L; 2004 - 3.52μg/L; 2005 - 3.34μg/L.168Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2363G MatanzasRiverEstuary Nutrients(Histchla)NI 2 No two consecutiveyears of annualaverage chlorophyll avalues exceeded thehistorical minimum of3.41 ug/L by morethan 50%. Annualaverages: 1994 - 4.16μg/L; 1995 - 3.62μg/L; 1996 - 2.86μg/L; 1997 - 2.35μg/L; 1998 - 4.06μg/L; 1999 - 5.26μg/L; 2000 - 3.44μg/L; 2001 - 4.58μg/L; 2002 - 3.89μg/L; 2003 - 3.23μg/L; 2004 - 3.52μg/L; 2005 - 3.34μg/L.2363G MatanzasRiverEstuary Selenium NI 2 PP - 0/32 VP - 0/672363G MatanzasRiverEstuary Turbidity NI 2 PP - 0/234 VP -0/2242363G MatanzasRiverEstuary Zinc NI 2 PP - 6/58 VP - 0/572363H St. AugustineInletEstuary DissolvedOxygenNI2PP - 0/0 VP - 0/26Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast169WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2363H St. AugustineInletEstuary Fecal ColiformNI2PP - 0/0 VP - 0/24.2363H St. AugustineInletEstuary Nutrients(Chla)NI 2 Annual average doesnot exceed the 11μg/L for estuaries.Only annual averageis from 2005 - 3.03μg/L.2363H St. AugustineInletEstuary TurbidityNI2PP - 0/0 VP - 0/232550 UnnamedDrainStream Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP -0/158 VP - 0/502550 UnnamedDrainStream Turbidity NI 2 PP - 0/155 VP -0/472553 CrackerBranch(PellicerCreek)Stream DissolvedOxygenNI 2 PP - 1/1 VP - 4/20.2553 CrackerBranch(PellicerCreek)Stream Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP - 1/1 VP - 2/22.2553 CrackerBranch(PellicerCreek)Stream Nutrients(Chla)NI 2 Annual average doesnot exceed the 20μg/L threshold forstreams. Only annualaverage is from 2005- 1 μg/L.170Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2553 CrackerBranch(PellicerCreek)Stream Turbidity NI 2 PP - 0/1 VP - 0/222553 CrackerBranch(PellicerCreek)Stream UnionizedAmmoniaNI 2 PP - 0/0 VP - 0/202577 StevensBranchStream Nutrients(Chla)NI 2 Annual average doesnot exceed the 20μg/L threshold forstreams. Only annualaverage is from 2005- 1 μg/L.8120 PellicerCreek Ocean1Coastal Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP - 0/252 VP -0/4058121 PellicerCreek Ocean2Coastal Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP - 8/1,785 VP -0/4982363D Palm Coast Estuary CadmiumNI2PP - 0/0 VP - 0/25.2363D Palm Coast Estuary DissolvedOxygenNI 2 PP - 2/105 VP -3/115 .2363D Palm Coast Estuary Fecal ColiformNI2PP - 2/89 VP - 1/66.2363D Palm Coast Estuary LeadNI2PP - 0/0 VP - 0/25.Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast171WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2363D Palm Coast Estuary Nutrients(Chla)NI2No annual averageexceeds the 11 μg/Lthreshold forestuaries. Annualaverages: 1997 - 3.3μg/L; 1998 - 6.12μg/L; 1999 - 3.86μg/L; 2000 - 5.5 μg/L;2001 - 8.37 μg/L;2002 - 5.78 μg/L;2003 - 7.94 μg/L;2004 - 6.16 μg/L;2005 - 4.93 μg/L. .2363D Palm Coast Estuary SeleniumNI2PP - 0/0 VP - 0/25.2363D Palm Coast Estuary ThalliumNI2PP - 0/0 VP - 0/25.2363D Palm Coast Estuary TurbidityNI2PP - 0/106 VP -0/912363E ICWW Estuary AluminumNI2PP - 0/48 VP -1/432363E ICWW Estuary CadmiumNI2PP - 4/556 VP - 0/672363E ICWW Estuary Chromium3NI2PP - 0/44 VP - 0/392363E ICWW Estuary CopperNI2PP - 23/55 VP - 5/492363E ICWW Estuary DissolvedOxygenNI 2 PP - 13/520 VP -11/3242363E ICWW Estuary Fecal ColiformNI2PP - 78/600 VP -20/265172Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2363E ICWW Estuary Fecal Coliform(Col3)NI 2 Not Impaired for the14 #/100 mL criterion2363E ICWW Estuary LeadNI2PP - 6/54 VP - 5/492363E ICWW Estuary ManganeseNI2PP - 0/49 VP - 0/422363E ICWW Estuary NickelNI2PP - 22/57 VP - 7/482363E ICWW Estuary Nutrients(Chla)NI 2 No annual averageexceeds the 11 μg/Lthreshold forestuaries. Annualaverages: 1994 - 9.22μg/L; 1995 - 1.63μg/L; 1996 - 3.17μg/L; 1997 - 2.41μg/L; 1998 - 2.98μg/L; 1999 - 2.47μg/L; 2000 - 2.87μg/L; 2001 - 4.85μg/L; 2002 - 4.42μg/L; 2003 - 4.20μg/L; 2004 - 5.48μg/L; 2005 - 4.36μg/L.Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast173WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2363E ICWW Estuary Nutrients(Histchla)NI 2 Annual averagechlorophyll a valuesdid not exceed thehistorical minimum of4.00 ug/L by morethan 50% for at leasttwo consecutiveyears. Annualaverages: 1994 - 9.22μg/L; 1995 - 1.63μg/L; 1996 - 3.17μg/L; 1997 - 2.41μg/L; 1998 - 2.98μg/L; 1999 - 2.47μg/L;2000 - 2.87μg/L; 2001 - 4.85μg/L; 2002 - 4.42μg/L; 2003 - 4.20μg/L; 2004 - 5.48μg/L; 2005 - 4.36μg/L.2363E ICWW Estuary SeleniumNI2PP - 11/52 VP - 1/652363E ICWW Estuary TurbidityNI2PP - 2/644 VP -1/3402363E ICWW Estuary ZincNI2PP -4/59 VP - 0/582363F ICWW Estuary Fecal ColiformNI2PP - 213/2,680 VP -69/1,4492363F ICWW Estuary Fecal Coliform(Col3)NI 2 Not Impaired for the14 #/100 mL criterion174Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2363F ICWW Estuary Nutrients(Chla)NI 2 No annual averageexceeds the 11μg/Lthreshold forestuaries. Annualaverages: 2003 - 3.30μg/L; 2004 - 2.48μg/L; 2005 - 2.44μg/L.2363F ICWW Estuary TurbidityNI2PP - 3/2,597 VP -2/1,3742580A PellicerCreekStream DissolvedOxygenNI 2 PP - 3/19 VP - 4/432580A PellicerCreekStream Nutrients(Chla)NI 2 No annual averageexceeds the 20 μg/Lthreshold for streams.Annual averages:2003 - 5.71 μg/L;2004 - 5.49 μg/L.2580A PellicerCreekStream Turbidity NI 2 PP - 0/26 VP - 0/642580B PellicerCreekStream Arsenic NI 2 PP - 2/61 VP - 1/462580B PellicerCreekStream Cadmium NI 2 PP - 2/58 VP - 0/412580B PellicerCreekStream Chromium3 NI 2 PP - 0/38 VP - 0/482580B PellicerCreekStream Copper NI 2 PP - 3/60 VP - 0/452580B PellicerCreekStream Lead NI 2 PP - 8/48 VP - 3/43Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast175WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2580B PellicerCreekStream Nickel NI 2 PP - 0/60 VP - 0/472580B PellicerCreekStream Nutrients(Chla)NI 2 No annual averageexceeds the 20 μg/Lthreshold for streams.Annual averages:1994 - 2.05 μg/L;1996 - 2.41 μg/L;1997 - 2.05 μg/L;1998 - 5.10 μg/L;1999 - 2.49 μg/L;2000 - 5.72 μg/L;2001 - 2.17 μg/L;2002 - 3.30 μg/L;2003 - 1.93 μg/L;2004 - 1.29 μg/L;2005 - 1.18 μg/L. .176Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2580B PellicerCreekStream Nutrients(Histchla)NI 2 No two consecutiveyears of annualaverage chlorophyll avalues exceeded thehistorical minimum of2.29 ug/L by morethan 50%. Annualaverages: 1994 - 2.05μg/L; 1996 - 2.41μg/L; 1997 - 2.05μg/L; 1998 - 5.10μg/L; 1999 - 2.49μg/L; 2000 - 5.72μg/L; 2001 - 2.17μg/L; 2002 - 3.30μg/L; 2003 - 1.93μg/L; 2004 - 1.29μg/L; 2005 - 1.18μg/L.2580B PellicerCreekStream Selenium NI 2 PP - 5/52 VP - 0/562580B PellicerCreekStream Turbidity NI 2 PP - 0/60 VP -0/532580B PellicerCreekStream UnionizedAmmoniaNI 2 PP - 0/59 VP - 0/632580B PellicerCreekStream Zinc NI 2 PP - 1/59 VP - 0/47Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast177WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2320 Guana River Estuary Nutrients(Histchla)NI 2 No two consecutiveyears of annualaverage chlorophyll avalues exceeded thehistorical minimum of10.146 ug/L by morethan 50%. Annualaverages: 1997 - 4.79μg/L, 1998 - 5.34μg/L, 1999 - 2.99μg/L, 2000 - 4.39μg/L, 2001 - 29.91μg/L, 2002 - 13.81μg/L, 2003 - 19.49μg/L; 2004 - 13.08μg/L, and 2005 -18.34 μg/L.2320 Guana River Estuary TurbidityNI2PP - 3/493 VP -3/2372400 Smith Creek Stream Fecal ColiformNI2PP - 2/66 VP - 0/47178Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2400 Smith Creek Stream Nutrients(Chla)NI2The annual averagethreshold of 20 ug/Lfor streams was notexceeded. Annualaverages: 1997 - 3.65μg/L; 1998 - 2.34μg/L; 1999 - 2.98μg/L; 2000 - 3.92μg/L; 2001 - 7.94μg/L; 2002 - 5.67μg/L; 2003 - 5.86μg/L; 2004 - 7.09μg/L; 2005 - 5.59μg/L.2400 Smith Creek Stream TurbidityNI2PP - 2/83 VP - 2/982406 Deep CreekUpperStream Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP - 4/38 VP - 3/312406 Deep CreekUpperStream Nutrients(Chla)NI 2 Annual average doesnot exceed the 20μg/L threshold forstreams. Only annualaverage is from 2005- 2.61 μg/L.2406 Deep CreekUpperStream Turbidity NI 2 PP - 0/35 VP - 0/352406 Deep CreekUpperStream UnionizedAmmoniaNI 2PP - 0/11 VP -0/222435 Capo Creek Estuary DissolvedOxygenNI 2 PP - 0/0 VP - 4/26Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast179WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2435 Capo Creek Estuary Fecal ColiformNI2PP - 0/0 VP - 0/262435 Capo Creek Estuary Fecal Coliform(Col3)NI2Does not exceed the14 #/100 mL criterion2435 Capo Creek Estuary Nutrients(Chla)NI2Annual average doesnot exceed the 11μg/L threshold forestuaries. Onlyannual average isfrom 2005 - 3.41 μg/L.2435 Capo Creek Estuary TurbidityNI2PP - 0/0 VP - 0/262442 MarshallCreekStream Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP -3/51 VP - 3/522442 MarshallCreekStream Nutrients(Chla)NI 2 Annual average doesnot exceed the 20μg/L threshold forstreams. Only annualaverage is from 2005- 2.29 μg/L.2442 MarshallCreekStream Turbidity NI 2 PP - 0/56 VP - 0/592451 StokesCreekEstuary Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP - 58/201 VP -15/1502451 StokesCreekEstuary Fecal Coliform(Col3)NI 2 Does not exceed the14 #/100 mL criterion180Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2451 StokesCreekEstuary Nutrients(Chla)NI 2 No annual averageexceeds the 11 μg/Lthreshold forestuaries. Annualaverages: 1997 - 2.99μg/L; 1998 - 3.03μg/L; 1999 - 4.61μg/L; 2001 - 7.64μg/L; 2002 - 4.50μg/L; 2003 - 5.85μg/L; 2004 - 10.45μg/L; 2005 - 5.59μg/L.2451 StokesCreekEstuary Turbidity NI 2 PP - 4/276 VP -3/1942468 Casa ColaCreekEstuary DissolvedOxygenNI 2 PP - 13/194 VP -15/1572468 Casa ColaCreekEstuary Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP - 19/225 VP -3/1282468 Casa ColaCreekEstuary Fecal Coliform(Col3)NI 2 Does not exceed the14 #/100 mL criterionWater Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast181WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2468 Casa ColaCreekEstuary Nutrients(Chla)NI 2 Annual average doesnot exceed the 11ug/L threshold forestuaries. Annualaverages: 1998 - 7.55ug/L; 1999 - 7.29ug/L; 2000 - 5.29ug/L; 2001 - 8.08ug/L; 2002 - 4.30ug/L; 2003 - 6.61ug/L; 2004 - 3.31ug/L; 2005 - 4.11ug/L.2468 Casa ColaCreekEstuary Nutrients(Histchla)NI 2 The historic minimumannual chlorophyllaverage of 4.86 ug/Lwas not exceeded bymore than 50% fortwo consecutiveyears. Annualaverages: 1998 - 7.55ug/L; 1999 - 7.29ug/L; 2000 - 5.29ug/L; 2001 - 8.08ug/L; 2002 - 4.30ug/L; 2003 - 6.61ug/L; 2004 - 3.31ug/L; 2005 - 4.11ug/L.2468 Casa ColaCreekEstuary Turbidity NI 2 PP - 0/221 VP -0/142182Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2470 SombreroCreekEstuary DissolvedOxygenNI 2 PP - 9/99 VP -10/652470 SombreroCreekEstuary Fecal Coliform(Col3)NI 2 Does not exceed the14 #/100 mL criterion2470 SombreroCreekEstuary Nutrients(Chla)NI 2 Annual average doesnot exceed the 11μg/L threshold forestuaries. Onlyannual average isfrom 2005 - 4.03 μg/L.2470 SombreroCreekEstuary Turbidity NI 2 PP - 0/140 VP -1/592477 XimaniesCreekEstuary DissolvedOxygenNI 2 PP - 0/0 VP - 0/232477 XimaniesCreekEstuary Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP - 0/0 VP - 0/222477 XimaniesCreekEstuary Nutrients(Chla)NI 2 Annual average doesnot exceed the 11μg/L threshold forestuaries. Onlyannual average isfrom 2005 - 4.06 μg/L.2477 XimaniesCreekEstuary Turbidity NI 2 PP - 0/0 VP - 0/212483 PanchoCreekEstuary DissolvedOxygenNI 2 PP - 11/104 VP -7/69Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast183WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2483 PanchoCreekEstuary Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP - 9/145 VP -0/712483 PanchoCreekEstuary Fecal Coliform(Col3)NI 2 Does not exceed the14 #/100 mL criterion2483 PanchoCreekEstuary Nutrients(Chla)NI 2 Annual average doesnot exceed the 11μg/L threshold forestuaries. Onlyannual average isfrom 2005 - 4.22 μg/L.2483 PanchoCreekEstuary Turbidity NI 2 PP - 0/142 VP -0/492487 RobinsonCreekEstuary DissolvedOxygenNI 2 PP - 14/145 VP -9/692487 RobinsonCreekEstuary Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP - 35/184 VP -8/752487 RobinsonCreekEstuary Fecal Coliform(Col3)NI 2 Does not exceed the14 #/100 mL criterion2487 RobinsonCreekEstuary Nutrients(Chla)NI 2 Annual average doesnot exceed the 11μg/L threshold forestuaries. Onlyannual average isfrom 2005 - 5.34 μg/L.2487 RobinsonCreekEstuary Turbidity NI 2 PP - 0/163 VP -0/54184Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable8123 TolomatoRiver Ocean1Coastal Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP - 0/322 VP -0/2498125 TolomatoRiver Ocean3Coastal Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP - 0/262 VP -1/4972320A Lake Vedra Estuary Fecal ColiformNI2PP - 1/16 VP - 0/242320A Lake Vedra Estuary TurbidityNI2PP - 0/16 VP - 0/24PP sampling onlycovers two seasons2320A Lake Vedra Estuary ZincNI2PP - 0/8 VP - 0/242363I TolomatoRiverEstuary Aluminum NI 2 PP - 1/47 VP - 0/402363I TolomatoRiverEstuary Cadmium NI 2 PP - 5/56 VP - 0/422363I TolomatoRiverEstuary Chromium3 NI 2 PP - 0/49 VP - 0/402363I TolomatoRiverEstuary DissolvedOxygenNI 2 PP - 268/2,943 VP- 199/1,3812363I TolomatoRiverEstuary Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP - 440/4,187 VP -84/1,752 .2363I TolomatoRiverEstuary Fecal Coliform(Col3)NI 2 Does not exceed the14 #/100 mL criterion2363I TolomatoRiverEstuary Lead NI 2 PP - 6/56 VP - 3/29Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast185WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2363I TolomatoRiverEstuary Manganese NI 2 PP - 0/52 VP - 1/452363I TolomatoRiverEstuary Nutrients(Chla)NI 2 Annual averages didnot exceed the 11μg/L threshold forestuaries. Annualaverages: 1994 - 6.06μg/L; 1995 - 2.33μg/L; 1996 - 5.85μg/L; 1997 - 3.57μg/L; 1998 - 4.03μg/L; 1999 -4.39 μg/L;2000 - 3.08 μg/L;2001 - 7.38 μg/L;2002 - 5.08 μg/L;2003 - 5.68 μg/L;2004 - 5.29 μg/L;2005 - 4.02 μg/L. .186Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2363I TolomatoRiverEstuary Nutrients(Histchla)NI 2 Annual averages didnot exeed the historicminimum of 4.38 ug/Lby more than 50% fortwo consecutiveyears. Annualaverages: 1994 - 6.06μg/L; 1995 - 2.33μg/L; 1996 - 5.85μg/L; 1997 - 3.57μg/L; 1998 - 4.03μg/L; 1999 -4.39 μg/L;2000 - 3.08 μg/L;2001 - 7.38 μg/L;2002 - 5.08 μg/L;2003 - 5.68 μg/L;2004 - 5.29 μg/L;2005 - 4.02 μg/L.2363I TolomatoRiverEstuary Selenium NI 2 PP - 10/52 VP -0/442363I TolomatoRiverEstuary Turbidity NI 2 PP - 9/4,073 VP -7/1,7692363I TolomatoRiverEstuary Zinc NI 2 PP - 6/61 VP - 1/352406A Deep CreekLowerEstuary DissolvedOxygenNI 2 PP - 3/33 VP - 6/372406A Deep CreekLowerEstuary Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP - 5/33 VP - 5/26Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast187WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2406A Deep CreekLowerEstuary Fecal Coliform(Col3)NI 2 Does not exceed the14 #/100 mL criterion2406A Deep CreekLowerEstuary Nutrients(Chla)NI 2 Annual average doesnot exceed the 11μg/L threshold forestuaries. Onlyannual average isfrom 2005 - 3.4 μg/L.2406A Deep CreekLowerEstuary Turbidity NI 2 PP - 0/28 VP - 0/282620 Bulow Creek Stream DissolvedOxygenVL 5 Medium 2012 PP - 17/60 VP -21/70 DO metverification thresholdof IWR, and TN wasidentified as acausative pollutant.PP median TN =1.1105 mg/L (n=74),median TP = 0.108mg/L (n=75), No BODdata. VP median TN= 1.0762 mg/L (n=66),median TP = 0.109mg/L (n=67), medianBOD = 2 mg/L (n=25).2620 Bulow Creek Stream IronVL5 Medium 2012 PP - 49/60 VP -41/482641 UnnamedBranchStream Fecal Coliform VL 5 Medium2012 PP - 1/1 VP - 7/14188Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2642 UnnamedBranchEstuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.2647 Holly HillDitchStream DissolvedOxygenVL 5 Medium 2012 PP - 1/1 VP - 13/17DO met verificationthreshold of IWR, andBOD was identified asa causative pollutant.PP median TN = 0.76mg/L (n=1), medianTP = 0.14 mg/L (n=1),BOD = No Data. VPmedian TN = 0.95mg/L (n=13), medianTP = 0.18 mg/L(n=13), median BOD= 2.3 mg/L (n=18).2670 Halifax Canal Stream Fecal ColiformVL5 Medium 2012 PP - 14/26 VP -14/35Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast189WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2672 Rose Bay Estuary DissolvedOxygenVL 5 Low 2011 PP - 7/99 VP -13/43DO met verificationthreshold of IWR, andTN was identifed as acausative pollutant.PP median TN = 0.74mg/L (n=229); medianTP = 0.14 mg/L(n=231); no BODdata. VP median TN= 1.119 mg/L (n=9);median TP =0.11mg/L (n=9); no BODdata.2672 Rose Bay Estuary Mercury (Fish)VL5Low2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.2674 SpruceCreekStream Fecal Coliform VL 5 High 2006 PP - 8/20 VP - 5/24Nutrients (Chla)190Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2675 Sand Creek Stream DissolvedOxygenVL 5 Medium 2012 PP - 1/1 VP - 10/26DO met verificationthreshold of IWR, TNand BOD wereidentified as causativepollutants. PPmedian TN = 1.604mg/L (n=1); no TP orBOD data. VPmedian TN = 1.313mg/L (n=16); medianTP =0.045 mg/L(n=15); median BOD= 2.3 mg/L (n=25).2678 Turnbull Bay Estuary DissolvedOxygenVL 5 Medium 2012 PP - 10/13 VP -12/45 DO metverification thresholdof IWR, TN and BODwere identified ascausative pollutants.PP median TN =0.996 mg/L (n=8),median TP = 0.1925mg/L (n=12), no BODdata. VP median TN= 1.295 mg/L (n=12),median TP = 0.1755mg/L (n=16), medianBOD = 2.5 mg/L(n=25).Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast191WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2678 Turnbull Bay Estuary Mercury (Fish)VL5Low2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.2678 Turnbull Bay Estuary Nutrients(Chla)VL5 Medium 2012 Annual average for2003 exceeds the 11μg/L threshold forestuaries. Onlyannual average isfrom 2003 - 17.17μg/L.2363A Halifax River Estuary Mercury (Fish)VL5Low2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.2363B Halifax River Estuary CopperVL5Low2011 PP - 22/48 VP - 9/50192Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2363B Halifax River Estuary IronVL5Low2011 PP - 39/51 VP -46/65 May be due tohigh ironconcentrations ingroundwater.Prelimaryinvestigation revealsthat much of the datafrom surroundingmonitoring wellssignificantly exceedthe 0.3 mg/L criterion(see the groundwaterchapter in the "UPPerEast Coast BasinStatus Report"). Willbe investigatedfurther.2363B Halifax River Estuary Mercury (Fish)VL5Low2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.2363C TomokaBasinEstuary Mercury (Fish)VL5Low2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast193WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2363J Palm Coast Estuary Mercury (Fish)VL5Low2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.2634A TomokaRiverEstuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.2674A SpruceCreekEstuary Copper VL 5 Medium 2012 PP - 6/9 VP - 6/202674A SpruceCreekEstuary DissolvedOxygenVL 5 High 2006 PP -96/285 VP -40/137 DO metverification thresholdof IWR and linked tonutrients,2674A SpruceCreekEstuary Fecal Coliform VL 5 Medium 2012 PP - 69/305 VP -33/123 Nutrients(Chla)2674A SpruceCreekEstuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.194Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2674A SpruceCreekEstuary Nutrients(Chla)VL 5 High 2006 Annual averages for1996 and 2003exceed the thresholdof 11 μg/L forestuaries. Annualaverages: 1994 - 6.04μg/L; 1995 - 5.46μg/L; 1996 - 11.74μg/L; 1997 - 4.16μg/L; 1998 - 9.80μg/L; 1999 - 5.30μg/L; 2000 - 3.82μg/L; 2001 - 5.96μg/L; 2003 - 12.05μg/L; 2005 - 2.95μg/L. Nutrients (Chla)Nitrogen wasidentified as thelimiting nutrient basedon 80% of the TN/TPratios were less than10.2674B StricklandBayEstuary Fecal Coliform VL 5 Medium 2012 PP - 0/1 VP - 9/242674B StricklandBayEstuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast195WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable8117B Dunlawton Coastal Coliforms(BeachAdvisory)VL 5 Medium 2012 Beach advisoriesposted for a total of 36days in 2003.8117C Hilton Coastal Coliforms(BeachAdvisory)VL 5 Medium 2012 Beachadvisoriesposted for a total of 73days in 2003 and 23days in 2004.8117D Silver Beach Coastal Coliforms(BeachAdvisory)VL 5 Medium 2012 Beachadvisoriesposted for a total of 33days in 2003.2472 Red HouseBranchStream Fecal Coliform VL 5 Medium2012 PP - 0/0 VP - 5/222493 MoultrieCreekStream Fecal Coliform VL 5 Medium 2012 PP - 23/68 VP -52/90 The creekexceeded twodifferent parts of thefecal coliform criteriafor Class II waters.The statistics shownare for exceedancesof 43 counts/100mL.The median valueexceeded 14counts/100mL.2502 Salt Run Estuary Mercury (Fish)VL5Low2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.196Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2510 QuarryCreekEstuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.2513 UnnamedBayouEstuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.2519 East Creek Estuary Mercury (Fish)VL5Low2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.2529 San JulianCreekEstuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast197WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2363G MatanzasRiverEstuary Iron VL 5 Medium 2012 PP - 28/58 VP -32/57 May be due tohigh ironconcentrations ingroundwater.Prelimaryinvestigation revealsthat much of the datafrom surroundingmonitoring wellssignificantly exceedthe 0.3 mg/L criterion(see the groundwaterchapter in the "UPPerEast Coast BasinStatus Report"). Willbe investigatedfurther.2363G MatanzasRiverEstuary Lead VL 5 Medium 2012 PP - 5/53 VP - 9/332363G MatanzasRiverEstuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.198Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2363H St. AugustineInletEstuary Mercury (Fish)VL5Low2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.2553 CrackerBranch(PellicerCreek)Stream Iron RA 4C Low 2011 Blackwater. PP - 0/1VP - 7/20 Adocument has beenprepared thatsupports that elevatediron concentrationsare a naturalcondition.Consequently, it hasbeen assigned anEPA IntegratedReport Category 4C.2363D Palm Coast Estuary Mercury (Fish)VL5Low2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.2363E ICWW Estuary ArsenicVL5 Medium 2012 PP - 23/60 VP -10/61Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast199WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2363E ICWW Estuary IronVL5 Medium 2012 PP - 33/57 VP -35/59 May be due tohigh ironconcentrations ingroundwater.Prelimaryinvestigation revealsthat much of the datafrom surroundingmonitoring wellssignificantly exceedthe 0.3 mg/L criterion(see the groundwaterchapter in the "UPPerEast Coast BasinStatus Report"). Willbe investigatedfurther.2363E ICWW Estuary Mercury (Fish)VL5Low2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.200Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2363F ICWW Estuary Coliform(Shellfishharvestingdowngrade)VL 5 Medium 2012 Area(s) within theWBID have beendowngraded from the1979 approvedclassification toprohibited in 1985 andfrom conditinallyapproved toconditionally restrictedin 1997.2363F ICWW Estuary Mercury (Fish)VL5Low2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.2580B PellicerCreekStream Fecal Coliform VL 5 Low 2011 PP - 1/1 VP -7/222320 Guana River Estuary DissolvedOxygenVL 5 Low 2011 PP - 44/415 VP -40/238. The Doimpairment was linkedto nutrients(chlorophyll). TheBOD medianconcentation of 4mg/L (19 values) wasalso above thescreening level.2320 Guana River Estuary Fecal ColiformVL5Low2011 PP - 100/ 500 VP -35/230Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast201WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2320 Guana River Estuary Fecal Coliform(Col3)VL5 Medium 2012 Exceeds the 14 #/100mL criterion2320 Guana River Estuary Mercury (Fish)VL5Low2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.2320 Guana River Estuary Nutrients(Chla)VL5 Medium 2012 The annual averagethreshold of 11 ug/Lfor estuaries wasexceeded in 2001,2002, 2003, 2004,and 2005. Annualaverages: 1997 - 4.79μg/L, 1998 - 5.34μg/L, 1999 - 2.99μg/L, 2000 - 4.39μg/L, 2001 - 29.91μg/L, 2002 - 13.81μg/L, 2003 - 19.49μg/L; 2004 - 13.08μg/L, and 2005 -18.34 μg/L. Nitrogenwas the limitingnutrient based on70% of the TN/TPratios during theverified period wereless than 10.202Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2435 Capo Creek Estuary Mercury (Fish)VL5Low2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.2451 StokesCreekEstuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.2468 Casa ColaCreekEstuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.2470 SombreroCreekEstuary Fecal Coliform VL 5 Medium 2012 PP - 27/143 VP -16/782470 SombreroCreekEstuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast203WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2477 XimaniesCreekEstuary Coliform(Shellfishharvestingdowngrade)VL 5 Medium 2012 Area(s) within theWBID have beendowngraded from the1979 approvedclassification toconditionally restrictedin 1996.2477 XimaniesCreekEstuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.2483 PanchoCreekEstuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.2487 RobinsonCreekEstuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.204Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2320A Lake Vedra Estuary DissolvedOxygenVL 5 Medium 2012 PP - 7/16 VP - 8/26The DO impairmentwas linked to nutrients(chlorophyll). Themedian TN (1.30mg/L, 23 values) andTP (0.22 mg/L, 23values) during theverified period alsoexceeded thresholds.2320A Lake Vedra Estuary Mercury (Fish)VL5Low2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.2320A Lake Vedra Estuary Nutrients(Chla)VL 5 Medium 2012 Annual average for2005 exceeded the 11ug/L threshold forestuaries. Annualaverages: 2005 -23.71 ug/L Nitrogenis the limiting nutrientbased on 80% of theTN/TP ratios duringthe verified periodwere less than 10.2363I TolomatoRiverEstuary Arsenic VL 5 Medium 2012 PP - 22/62 VP -10/45Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast205WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2363I TolomatoRiverEstuary Coliform(Shellfishharvestingdowngrade)VL 5 Medium 2012 Area(s) within theWBID have beendowngraded from the1979 approvedclassification toprohibited in 1985 andfrom conditionallyapproved toconditionally restrictedin 1996.2363I TolomatoRiverEstuary Copper VL 5 Medium 2012 PP - 2/58 VP - 6/302363I TolomatoRiverEstuary Iron VL 5 Medium 2012 PP - 42/58 VP -27/382363I TolomatoRiverEstuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.2363I TolomatoRiverEstuary Nickel VL 5 Medium 2012 PP - 23/55 VP -6/282406A Deep CreekLowerEstuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.206Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2457A St. MarksPondEstuaryEstuary Mercury (Fish) VL 5 Low 2011 Listed based on kingmackerel and bullshark concentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.8998FloridaAtlanticCoastCoastal Mercury (Fish) VL5Low2011 This listing applies toall coastal WBID(8117, 8117A - F,8118, 8118A, 8118B,8119, 8119A, 8119B,8120, 8120A, 8120B,8121, 8121A - C,8122, 8122 A - D,8123, 8123A, 8124,8125, 8125A, and8125B) Listed basedon king mackerel andbull sharkconcentrationsexceeding 0.43mg/kg; collected in2002-2004.2320 Guana River Estuary Coliform(Shellfishharvestingdowngrade)VL 5 Medium 2012 Area(s) included inthe WBID have beendowngraded from the1979 approvedclassification toprohibited in 1985Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast207WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable8122 MatanzasRiver OceanCoastal Fecal Coliform(Col2)ID 3A Insufficent data toassess the 200 #/100mL criterion2631 UnnamedDitchStream ND 3A .2640 UnnamedBranchStream ND 3A .2643 UnnamedDitchesStream ND 3A .2649 PriestBranchStream ND 3A .2650 UnnamedSloughStream ND 3A .2652 UnnamedDitchStream ND 3A .2653 UnnamedDrainStream ND 3A .2654 DrainageCanalsStream ND 3A .2655 UnnamedDitchStream ND 3A .2656 UnnamedDitchStream ND 3A .2657 IntSpeedwayDitchStream ND 3A .208Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2665 UnnamedDitchStream ND 3A .2668 Port OrangeCanalStream ND 3A .2683 TurnbullCreekStream ND 3A .2471 UnnamedSloughStream ND 3A .2506 UnnamedSloughStream ND 3A .2508 UnnamedSloughStream ND 3A .2514 UnnamedSloughStream ND 3A .2521 UnnamedSloughStream ND 3A .2532 UnnamedSloughStream ND 3A .2536 UnnamedSloughStream ND 3A .2537 UnnamedDitchStream ND 3A .2363G1 MatanzasRiver UpperEstuary Nutrients(Chla)ND 3A .2363G1 MatanzasRiver UpperEstuary Nutrients(Histchla)ND3A.Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast209WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2502A Salt Run Estuary Nutrients(Chla)ND 3A .2502A Salt Run Estuary Nutrients(Histchla)ND3A.2551 Lake Triplet LakeND3A.2566 UnnamedBranchStream ND 3A .2573 UnnamedDrainStream ND 3A .2595 Styles Creek StreamND3A.2597 HulettBranchStream ND 3A .2598 Dave Branch StreamND3A.2609 St. JoeCanalStream ND 3A .2363E1 ICWW Estuary Nutrients(Chla)ND 3A .2363E1 ICWW Estuary Nutrients(Histchla)ND3A.2363D Palm Coast Estuary SilverND3ALow2011 PP - 0/0 VP - 0/02551A Lake TripletDrainLake ND 3A .2580C PellicerCreekStream ND 3A .2364 UnnamedSloughStream ND 3A .210Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2380 UnnamedSloughStream ND 3A .2429 SweetwaterCreekStream ND 3A .2457 St. MarksPond OutletStream ND 3A .2620 Bulow Creek Stream FluorideID3BPP - 0/0 VP - 0/12634 TomokaRiverStream Cadmium ID 3B PP - 0/7 VP - 0/32634 TomokaRiverStream Chromium3 ID 3B PP - 0/3 VP - 0/32634 TomokaRiverStream Nickel ID 3B PP - 0/6 VP - 0/32634 TomokaRiverStream Silver ID 3B PP - 2/2 VP - 0/32635 GroverBranchStream Iron ID 3B PP - 1/1 VP - 2/192635 GroverBranchStream Lead ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/12635 GroverBranchStream UnionizedAmmoniaID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/12641 UnnamedBranchStream Turbidity ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/142641 UnnamedBranchStream UnionizedAmmoniaID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/02645 MiznersBranchStream Cadmium ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/5Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast211WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2645 MiznersBranchStream Chromium3 ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/52645 MiznersBranchStream Copper ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/22645 MiznersBranchStream Lead ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/52645 MiznersBranchStream Nickel ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/52645 MiznersBranchStream Silver ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/22646 LittleTomokaRiverStream Iron ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 3/92646 LittleTomokaRiverStream Lead ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/12646 LittleTomokaRiverStream UnionizedAmmoniaID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/12647 Holly HillDitchStream Fecal Coliform ID 3B PP -1/1 VP - 1/142647 Holly HillDitchStream Turbidity ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/172647 Holly HillDitchStream UnionizedAmmoniaID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/22664 Reed Canal Stream UnionizedAmmoniaID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/0212Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2670 Halifax Canal Stream Nutrients(Histchla)ID 3B Insufficient data tocalculate historicallyobserved minimumchlorophyll value.Annual averages:1999 - 11.26 μg/L;2000 - 10.51 μg/L;2001 - 8.15 μg/L.2673 UnnamedDrainStream UnionizedAmmoniaID 3B PP - 0/2 VP - 0/22675 Sand Creek Stream UnionizedAmmoniaID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/12678 Turnbull Bay Estuary ArsenicID3BPP - 0/4 VP - 0/42678 Turnbull Bay Estuary CopperID3BPP - 0/6 VP - 0/62679 UnnamedDrainStream UnionizedAmmoniaID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/12681 GlencoeDitchesStream UnionizedAmmoniaID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/18117 Halifax RiverOcean 1Coastal Fecal Coliform(Col2)ID 3B Insufficient data toassess the 200#/100mL criterion.8118 Halifax RiverOcean 2Coastal Fecal Coliform(Col2)ID 3B Insufficient data toassess the 200#/100mL criterion.8119 Halifax RiverOcean 3Coastal Fecal Coliform(Col2)ID 3B Insufficient data toassess the 200#/100mL criterion.2363B Halifax River Estuary FluorideID3BPP - 0/0 VP - 0/1Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast213WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2363J Palm Coast Estuary Nutrients(Histchla)ID 3B No two consecutiveyears of annualaverage chlorophyll avalues exceeded thehistorical minimum of5.24 ug/L by morethan 50%. Annualaverages: 1994 - 5.48μg/L; 1995 - 5.80μg/L; 1996 - 5.65μg/L; 1997 - 4.28μg/L; 1998 - 4.98μg/L; 2005 - 7.91μg/L.2634A TomokaRiverEstuary Fluoride ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/12666A SweetwaterCreekStream UnionizedAmmoniaID 3B PP - 0/2 VP - 0/12674A SpruceCreekEstuary Aluminum ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/52674A SpruceCreekEstuary Arsenic ID 3B PP - 0/4 VP - 0/92674A SpruceCreekEstuary Cadmium ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/62674A SpruceCreekEstuary Chromium3 ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/52674A SpruceCreekEstuary Lead ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/52674A SpruceCreekEstuary Nickel ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/6214Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2674A SpruceCreekEstuary Selenium ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/52674A SpruceCreekEstuary Zinc ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/52472 Red HouseBranchStream Cadmium ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/22472 Red HouseBranchStream Copper ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/22472 Red HouseBranchStream Iron ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/22472 Red HouseBranchStream Lead ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/22472 Red HouseBranchStream Nickel ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/22472 Red HouseBranchStream Selenium ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/22491 SanSebastianRiverStream Arsenic ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/12491 SanSebastianRiverStream Copper ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/12491 SanSebastianRiverStream Iron ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/1Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast215WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2491 SanSebastianRiverStream Selenium ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/12499 Oyster Creek Stream TurbidityID3BPP - 0/0 VP - 0/42502 Salt Run Estuary Fecal Coliform(Col2)ID3BInsufficient data toassess the 200#/100mL criterion.2520 WildwoodCreekStream Copper ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/12520 WildwoodCreekStream Iron ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/12520 WildwoodCreekStream Lead ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 1/12520 WildwoodCreekStream Nickel ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/12520 WildwoodCreekStream Selenium ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/18122 MatanzasRiver OceanCoastal Fecal Coliform(Col4)ID 3B Insufficent data toassess the 400 #/100mL criterion2363H St. AugustineInletEstuary Fecal Coliform(Col3)ID 3B Insufficient data toassess the 14#/100mL criterion.2550 UnnamedDrainStream Fecal Coliform(Col2)ID 3B Insufficent data toassess the 200 #/100mL criterion216Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2550 UnnamedDrainStream Fecal Coliform(Col4)ID 3B Insufficient data toassess the 400 #/100mL criterion2553 CrackerBranch(PellicerCreek)Stream Arsenic ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/02553 CrackerBranch(PellicerCreek)Stream Berylium ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/02553 CrackerBranch(PellicerCreek)Stream Cadmium ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/172553 CrackerBranch(PellicerCreek)Stream Chromium3 ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/162553 CrackerBranch(PellicerCreek)Stream Copper ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/172553 CrackerBranch(PellicerCreek)Stream Lead ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/3Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast217WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2553 CrackerBranch(PellicerCreek)Stream Nickel ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/172553 CrackerBranch(PellicerCreek)Stream Selenium ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/42553 CrackerBranch(PellicerCreek)Stream Silver ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/32553 CrackerBranch(PellicerCreek)Stream Zinc ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/172577 StevensBranchStream Berylium ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/02577 StevensBranchStream Cadmium ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/92577 StevensBranchStream Chromium3 ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/92577 StevensBranchStream Copper ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/92577 StevensBranchStream DissolvedOxygenID 3B PP - 1/1 VP - 1/11218Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2577 StevensBranchStream Fecal Coliform ID 3B PP -1/1 VP - 2/112577 StevensBranchStream Iron ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 4/102577 StevensBranchStream Lead ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/12577 StevensBranchStream Nickel ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/92577 StevensBranchStream Selenium ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/12577 StevensBranchStream Silver ID 3B PP -0/0 VP - 0/12577 StevensBranchStream Turbidity ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/122577 StevensBranchStream UnionizedAmmoniaID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/102577 StevensBranchStream Zinc ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/98120 PellicerCreek Ocean1Coastal Fecal Coliform(Col2)ID 3B Insufficient data toassess the 200#/100mL criterion.8121 PellicerCreek Ocean2Coastal Fecal Coliform(Col2)ID 3B Insufficient data toassess the 200#/100mL criterion.Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast219WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable8121 PellicerCreek Ocean2Coastal Fecal Coliform(Col4)ID 3B Insufficient data toassess the 400#/100mL criterion.2363D Palm Coast Estuary Nutrients(Histchla)ID 3B Insufficient data tocalculate historicallyobserved minimumchlorophyll value.Annual averages:1997 - 3.3 μg/L; 1998- 6.12 μg/L; 1999 -3.86 μg/L; 2000 - 5.50μg/L; 2001 - 8.37μg/L; 2002 - 5.78μg/L; 2003 - 7.94μg/L; 2003 - 7.94μg/L; 2004 - 7.58μg/L; 2005 - 5.23 μg/L2363F ICWW Estuary Nutrients(Histchla)ID 3B Insufficient data tocalculate historicallyobserved minimumchlorophyll value.Annual averages:2003 - 3.30 μg/L;2004 - 2.48 μg/L;2005 - 2.44 μg/L.2580B PellicerCreekStream Berylium ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/02580B PellicerCreekStream Fluoride ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP -0/1220Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2400 Smith Creek Stream Nutrients(Histchla)ID 3B Insufficient data tocalculate historicallyobserved minimumchlorophyll value.Annual averages:1997 - 3.65 μg/L;1998 - 2.34 μg/L;1999 - 2.98 μg/L;2000 - 3.92 μg/L;2001 - 7.94 μg/L;2002 - 5.67 μg/L;2003 - 5.86 μg/L;2004 - 7.09 μg/L;2005 - 5.59 μg/L.8123 TolomatoRiver Ocean1Coastal Fecal Coliform(Col2)ID 3B Insufficient data toassess the 200#/100mL criterion.8125 TolomatoRiver Ocean3Coastal DissolvedOxygenID 3B PP - 2/8 VP - 0/08125 TolomatoRiver Ocean3Coastal Fecal Coliform(Col2)ID 3B Insufficient data toassess to 200 #/100mL criteron2320A Lake Vedra Estuary CopperID3BPP - 0/2 VP -1/22320A Lake Vedra Estuary LeadID3BPP - 0/8 VP - 0/2Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast221WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2451 StokesCreekEstuary Nutrients(Histchla)ID 3C Insufficient data tocalculate historicallyobserved minimumchlorophyll value.Annual averages:1997 - 2.99 μg/L;1998 - 3.03 μg/L;1999 - 4.61 μg/L;2001 - 7.64 μg/L;2002 - 4.50 μg/L;2003 - 5.85 μg/L;2004 - 10.45 μg/L;2005 - 5.59 μg/L.2666 UnnamedDitch (B-19Canal)Stream DissolvedOxygenND 3C Low 2011 PP - 0/0 VP - 0/02666 UnnamedDitch (B-19Canal)Stream Nutrients(Chla)ND 3C Low 2011 .2634 TomokaRiverStream Copper PL 3C PP - 8/36 VP - 2/10222Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2634 TomokaRiverStream DissolvedOxygenPL 3C Low 2011 PP - 171/287 VP -120/200 DO metverification thresholdof IWR, but need toidentify causativepollutant. TN, TP,and BOD medians areall below thethresholds forstreams. This willremain on PL untilcausative pollutantcan be identified. PPmedian TN = 1.0735mg/L (n=302), medianTP = 0.049 mg/L(n=290), BOD = 0.4mg/L (n=1). VPmedian TN = 0.912mg/L (n=152), medianTP = 0.05 mg/L(n=138), median BOD= 1.9 mg/L (n=19).2634 TomokaRiverStream Lead PL 3C Low 2011 PP - 7/26. VP - 1/2Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast223WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2635 GroverBranchStream Biology PL 3C "Healthy" Biorecon in1997; "Impaired"Biorecon in 1997;"Excellent" SCI in2000; "Poor" SCI in2000; "Poor" SCI in2005.2635 GroverBranchStream DissolvedOxygenPL 3C PP - 0/0 VP - 10/23DO met verificationthreshold of IWR, butneed to identifycausative pollutant.TN, TP, and BODmedians are all belowthe thresholds forstreams. This willremain on PL untilcausative pollutantcan be identified. PPmedian TN = 0.779mg/L (n=1); no TP orBOD data. VPmedian TN = 0.894mg/L (n=2); medianTP =0.049 mg/L(n=1); median BOD =1.75 mg/L (n=2).224Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2641 UnnamedBranchStream DissolvedOxygenPL 3C PP - 0/1 VP - 14/14DO met verificationthreshold of IWR, butneed to identifycausative pollutant.TN, TP, and BODmedians are all belowthe thresholds forstreams. This willremain on PL untilcausative pollutantcan be identified. PPmedian TN = 0.5 mg/L(n=1), median TP =0.067 mg/L (n=1),BOD = No data. VPmedian TN = 1.104mg/L (n=5), medianTP = 0.097 mg/L(n=5), median BOD =1.75 mg/L (n=14).2642 UnnamedBranchEstuary Saxitoxin PL 3C Investigate samplingsites and number offish testedWater Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast225WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2645 MiznersBranchStream DissolvedOxygenPL 3C PP - 0/0 VP - 13/20DO met verificationthreshold of IWR, butneed to identifycausative pollutant.TN median is belowthe threshold forstreams. There is nodata for TP or BOD.This will remain on PLuntil causativepollutant can beidentified. PP medianTN = 0.554 mg/L(n=1); no TP or BODdata. VP median TN= 0.554 mg/L (n=1);no TP or BOD data.226Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2646 LittleTomokaRiverStream DissolvedOxygenPL 3C PP - 0/0 VP - 10/21DO met verificationthreshold of IWR, butneed to identifycausative pollutant.TN median is belowthe threshold forstreams. There is nodata for TP or BOD.This will remain on PLuntil causativepollutant can beidentified. PP medianTN = 0.628 mg/L(n=1); no TP or BODdata. VP median TN= 0.628 mg/L (n=1);no TP or BOD data.2647 Holly HillDitchStream Biology PL 3C "Impaired" Biorecon in1996; "Very Poor" SCIin 2005Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast227WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2664 Reed Canal Stream DissolvedOxygenPL 3C PP - 1/1 VP - 14/20DO met verificationthreshold of IWR, butneed to identifycausative pollutant.There was one TPsample collected inthe PP and it wasabove the thresholdfor streams but therewere eight in the VPthat were not. TN andBOD medians areboth below thethresholds forstreams. This willremain on the PL untila causitive pollutantcan be identified. PPmedian TN = 0.90mg/L (n=1); medianTP = 0.25 mg/L (n=1);no BOD data. VPmedian TN = 0.68mg/L (n=8); medianTP =0.09 mg/L (n=8);median BOD = 1.40mg/L (n=21).228Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2670 Halifax Canal Stream Nutrients(Chla)PL3CAnnual average for1999 exceeds the 11μg/L threshold forestuaries. Insufficientdata to calculateannual average for2002, 2003, or 2004,but no value exceeds8.5 μg/L. Placed onPL until further datacan be collected.Annual averages:1999 - 11.26 μg/L;2000 - 10.51 μg/L;2001 - 8.15 μg/L.Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast229WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2672 Rose Bay Estuary Nutrients(Chla)PL3CLow2011 Annual averages for1994 and 2003exceed the thresholdof 11 μg/L forestuaries. While theannual average for2003 exceeded thethreshold, thecalculation was basedon Lake Watchmeasurements whichare limited to planningperiod assessments.It has been placed onthe Planning List whilemore data is collectedto verify potentialimpairment. Annualaverages: 1994 -15.40 μg/L; 1995 -8.27 μg/L; 1996 - 7.41μg/L; 1997 - 6.80μg/L; 1998 - 8.99μg/L; 2001 - 9.92μg/L; 2002 - 10.94μg/L; 2003 - 15.33μg/L; 2005 - 5.40μg/L.2672 Rose Bay Estuary SaxitoxinPL3CInvestigate samplingsites and number offish tested230Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2673 UnnamedDrainStream DissolvedOxygenPL 3C PP - 2/2 VP - 17/28Medianconcentrations for TN,TP, and BOD duringthe verified period didnot exceedthresholds. Themedian TN during theplanning periodexceeded thethreshold (1.6 mg/L)but was based on onlytwo observations.Placed on theplanning list.2674 SpruceCreekStream Biology PL 3C Nutrients (Chla)"Healthy" Biorecon in1997; "Suspect"Biorecon in 1999;"Fair" SCI in 2005.2678 Turnbull Bay Estuary SaxitoxinPL3CInvestigate samplingsites and number offish tested2678 Turnbull Bay Estuary BiologyPL3C"Impaired" Biorecon in1998Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast231WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2679 UnnamedDrainStream DissolvedOxygenPL 3C PP - 1/1 VP -26/34 DO metverification thresholdof IWR, but need toidentify causativepollutant. TN, TP,and BOD medians areall below thethresholds forstreams. This willremain on PL untilcausative pollutantcan be identified. PPmedian TN = 1.11mg/L (n=1); no TP orBOD data. VPmedian TN = 1.121mg/L (n=14); medianTP = 0.05 mg/L(n=13); median BOD= 2 mg/L (n=24).232Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2681 GlencoeDitchesStream DissolvedOxygenPL 3C PP - 1/1 VP -26/32 DO metverification thresholdof IWR, but need toidentify causativepollutant. TN, TP,and BOD medians areall below thethresholds forstreams. This willremain on PL untilcausative pollutantcan be identified. PPmedian TN = 0.43mg/L (n=1); no TP orBOD data. VPmedian TN = 1.01mg/L (n=14); medianTP = 0.19 mg/L(n=13); median BOD= 1.8 mg/L (n=21).8117 Halifax RiverOcean 1Coastal Saxitoxin PL 3C Investigate samplingsites and number offish tested8118 Halifax RiverOcean 2Coastal Saxitoxin PL 3C Investigate samplingsites and number offish tested8119 Halifax RiverOcean 3Coastal Saxitoxin PL 3C Investigate samplingsites and number offish testedWater Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast233WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2363A Halifax River Estuary Nutrients(Chla)PL 3C Low 2011 Annual average in2003 exceeded the 11μg/L threshold forestuaries. A TMDLhas been completed,however was donebefore TMDL programwas initiated, andtherefore is not anapproved TMDL.While the annualaverage for 2003exceeded thethreshold, thecalculation was basedon Lake Watchmeasurements whichare limited to planningperiod assessments.It has been placed onthe Planning List whilemore data is collectedto verify potentialimpairment. Annualaverages: 1994 - 7.95μg/L, 1995 - 6.13μg/L, 1996 - 6.95μg/L, 1997 - 6.91μg/L, 1998 - 6.43μg/L, 1999 - 8.27μg/L, 2000 - 5.45μg/L, 2001 - 4.42μg/L, 2002 - 5.48μg/L, 2003 - 11.43μg/L, 2005 3.93 ug/L.234Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2363A Halifax River Estuary SaxitoxinPL3CInvestigate samplingsites and number offish tested2363B Halifax River Estuary SaxitoxinPL3CInvestigate samplingsites and number offish tested2363C TomokaBasinEstuary SaxitoxinPL3CInvestigate samplingsites and number offish tested2363J Palm Coast Estuary SaxitoxinPL3CInvestigate samplingsites and number offish testedWater Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast235WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2634A TomokaRiverEstuary DissolvedOxygenPL 3C PP - 71/223 VP -38/137 DO metverification thresholdof IWR, but need toidentify causativepollutant. TN, TP,and BOD medians areall below thethresholds forestuaries. This willremain on PL untilcausative pollutantcan be identified. PPTN median = 0.9945mg/L (n=252), medianTP = 0.09 mg/L(n=241), median BOD= 1.1mg/L (n=1). VPmedian TN = 0.9408mg/L (n=96), medianTP = 0.09 mg/L(n=85), median BOD= 2 mg/L (n=27).2634A TomokaRiverEstuary Saxitoxin PL 3C Investigate samplingsites and number offish tested2666A SweetwaterCreekStream Biology PL 3C "Suspect" Biorecon in1999; "Poor" SCI in2005.236Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2666A SweetwaterCreekStream DissolvedOxygenPL 3C PP - 2/2 VP - 15/28DO met verificationthreshold of IWR, butneed to identifycausative pollutant.TN, TP, and BODmedians are all belowthe thresholds forstreams. This willremain on PL untilcausative pollutantcan be identified. PPTN median = 1.046mg/L (n=2), medianTP = 0.18 mg/L (n=1),no BOD data. VPmedian TN = 1.05mg/L (n=15), medianTP = 0.14 mg/L(n=14), median BOD= 1.9 mg/L (n=26).2674A SpruceCreekEstuary Saxitoxin PL 3C Investigate samplingsites and number offish tested2674B StricklandBayEstuary Saxitoxin PL 3C Investigate samplingsites and number offish tested8117A Toronita Coastal SaxitoxinPL3CInvestigate samplingsites and number offish testedWater Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast237WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable8117B Dunlawton Coastal SaxitoxinPL3CInvestigate samplingsites and number offish tested8117C HiltonCoastal SaxitoxinPL3CInvestigate samplingsites and number offish tested8117D Silver Beach Coastal SaxitoxinPL3CInvestigate samplingsites and number offish tested8117E Main Street Coastal SaxitoxinPL3CInvestigate samplingsites and number offish tested8117F SeabreezeBlvdCoastal SaxitoxinPL3CInvestigate samplingsites and number offish tested8118A Granda Blvd Coastal SaxitoxinPL3CInvestigate samplingsites and number offish tested8118B BicentennialParkCoastal Saxitoxin PL 3C Investigate samplingsites and number offish tested238Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2472 Red HouseBranchStream DissolvedOxygenPL 3C PP - 0/0 VP - 6/20DO met verificationthreshold of IWR, butneed to identifycausative pollutant.TN, TP, and BODmedians are all belowthe thresholds forstreams. This willremain on PL untilcausative pollutantcan be identified. NoTN, TP or BOD datafrom PP. VP - medianTN = 0.50 mg/L(n=15); median TP =0.07 mg/L (n=6);median BOD = 2 mg/L(n=8).Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast239WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2491 SanSebastianRiverStream DissolvedOxygenPL 3C PP - 31/82 VP -38/111 DO metverification thresholdof IWR, but need toidentify causativepollutant. TN, TP,and BOD medians areall below thethresholds forstreams. This willremain on PL untilcausative pollutantcan be identified. PPmedian TN = 0.5065mg/L (n=82); medianTP = 0.089 mg/L(n=86); no BOD data.VP median TN =0.499 mg/L (n=93);median TP = 0.0908mg/L (n=97); medianBOD = 2 mg/L (n=24).2493 MoultrieCreekStream Biology PL 3C "Good" SCI in 2000,"Poor" SCI in 2005240Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2535 Moses Creek Stream DissolvedOxygenPL 3C PP - 16/31 VP -12/29 DO metverification thresholdof IWR, but need toidentify causativepollutant. TN, TP,and BOD medians areall below thethresholds forstreams. This willremain on PL untilcausative pollutantcan be identified. PPmedian TN = 1.31mg/L (n=1); medianTP = 0.09 mg/L;median BOD = 1.6mg/L. VP median TN= 1.13 mg/L (n=24);median TP = 0.09mg/L (n=24); medianBOD = 2 mg/L (n=20).Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast241WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2550 UnnamedDrainStream DissolvedOxygenPL 3C PP - 13/106 VP -7/36 DO observationsexceeded theimpairment threshold,however a causativepollutant could not beidentified. There wereno TN, TP, or BODdata and insufficientchlorophyllmeasurement tocalculate annualaverages.It hasbeen placed on theplanning list.2553 CrackerBranch(PellicerCreek)Stream Biology PL 3C Two "Impaired"Biorecons in 1998."Good" SCI in 2005.242Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2363F ICWW Estuary DissolvedOxygenPL 3C PP - 123/1,708 VP -124/934 DOobservationsexceeded theimpairment threshold.TN, TP, and BODconcentrations werebelow thresholds andnutrients were notimpaired based onchlorophyll. Nocausative pollutantwas identified. It hasbeen placed on theplanning list.Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast243WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2580B PellicerCreekStream DissolvedOxygenPL 3C Low 2011 PP - 41/60 VP -46/70 DO metverification thresholdof IWR, but need toidentify causativepollutant. TN, TP,and BOD medians areall below thethresholds forstreams. This willremain on PL untilcausative pollutantcan be identified. PPmedian TN = 0.855mg/L (n=63); medianTP = 0.0885 mg/L(n=64); median BOD= 0.7 mg/L (n=1). VPmedian TN = 0.793mg/L (n=63); medianTP =0.08 mg/L(n=65); median BOD= 2 mg/L (n=12).2580B PellicerCreekStream Silver PL 3C PP -3/3 VP - 0/13244Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2400 Smith Creek Stream DissolvedOxygenPL 3C PP - 14/80 VP -21/111 DO metverification thresholdof IWR, but need toidentify causativepollutant. TN, TP,and BOD medians areall below thethresholds forstreams. This willremain on PL untilcausative pollutantcan be identified. PPmedian TN = 0.584mg/L (n=86); medianTP = 0.1 mg/L (n=86);no BOD data. VPmedian TN = 0.765mg/L (n=98); medianTP =0.110 mg/L(n=100); median BOD= 2 mg/L (n=12).Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast245WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2406 Deep CreekUpperStream DissolvedOxygenPL 3C PP - 14/41 VP -19/45 DO metverification thresholdof IWR, but need toidentify causativepollutant. TN, TP,and BOD medians areall below thethresholds forstreams. This willremain on PL untilcausative pollutantcan be identified. PPmedian TN = 0.716mg/L (n=15); medianTP = 0.11 mg/L(n=16); median BOD= 1.1 mg/L (n=33).VP median TN =0.964 mg/L (n=24);median TP =0.098mg/L (n=24); medianBOD = 1.1 mg/L(n=33).246Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2442 MarshallCreekStream DissolvedOxygenPL 3C PP - 8/51 VP - 12/75DO met verificationthreshold of IWR, butneed to identifycausative pollutant.TN, TP, and BODmedians are all belowthe thresholds forstreams. This willremain on PL untilcausative pollutantcan be identified. PPmedian TN = 0.579mg/L (n=16); medianTP = 0.076 mg/L(n=16); median BOD= 1.0 mg/L (n=52).VP median TN =0.698 mg/L (n=34);median TP =0.079mg/L (n=35); medianBOD = 1.2 mg/L(n=66).Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast247WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2451 StokesCreekEstuary DissolvedOxygenPL 3C PP - 25/252 VP -27/180 DO metverification thresholdof IWR, but need toidentify causativepollutant. TN, TP,and BOD medians areall below thethresholds forestuaries. This willremain on PL untilcausative pollutantcan be identified. PPmedian TN = 0.536mg/L (n=101); medianTP = 0.093 mg/L(n=106); medianBOD = 1 mg/L (n=52).VP median TN =0.5703 mg/L (n=111);median TP =0.093mg/L (n=116); medianBOD = 1 mg/L (n=52).248Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2674 SpruceCreekStream Iron RA 4C PP - 45/52 . VP -51/57 A documenthas been preparedthat supports thatelevated ironconcentrations are anatural condition.Consequently, it hasbeen assigned anEPA IntegratedReport Category 4C.2634A TomokaRiverEstuary Iron RA 4C Low 2011 PP - 43/54 . VP -53/62 A documenthas been preparedthat supports thatelevated ironconcentrations are anatural condition.Consequently, it hasbeen assigned anEPA IntegratedReport Category 4C.Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast249WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2674A SpruceCreekEstuary Iron RA 4C PP - 0/0 VP - 22/22A document has beenprepared thatsupports that elevatediron concentrationsare a naturalcondition.Consequently, it hasbeen assigned anEPA IntegratedReport Category 4C.2493 MoultrieCreekStream Iron RA 4C PP - 50/57 VP -46/54 A documenthas been preparedthat supports thatelevated ironconcentrations are anatural condition.Consequently, it hasbeen assigned anEPA IntegratedReport Category 4C.250Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA'sIntegratedReportCategory2Priority forTMDLDevelopmentProjected Yearfor TMDLDevelopmentComments(# of Exceedances/ #of Samples)PP=Planning PeriodVP=Verified PeriodProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL= Verified List; PL =Planning List; RA =ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID =Insufficient Data; ND =No Data; NA = NotApplicable2580B PellicerCreekStream Iron RA 4C PP - 14/60 VP -10/60 A documenthas been preparedthat supports thatelevated ironconcentrations are anatural condition.Consequently, it hasbeen assigned anEPA IntegratedReport Category 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 mechanismprovides reasonableassurance 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 isnot caused by a pollutant; and5–Water quality standards are notattained and a TMDL is required.Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast251Table D.2: Water Quality Monitoring Stations Used in the Assessment for the Upper East Coast Basin, by Planning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of ObservationsHalifax River Unit2647HOLLY HILLDITCHSTREAM 3F 21FLA 27010479HOLLY HILL CANAL AT 11TH ST.AND US HWY 11996 1996462647HOLLY HILLDITCHSTREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010072 Holly Hill Ditch @ Daytona Rd. 2005 20051862647HOLLY HILLDITCHSTREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010073Holly Hill Ditch @ RR Bridge 2005 20051542647HOLLY HILLDITCHSTREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010074Holly Hill Ditch @ Alta Rd. 2005 20051422647HOLLY HILLDITCHSTREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010479 Holly Hill Ditch @ Ridgewood 2005 2005648117HALIFAX RIVEROCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH VOLUSIA284FL7793222000 200613568117HALIFAX RIVEROCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH VOLUSIA285FL2582632000 200613928117HALIFAX RIVEROCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH VOLUSIA287FL1509712000 200613668117HALIFAX RIVEROCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH VOLUSIA288FL2983082000 200612808117HALIFAX RIVEROCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH VOLUSIA3SEABREEZE BLVD8117HALIFAX RIVEROCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH VOLUSIA338FL7704212000 200614628117HALIFAX RIVEROCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH VOLUSIA4MAIN STREET8117HALIFAX RIVEROCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH VOLUSIA5SILVER BEACH8117HALIFAX RIVEROCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH VOLUSIA6HILTON8117HALIFAX RIVEROCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH VOLUSIA7DUNLAWTON8117HALIFAX RIVEROCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH VOLUSIA8TORONITA2674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 112WRD 02248000SPRUCE CREEK NR SAMSULA,FLA. 1964 1993 18984252Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations2674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010332SPRUCE CREEK AT SPRUCECREEK BLVD. 1998 1998 502674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010539Spruce Creek at C.R. 41182674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010539 Spruce Creek at Pioneer Trail 1999 20052222674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F21FLKWAT127SPRUCECREEK2674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLKWATSPRUCE CREEK1SPRUCE CREEK IN VOLUSIA CO.-SEE NOTE2674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLKWATSPRUCE CREEK2SPRUCE CREEK IN VOLUSIA CO.-SEE NOTE2674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLKWATSPRUCE CREEK3SPRUCE CREEK IN VOLUSIA CO.-SEE NOTE2674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F21FLKWATSPRUCECREEK112674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F21FLKWATSPRUCECREEK212674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F21FLKWATSPRUCECREEK312674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLKWATVOL-SP-CREEK-1 Volusia-Spruce Creek-1-1 1995 2006 7982674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLKWATVOL-SP-CREEK-2 Volusia-Spruce Creek-2-2 1995 2006 7982674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLKWATVOL-SP-CREEK-3 Volusia-Spruce Creek-3-3 1995 2006 7982674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLSJWM02248000 SPRUCE CREEK NEAR SAMSULA 1995 200457142674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010081Spruce Creek @ 25m north of CreekCrossing Rd.2005 20053002674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010082Spruce Creek @ Lacey Rd. 2005 20051502674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010083Spruce Creek @ Pell Rd. 2005 20051542674 SPRUCE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010093 Spruce Creek @ Covered Bridge 2005 20051862678 TURNBULL BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010542Turnbull Creek at S.R. 442678 TURNBULL BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010542Turnbull Creek at S.R. 44 1999 1999562678 TURNBULL BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMTRBCKTURNBULL CREEK UPSTRTURNBULL BAY1993 1993842678 TURNBULL BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLWPB 20010735TURNBULL CREEK @ JUNGLEROAD 20032003 2222678 TURNBULL BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLWPB 20010736TURNBULL CREEK @ PIONEERTRAIL 20032003 2842678 TURNBULL BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010173Turnbull Bay @ 350M NW ofTurnbull Bay Road2005 20051442678 TURNBULL BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010174Turnbull Bay @ .7 miles NW ofTurnbull Bay Road 2005 2005 114Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast253WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations2678 TURNBULL BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010175Turnbull Bay @ 1.15 miles NW ofTurnbull Bay Rd2005 20051462678 TURNBULL BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010176Turnbull Bay @ 1.6 NW of TurnbullBay Road 2005 2005 1482678 TURNBULL BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010177Turnbull Bay @ 2 miles NW ofTurnbull Bay Rd 2005 2005 1222678 TURNBULL BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLMRC TB9060Turnbull Bay - 2878 Sunset Dr, NewSmyrna Beach2006 2006602363C TOMOKA BASIN ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010568TOMOKA BASIN, MIDDLE OF THEBASIN 1985 1992 4962363C TOMOKA BASIN ESTUARY 3M 21FLKWAT127TOMOKA-112363C TOMOKA BASIN ESTUARY 3M 21FLKWAT127TOMOKA-212363C TOMOKA BASIN ESTUARY 3M 21FLKWAT127TOMOKA-312363C TOMOKA BASIN ESTUARY 3M 21FLKWAT127TOMOKA-412363C TOMOKA BASIN ESTUARY 3M 21FLKWAT127TOMOKA-512363C TOMOKA BASIN ESTUARY 3M21FLKWATVOL-TOTOMOKA-1 Volusia-Tomoka-1 2000 2001 562363C TOMOKA BASIN ESTUARY 3M21FLKWATVOL-TOTOMOKA-2 Volusia-Tomoka-2 2000 2001 502363C TOMOKA BASIN ESTUARY 3M21FLKWATVOL-TOTOMOKA-3 Volusia-Tomoka-3 2000 2001 522363C TOMOKA BASIN ESTUARY 3M21FLKWATVOL-TOTOMOKA-4 Volusia-Tomoka-4 2000 2001 522363C TOMOKA BASIN ESTUARY 3M21FLKWATVOL-TOTOMOKA-5 Volusia-Tomoka-5 2000 2001 562363C TOMOKA BASIN ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL03HALIFAX RIVER CENTER OFTOMOKA BASIN1991 199839282363C TOMOKA BASIN ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-003Halifax River, center of TomokaBasin 1999 2006 20648118HALIFAX RIVEROCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH VOLUSIA1BICENTENNIAL PARK8118HALIFAX RIVEROCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH VOLUSIA2GRANDA BLVD8118HALIFAX RIVEROCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH VOLUSIA282FL4416262000 200612448118HALIFAX RIVEROCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH VOLUSIA283FL7505622000 20061278254Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations2674BSTRICKLANDBAY AT US # ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010835STRICKLAND BAY AT US #1 1975 19981022674BSTRICKLANDBAY AT US # ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMSPRCKSPRUCE CREEK AT STRICKLANDBAY 1993 1993 842674BSTRICKLANDBAY AT US # ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010185Strickland Bay @ 875M East(Downstream) of RR Crossing 2005 20052142674BSTRICKLANDBAY AT US # ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010186Strickland Bay @ 525M East(Downstream) of RR Crossing 2005 20051662674BSTRICKLANDBAY AT US # ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010187Strickland Bay @ 425M NE(Downstream) of RR Crossing 2005 2005 2122674BSTRICKLANDBAY AT US # ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010188Strickland Bay @ 100M East(Downstream) of RR Crossing 2005 20051522363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010409HALIFAX R 50 Y N DAYTONA BCHSTP 19711973 1802363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010410HALIFAX R AT ICWW MARKERS42 & 4 1971 1975 2702363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010411HALIFAX R 50 Y S DAYTONA BCHSTP 19711973 1642363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010412HALIFAX R .75M S PT ORNGCAUSEWA 1971 1971 502363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010413HALIFAX R .6M S PT ORNGCAUSEWAY 1971 1971 502363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010414HALIFAX RIV S PT ORANGECAUSEWAY 1971 1971 502363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010415HALIFAX R 100YDS S PT ORNGCSEWA 19711971 502363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010416HALIFAX R 100YDS N PT ORNGCSEWA 19711971 502363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010417HALIFAX R .75M S PT ORNGCAUSEWA 1971 1971 502363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010418HALIFAX R .6M S PT ORNGCAUSEWAY 1971 1971 502363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010419HALIFAX R .4M S PT ORNGCAUSEWAY 1971 1971 502363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010420HALIFAX R 300YDS S PT ORNGCSEWA 19711971 502363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010421HALIFAX R 100YDS S PT ORNGCSEWA 19711971 502363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010422HALIFAX R 100YDS N PT ORNGCSEWA 19711971 50Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast255WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010423HALIFAX R INTRACOAST WATMARK 591971 19961562363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010424HALIFAX R BET ICWW MARKERS57 &5 1971 1971 482363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010425HALIFAX RIV INTCOAST WATMARK 571941 19711022363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010426HALIFAX R 150YDS S PT ORNGCSEWA 19711971 482363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010427HALIFAX R 200YDS N PT ORNGCSEWA 19711971 502363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010428HALIFAX R NR PORT ORNG STPEFF 1973 1973 582363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010429HALIFAX R. 50 YDS. EAST OFPORT ORANGE CANAL1996 1996582363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010437HALIFAX R CONF SPRUCE CRAND ICW 1973 1975 1942363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010439HALIFAX R. 50 YDS. EAST OFREED CANAL1996 1996862363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010608HALIFAX R. 0.5 MI. S. OF PORTORANGE OUTFALL1995 199582363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010610HALIFAX R. 100 YDS. N. OFDAYTONA OUTFALL1996 1996582363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010611HALIFAX R. 100 YDS. S. OFDAYTONA OUTFALL1996 1996582363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010041HALIFAX R 100YDS S DAYTONABH ST1968 19682582363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010042HALIFAX R 100YDS S DAYTONABH ST1968 19682582363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010043HALIFAX R 200YDS S ICWWMARKER 4 1968 1968 2562363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010044HALIFAX R 100YDS S REED CLOUTLE 19681968 2582363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010045HALIFAX R 100 FT N PORTORANG BR 1968 1975 5222363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010046HALIFAX R 150YDS S PT ORNGSTP 19681973 1082363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010047HALIFAX R AT ICWW MARKER #58 1968 1975 6122363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010048 HALIFAX R.AT ICWW MARKER 1 1968 199010682363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010836HALIFAX R. JUST NO. OF PONCEINL 1978 1981 262256Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010947HALIFAX R IN SO CNTRDAYTONA OUTFALL 1984 1984 15642363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010948HALIFAX R 300YD WEST ICWWMARK 4 1984 1984 12342363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010949HALIFAX R IN ICWW CHAN BETMK485 1983 1990 22262363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010951HALIFAX RIVER AT ICWWMARKER NUMBER 63 1983 1990 6002363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLFMRIHAL200109Halifax - Port Orange2001 2001242363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLFMRIHAL200110Halifax - Daggett Island2001 2001242363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLFMRIHAL200111 Halifax - End of Inlet Harbor Road 2001 2001642363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M21FLKWATHALIFAXRIVER112363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M21FLKWATHALIFAXRIVER212363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M21FLKWATHALIFAXRIVER312363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLKWATVOL-HA-RIVER-1 Volusia-Halifax River-1-12001 20054342363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLKWATVOL-HA-RIVER-2 Volusia-Halifax River-2-22001 20054222363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLKWATVOL-HA-RIVER-3 Volusia-Halifax River-3-32001 20054322363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL13 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICWW CM44 1991 199860702363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL14 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICWW CM47 1991 199858562363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL15 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICWW CM56 1991 199848502363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL16 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICWW CM57 1991 199842722363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL17 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICWW CM63 1991 199845082363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL18 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICWW CM 1 1991 199865142363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL19 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICWW CM7 1992 199860902363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-014Halifax River, at ICWW CM 47 1999 200616222363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-015Halifax River, at ICWW CM 56 1999 200618182363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-016Halifax River, at ICWW CM 57 1999 200616042363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-017Halifax River, at ICWW CM 63 1999 200615522363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-018Halifax River, at ICWW CM 1 1999 200616042363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-019Halifax River, at ICWW CM 7 1999 200616202363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010410Halifax River at ICWW channelmarkers #42 and #43,midchannel 2005 2005 1742363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010427Halifax Rvr 200 yd north of PortOrange Causeway2005 200536Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast257WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations2363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010429Halifax Rvr 50 yd east of entrance toPort Orange Canal 2005 2005 322363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010948Halifax River 300 yd west of ICWWchannel marker #462005 2005962363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010949Halifax River between ICWWchannel markers #48 and #50 2005 2005322363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLFMRIFLE200506 Halifax River/Mosquito Lagoon 2005 2005442363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010126Halifax River @ ICWW ChannelMarker # 442005 2005682363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMNCBHL14Halifax River at ICW CM 47 2005 20069802363A HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMNCBHL18Halifax River at ICW CM 1 2005 20067782634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 112WRD 02247488ELEVENTH STREET CANAL NEARHOLLY HILL, FL2634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 112WRD 02247500TOMOKA RIVER NR DAYTONABEACH, FLA.2634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 112WRD 02247508ELEVENTH ST CANAL NR HOLLYHILL, FL2634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 112WRD 02247510TOMOKA RIVER NR HOLLY HILL,FLA. 1964 1984 13282634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010572TOMOKA RIVER BETWEENAIRPORT DITCH AND ISLAND 1985 19862882634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010573TOMOKA RIVER EAST FORKAROUND ISLAND 1985 1986 2882634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010574TOMOKA RIVER AT INTERSTATE95 BRIDGE 1985 1986 2882634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010578TOMOKA RIVER AT STATEROUTE 40 BRIDGE1985 19862782634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010579TOMOKA RIVER AT ELEVENTHSTREET BRIDGE 1985 1998 7802634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010596 Tomoka River at U.S. Highway 922634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010830TOMOKA RIVER AT SR 40TOMOKA RD1975 1975562634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010579 Tomoka River at 11th Street Bridge 2000 20053742634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010596 Tomoka River at U.S. Highway 92 2000 20053382634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F21FLGW 3516TOMOKA RIVER AT ELEVENTHSTREET BRIDGE1998 20064972258Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations2634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLSJWM27010579TOMOKA RIVER AT 11TH STREETBRIDGE 1995 1998 27342634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLSJWMTR11TOMOKA RIVER @ 11TH STREETBRIDGE 1993 1995 10922634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLSJWMTRUS1TOMOKA RIVER @ OLD DIXIEHWY BRDG 1993 1993 3022634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLVEMDTR03TOMOKA RIVER UPSTREAM OFS.R. 40 BRIDGE 1993 1998 32382634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLVEMDTR04TOMOKA RIVER UPSTREAM OF11TH ST. BRIDGE 1993 1998 40182634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLVEMDTR05TOMOKA RIVER UPSTREAM OFU.S. 92 BRIDGE 1993 1998 16282634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLVEMDVC-077Tomoka River, from upstream sideof S.R. 40 1999 2006 16762634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLVEMDVC-078Tomoka River, from upstream sideof LPGA Blvd. 1999 2006 14142634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLVEMDVC-079Tomoka River, from upstream sideof U.S. 92 1999 2006 5362634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLWPB 20010739 TOMOKA RIVER @ 11TH STREET 2003 20032702634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLWPB 20010740TOMOKA RIVER @ STATEHIGHWAY 40 2003 2003 2882634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010075Tomoka River @ I-42005 20051642634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010574 Tomoka River at Interstate 95 bridge 2005 2005482634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010830Tomoka River at SR 40 (TomokaRoad) 20052005 2502634 TOMOKA RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLSJWMNCBTR05Tomoka River upstream of U.S. 92Bridge 2005 2006 2462645MIZNERSBRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010595 Mizners Branch at S.R. 402645MIZNERSBRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010595 Mizners Branch at S.R. 40 2000 2005 1522645MIZNERSBRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010067 Mizner's Branch @ hand Rd. 2005 2005 642645MIZNERSBRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010068 Mizner's Branch @ Falls Rd. 2005 2005 1562645MIZNERSBRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010069Mizner's Branch @ Walkway east ofHorseshoe Falls Rd. 2005 2005 1502645MIZNERSBRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010070 Mizner's Branch @ Main Trail Rd. 2005 2005 118Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast259WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations2646LITTLE TOMOKARIVER STREAM 3F 112WRD 02247600LITTLE TOMOKA RIVER NRORMOND BEACH, FLA.2646LITTLE TOMOKARIVER STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010577LITTLE TOMOKA RIVER ATTYMBER RD. BRIDGE 1985 1986 2902646LITTLE TOMOKARIVER STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010583Little Tomoka River at BreakawayTrail2646LITTLE TOMOKARIVER STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010583Little Tomoka River at BreakawayTrail 20002005 1942646LITTLE TOMOKARIVER STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010139Little Tomoka River @ SR 40, 150MWest of Old Tomoka Rd.2005 20051682646LITTLE TOMOKARIVER STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010577Little Tomoka River at Tymber RoadBridge 20052005 1802640UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010597Strickland Creek 200m upstream ofTomoka River2641UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010469North Ormond Airport Ditch atAirport Road (aka B 1996 1996 462641UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010142Unnamed Branch @ Bear CreekPath 20052005 1782641UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010143 Unnamed Branch @ Wall Av 2005 2005 1842642UNNAMEDBRANCH ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010570SOUTH DITCH TO TOMOKARIVER 1985 1986 7542656 UNNAMED DITCH STREAM 3F 112WRD 02247485 BAYLESS BLVD CANAL DAYTONA2674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 112WRD 02248050SPRUCE CREEK NR PORTORANGE, FLA.2674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 112WRD 02248053SPRUCE CREEK NR NEWSMYRNA BEACH,FL2674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMSPRCRSPRUCE CREEK 100 MUPSTREAM FROM ICWW 1992 19922422674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMUEC014 SPRUCE CREEK AT AIRPORT RD 1992 19933702674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDSC01SPRUCE CREEK CENTERBRIDGE ON U.S. HWY 1 1991 1998 40042674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDSC02SPRUCE CREEK WEST OF SSCRAILROAD 1991 1998 45742674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDSC04SPRUCE CREEK WEST OFAIRPORT RD.1991 19986304260Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations2674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDSC05SPRUCE CREEK AT DOCK ATGAMBLE PLACE 1991 1998 46482674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-072Spruce Creek, from dock atRiverwood, W. of SCL Railroad 1999 2006 15322674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-073Spruce Creek, from W. side ofMoody Bridge on Airport Rd. 1999 2006 14122674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-074Spruce Creek, from dock at GamblePlace 1999 2005 11422674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLWPB 20010737SPRUCE CREEK @ CYPRESSHEAD DEVELOPMENT 2003 2003 2582674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLWPB 20010738SPRUCE CREEK @ AIRPORTROAD 20032003 3162674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010193Spruce Creek @ 675m upstream ofRR bridge2005 20052982674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010194Spruce Creek @ 0.68 milesupstream of RR bridge 2005 2005 2442674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010195Spruce Creek @ 0.87 milesupstream of RR bridge 2005 2005 2022674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010196Spruce Creek @ 1.07 milesupstream of RR bridge 2005 2005 1702674A SPRUCE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010197Spruce Creek @ 1.3 miles upstreamof RR bridge 2005 2005 1942675 SAND CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010538Sand Creek at C.R. 4152675 SAND CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010538Sand Creek at C.R. 4151999 20052542675 SAND CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010080Sand Creek @ Tributary just southof Lakeside Dr. 2005 2005 2202675 SAND CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010092Sand Creek @ Unnamed Rd. .5miles West of Tomoka Farms Rd. 2005 20052202664 REED CANAL STREAM 3F 112WRD 02248025REED CANAL AT SOUTHDAYTONA,FL2664 REED CANAL STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010483REED CANAL AT US HWY 1DAYTONA BEACH 1996 1996 482664 REED CANAL STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010122Reed Canal @ Upstream ofConfluence with Halifax River 2005 2005 2562664 REED CANAL STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010124Reed Canal @ Lantern Drive 2005 20051362664 REED CANAL STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010125Reed Canal @ Saul Street 2005 2005138Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast261WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations2664 REED CANAL STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010483Reed Canal at US Hwy 1 in SouthDaytona Beach2005 20051402670 HALIFAX CANAL STREAM 3M 112WRD 02248030HALIFAX CANAL NR HARBOUROAKS,FL2670 HALIFAX CANAL STREAM 3M 21FLKWAT127HALIFAX RIVE2670 HALIFAX CANAL STREAM 3M 21FLVEMDVC-070Rose Bay, from S. side of MainStreet bridge in Harbor Oaks 1999 2006 15822670 HALIFAX CANAL STREAM 3M 21FLCEN 27010166Halifax Canal @ 300m East ofRidgewood Blvd. 2005 2005 1682670 HALIFAX CANAL STREAM 3M 21FLCEN 27010167Halifax Canal @ 225M West ofRidgewood Blvd 2005 2005 1782670 HALIFAX CANAL STREAM 3M 21FLCEN 27010168Halifax Canal @ 450M West ofRidgewood Blvd 2005 2005 1422672 ROSE BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLKWAT127ROSE BAY-112672 ROSE BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLKWAT127ROSE BAY-212672 ROSE BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLKWAT127ROSE BAY-312672 ROSE BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLKWATVOL-RO-SEBAY-1 Volusia-Rose Bay-1 2001 2005 3722672 ROSE BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLKWATVOL-RO-SEBAY-2 Volusia-Rose Bay-2 2001 2005 3662672 ROSE BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLKWATVOL-RO-SEBAY-3 Volusia-Rose Bay-3 2001 2005 3642672 ROSE BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDRB01ROSE BAY WEST OF HWY U.S. 1BRIDGE 1991 1998 39682672 ROSE BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDRB02ROSE BAY SOUTH OF NOVA RD.BRIDGE 1991 1998 47882672 ROSE BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010161Rose Bay @ 425m SE of BoatRamp 2005 2005 1942672 ROSE BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010162Rose Bay @ 275m ESE of BoatRamp 20052005 1502672 ROSE BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010163Rose Bay @ 125m NE of BoatRamp 20052005 1542672 ROSE BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010164Rose Bay @ 235m North of BoatRamp 2005 2005 1202672 ROSE BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010165Rose Bay @ 450m North of BoatRamp 2005 2005 1142673 UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010537Unnamed drain of Spruce Creek atC.R. 421 1998 1998 542673 UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010537Unnamed drain of Spruce Creek atC.R. 421 1999 2005 2402673 UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010096Unnamed Drain @ Tomoka FarmsRoad 2005 2005 198262Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations2673 UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010097 Unnamed Drain @ Old Dayton Road 2005 20051562673 UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010098 Unnamed Drain @ Avalado Road 2005 20051302673 UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010099Unnamed Drain @ Old SamsulaRoad 2005 2005 1282666ASWEETWATERCREEK STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010536 Sweetwater Creek at C.R. 421 1998 1998 522666ASWEETWATERCREEK STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010536 Sweetwater Creek at C.R. 421 1999 2005 2762666ASWEETWATERCREEK STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010189Sweetwater Creek @ 50M South ofHawk's Ridge 2005 2005 1282666ASWEETWATERCREEK STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010190 Sweetwater Creek @ Williams Rd. 2005 2005 1222666ASWEETWATERCREEK STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010191 Sweetwater Creek @ Taylor Rd. 2005 2005 1962666ASWEETWATERCREEK STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010192Sweetwater Creek @ Ocean OaksApts 2005 2005 1208119HALIFAX RIVEROCEAN 3 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH FLAGLER105FL4018162000 200612448119HALIFAX RIVEROCEAN 3 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH FLAGLER106FL6732032000 200611748119HALIFAX RIVEROCEAN 3 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH FLAGLER349FL2405202002 200610028119HALIFAX RIVEROCEAN 3 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH FLAGLER5FLAGLER PIER @ FLAGLERBEACH8119HALIFAX RIVEROCEAN 3 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH FLAGLER6GAMBLE ROGERS STATE PARK2620 BULOW CREEK STREAM 3M 21FLFMRIHAL200130Halifax - Tolomato River 2001 2001 242620 BULOW CREEK STREAM 3M 21FLSJWMBUL BULOW CREEK AT LOW BRIDGE 1986 2006120802620 BULOW CREEK STREAM 3M 21FLCEN 27010108Bulow Creek @ Upstream ofconfluence of Halifax River 2005 2005 1522620 BULOW CREEK STREAM 3M 21FLCEN 27010109Bulow Creek @ 275m upstream ofconfluence with Halifax River 2005 2005 1522620 BULOW CREEK STREAM 3M 21FLCEN 27010110Bulow Creek @ 490m upstream ofconfluence with Halifax River 2005 2005 1522620 BULOW CREEK STREAM 3M 21FLCEN 27010111Bulow Creek @ 705m upstream ofconfluence of Halifax River 2005 2005 154Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast263WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations2620 BULOW CREEK STREAM 3M 21FLCEN 27010112Bulow Creek @ 920m upstream ofconfluence with Halifax River 2005 2005 1502363J PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010020HALIFAX RIVER NORTH AT ICWWCHANNEL MARKER 26 1992 1996 6322363J PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010025HALIFAX CR IN COAST WWAYMARK 291968 199317082363J PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010106ICWW MARKER 19 AT FLAGLERBEACH 1971 1998 21662363J PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL01HALIFAX RIVER NEARHIGHBRIDGE RD.1991 199840502363J PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL02 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICWW CM 29 1991 199840082363J PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMFLBICWW under the Highway 100Bridge in Flagler Beach 2004 2006 10122363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010401HALIFAX R NR MARKERS STOMOKA BA 1971 1973 1622363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010402HALIFAX R 50 Y N ORMOND BCHSTP 19711996 2222363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010403 HALIFAX R A ICWW MARKER 16 1971 198418462363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010404HALIFAX R 50 Y S ORMOND BCHSTP 1971 1996 2282363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010405HALIFAX R 50 Y N HOLLY HILLSTP 1971 1996 2302363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010406HALIFAX R BET ICWW MARKERS27& 2 1971 1984 18262363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010407HALIFAX R 50 Y S HOLLY HILLSTP 19711996 2302363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010408HALIFAX R SE COR RV YACHTCLB BS1971 19711062363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010436HALIFAX R CONF TOMOKA RAND ICWW1973 1973682363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010438 PONCE DE LEON INLET CENTER 1973 1973982363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010468HALIFAX R. AT ICWW CM 9 EASTSIDE OF CHANNEL 1996 1996 582363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010567HALIFAX RIVER SOUTH TIP OFTOMOKA STATE PARK 1985 1992 5082363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010026HALIFAX R 1ST MARK S TOMOKABASN 1968 1968 2522363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010027HALIFAX R 1ST MARK S TOMOKAB 10 1968 1981 270264Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010028HALIFAX R INT COAST WWAYMARK 4 1968 1973 4182363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010029HALIFAX R 150YDS S ORMONDBCH ST1968 19682582363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010031HALIFAX R 150YDS S ICWWMARKER 1 1968 1968 2462363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010032HALIFAX R 150YDS S ICWWMARKER 1 1968 1968 2582363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010033HALIFAX R 150YDS S HOLLY HILLST 1968 1968 2582363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010034HALIFAX R 150YDS S HOLLY HILLST 1968 1968 2582363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010035HALIFAX R 150YDS S HOLLY HILLST 1968 1968 2582363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010036HALIFAX R SILVER BCHMEMORIAL BR1968 19734122363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010037HALIFAX R 100 FT N SI BCH MEMBR 1968 1995 96042363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010038HALIFAX R 100 FT N SI BCH MEMBR 1968 1968 2562363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010039HALIFAX R CTR YACHT CLUBBASIN 19681973 4222363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010831HALIFAX RIVER AT ICW #12MIDCHAN 19751975 562363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010832HALIFAX RIVER AT ICW #22 1975 19961142363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010940HALIFAX RIV 300YD W OF ICWW11 19831990 22502363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010941SEGMENT 27.1CA BODY OFWATE 19841984 12882363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010942HALIFAX RIVER AT ICWWMARKER 19 1984 1984 12882363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010943HALIFAX RIVER AT ICWWMARKER 21 1983 1990 22102363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010944HALIFAX RIVER AT ICWWMARKER 24 1984 1984 12882363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010945HALIFAX R 200YD WEST ICWWMARK 3 1981 1984 12102363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010946HALIFAX R MIDCHAN ICWW ATMAIN ST1984 198415782363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010950HALIFAX RIVER AT SEABREEZEBRIDGE 1983 1990 5982363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLFMRIHAL200107 Halifax - Intracoastal Waterway 2001 200124Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast265WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLFMRIHAL200108 Halifax - Intracoastal Waterway 2001 2001542363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWM27010037HALIFAX RIVER 100 FT N SIBEACH MEMORIAL BRIDGE 1995 2006 69542363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMHR29HALIFAX RIVER @ CM 29 1993 19932162363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMHR40OBHALIFAX R SOUTH SIDE SR 40 INORMOND BEACH1991 19912482363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMHR92B HALIFAX RIVER @ SR 92 BRIDGE 1993 19931582363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMHR92DBHALIFAX R NORTH SIDE SR 92 INDAYTONA BEACH 1991 1993 2502363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMUEC015 PONCE INLET NEAR MOUTH 1992 19931742363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL04 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICWW CM 6 1993 199833782363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL05 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICCW CM 11 1991 199840782363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL06 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICCW CM 16 1991 199841702363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL07 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICCW CM 21 1991 199842022363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL08 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICWW CM 25 1993 199839602363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL09 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICCW CM 30 1991 199839802363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL10 HALIFAX RIVER AT ICWW CM 33 1993 199834182363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL11HALIFAX RIVER 100 YDS N. OFORANGE AVE. BRIDGE1991 199864102363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDHL12HALIFAX RIVER AT ENTRANCETO HALIFAX HARBOR1991 199839822363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-005Halifax River, at ICWW CM 11 1999 200620882363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-006Halifax River, at ICWW CM 16 1999 200620942363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-007Halifax River, at ICWW CM 21 1999 200620382363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-008Halifax River, at ICWW CM 25 1999 200621062363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-009Halifax River, at ICWW CM 30 1999 200619442363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-010Halifax River, at ICWW CM 33 1999 200619242363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-011Halifax River, at ICWW CM 36, N ofOrange Ave Bridge 1999 2006 19642363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-012Halifax River, at entrance to HalifaxHarbor Marina, CM 11 1999 2006 19342363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010119 Halifax River @ Silver Beach Rd. 2005 20052022363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010120Halifax River @ InternationalSpeedway Dr.2005 2005154266Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations2363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010945Halifax River 200 yd west of ICWWchannel marker #302005 2005942363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010946Halifax River ICWW channel at MainStreet Bridge, midchannel 2005 2005 1562363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010950Halifax River approximately 100 ydnorth of Seabreeze Bridge 2005 2005 1522363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLFMRIFLEALT158IRL2005 2005 342363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLFMRISTR200432Halifax River2004 2004682363B HALIFAX RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010121Halifax River @ Entrance to Marinaon ICWW2005 2005582634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMSJB-LR-1032Tomoka River State Park NE ofTomoka Estates2002 2002242634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 112WRD 02247598TOMOKA RIVER NR ORMONDBEACH,FL2634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010569TOMOKA RIVER DOWNSTREAMOF SOUTH DITCH 1985 1986 8322634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010023TOMOKA R AT US HW # 1 1962 198667862634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010024 TOMOKA R OLD DIXIE HWY BR 1968 199826402634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010023 Tomoka River at US Highway 1 2000 20052502634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010024 Tomoka River at Old Dixie Highway 2000 20053662634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWM27010024TOMOKA RIVER AT OLD DIXIEHWY BRIDGE 1995 2006 75422634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMTOMKATOMOKA RIVER TOMOKA ST PKUPSTR OF RT 5A BRIDGE 1992 1992 2442634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDTR01TOMOKA RIVER AT OLD DIXIEHIGHWAY 1993 1998 92462634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDTR02TOMOKA RIVER DOWNSTREAMOF U.S. 1 BRIDGE 1993 1998 59222634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-075Tomoka River, from upstream sideof CR4011, by Tomoka S.P. 1999 2006 19282634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLVEMDVC-076Tomoka River, from downstreamside of U.S. 1 1999 2006 14762634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010113Tomoka River @ 800m upstream ofOld Dixie Hwy Bridge 2005 2005 1602634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010114Tomoka River @ 1.5 milesdownstream of US 1 bridge 2005 2005 158Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast267WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations2634A TOMOKA RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLCEN 27010569Tomoka Rvr 0.25 mi downstream ofconfluence with south ditch 2005 2005 2062635GROVERBRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010575GROOVER BRANCH AT TYMBERRD. BRIDGE 1985 1986 2782635GROVERBRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010580Groover Branch at Airport RoadBridge2635GROVERBRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010580Groover Branch at Airport RoadBridge 2000 2005 1822635GROVERBRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010140 Groover Branch @ Dimmers Rd 2005 20051362635GROVERBRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010141Groover Branch@Driveway W ofTimberCreek .5 miles N of AP rd 2005 2005 922635GROVERBRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010575Groover Branch at Tymber RoadBridge 20052005 982635GROVERBRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010582Groover Branch at Tymber RunRoad 2005 2005 1262654DRAINAGECANALS STREAM 3F 112WRD 02247480TIGER BAY CANAL NR DAYTONABCH, FL 1979 1999 5662654DRAINAGECANALS STREAM 3F 112WRD 02247481 THAYER CANAL AT 11TH STREET2654DRAINAGECANALS STREAM 3F 112WRD 02247483 TAYLOR CANAL ALONG US 922654DRAINAGECANALS STREAM 3F 112WRD 02247484 AMANDA'S DITCH NR DAYTONA2654DRAINAGECANALS STREAM 3F 112WRD 02247496THAYER CANAL NR DAYTONABCH, FL 1983 1984 2302654DRAINAGECANALS STREAM 3F 112WRD 290944081064200US HWY 92 CANAL NR DAYTONABCH, FL2666 UNNAMED DITCH STREAM 3F 112WRD 02248002 B-19 CANAL AT PELICAN BAY2666 UNNAMED DITCH STREAM 3F 112WRD 02248004B-19 CANAL AT WILLOW RUNBLVD2666 UNNAMED DITCH STREAM 3F 112WRD 02248006 B-19 CANAL AT SR 415 ,PORT OR2679 UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010540Unnamed drain into Spruce Creek atMartin Dairy R2679 UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010540Unnamed ditch@E of Martin DairyR,0.5miles N of Pioneer Tr R 1999 2005 1622679 UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010084Unnamed Ditch @ Pioneer TrailBridge 20052005 2322679 UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010085Unnamed Ditch @ I-952005 200570268Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations2679 UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010090Unnamed Ditch @ E. of Martin DairyRd, 1.25 miles N of PT rd 2005 2005 2082679 UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010091Unnamed Ditch @2005 20051722681GLENCOEDITCHES STREAM 3F 112WRD 02248060TURNBULL CREEK NR NEWSMYRNA BEACH,FL2681GLENCOEDITCHES STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010541 Glencoe Ditch at Turnbull Bay Road2681GLENCOEDITCHES STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010541 Glencoe Ditch at Turnbull Bay Road 1999 2005 1842681GLENCOEDITCHES STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010115Glencoe Ditches @ Captain ButlerRd. 20052005 1822681GLENCOEDITCHES STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010116Glencoe Ditches @ Mooneyham(Williams) Rd 2005 2005 2922681GLENCOEDITCHES STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010117Glencoe Ditches @ 225m South ofTurnbull Bay Rd 2005 2005 862681GLENCOEDITCHES STREAM 3F 21FLCEN 27010118Glencoe Ditches @ 225m North ofTurnbull Bay Rd.2005 200584Matanzas River Unit2491SAN SEBASTIANRIVER STREAM 3F 112WRD 02246895SAN SEBASTIAN RIVER ATST.AUGUSTINE,FL2491SAN SEBASTIANRIVER STREAM 3F 112WRD 295333081191401SJ-90 MARSH NR ST.AUGUSTINE, FL2491SAN SEBASTIANRIVER STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010141 SAN SEBASTIAN R @ US 1 1989 2005 3162491SAN SEBASTIANRIVER STREAM 3F 21FLSJWMSSB San Sebastian River @ U.S. 1 1985 2006 106962491SAN SEBASTIANRIVER STREAM 3F 21FLSJWMSSEBSAN SEBASTIAN RIVER ATMARKER 8 1992 1992 1682491SAN SEBASTIANRIVER STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010058 SAN SEBASTIAN R @ SR 16 2005 2005 2522491SAN SEBASTIANRIVER STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010935SAN SEBASTIAN RIVER AT CMNO. 27 2005 2005 2182363HST AUGUSTINEINLET ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010131ST AUGUSTINE INLET @MARKER #2 1973 2005 13622363HST AUGUSTINEINLET ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010136TOLOMOTO R SO OFVILANO BCH BRID 1976 2005 1878Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast269WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations2472RED HOUSEBRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010059RED HOUSE BR @ LEWISSPEEDWAY 2005 2005 5102472RED HOUSEBRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010061RED HOUSE BR @ WOODLAWNRD 2005 2005 5062520WILDWOODCREEK STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010189WILDWOOD CR. @ WILDWOODRD. 20012005 5502520WILDWOODCREEK STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010064WILDWOOD CR S FT PEYTONCIR 2005 2005 4862493MOULTRIECREEK STREAM 2 112WRD 02246900MOULTRIE CREEK AT SHWY 207NR ST AUGUSTINE, FLA.2493MOULTRIECREEK STREAM 2 112WRD 02247000MOULTIRE CREEK NR ST.AUGUSTINE, FLA.2493MOULTRIECREEK STREAM 2 112WRD 02247015MOULTRIE CREEK ATMOULTRIE,FL2493MOULTRIECREEK STREAM 2 112WRD 294927081192501SJ-97 CORBETT NR MOULTRIECREEK2493MOULTRIECREEK STREAM 2 21FLA 27010188 MOULTRIE CREEK AT CR 207 2000 20056482493MOULTRIECREEK STREAM 2 21FLSJWMMCICW MOULTRIE CREEK OFF ICWW 1993 200699042493MOULTRIECREEK STREAM 221FLSJWMMTCMOULTRIE CREEK AT SR 207 1984 2004104482493MOULTRIECREEK STREAM 2 21FLA 27010055MOULTRIE CR @ US 12005 20056122493MOULTRIECREEK STREAM 221FLGW 21201MTC2004 200613042499 OYSTER CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLVOL ICW130 OYSTER CREEK-ST. AUGUSTINE 1995 19962442499 OYSTER CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010056OYSTER CR @ DIXIE HWY 2005 20052602499 OYSTER CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010057OYSTER CR @ WHITNEY RD 2005 20052502513UNNAMEDBAYOU ESTUARY 3M 112WRD 295132081164801 SJ-92 ANASTASIA WATER PLANT 1977 2000 5808122MATANZASRIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLSEAS88SEAS050South of Devils Elbow Fish Campeast shore 1978 2000 20138122MATANZASRIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLSEAS88SEAS150 Marina south of SR 206 bridge8122MATANZASRIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLSEAS88SEAS155 CM 608122MATANZASRIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLSEAS88SEAS191 CM 70270Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations8122MATANZASRIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 112WRD 294602081151901SJ-94 HOWARD AT CRESCENTBEACH, FL8122MATANZASRIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 112WRD 294927081161601SJ-93 ST AUGUSTINE BCH &TENNIS RESORT8122MATANZASRIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLA 27010097ICWW MARKER 60 N CRESCENTBCH BR 1971 2005 106268122MATANZASRIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLA 88050SEASSouth of Devils Elbow Fish Campeast shore 1978 2004 45268122MATANZASRIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLA 88150SEAS Marina south of SR 206 bridge 1978 2004 36588122MATANZASRIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLA 88155SEAS CM 60 1995 2004 28948122MATANZASRIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLA 88191SEAS CM 70 1993 2004 36588122MATANZASRIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS2 CRESCENT BEACH8122MATANZASRIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS241 FL620625 2000 2006 14528122MATANZASRIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS242 FL192350 2000 2006 14548122MATANZASRIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS243 FL601572 2000 2006 14568122MATANZASRIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS244 FL300583 2000 2006 14568122MATANZASRIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS3ST AUGUSTINE BCH OCEANTRACE8122MATANZASRIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS4ST AUGUSTINE BCH A STREET8122MATANZASRIVER OCEAN COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH STJOHNS5 ANASTASIA STATE PARK2514UNNAMEDSLOUGH STREAM 3F 112WRD 295047081193001 SJ-00962535 MOSES CREEK STREAM 3F 112WRD 02247027MOSES CREEK NR MOULTRIE,FLA.2535 MOSES CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010050MOSES CR AT US 12000 2005756Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast271WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations2535 MOSES CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLSJWMMOCMOSES CREEK OFF STAUGUSTINE SHORES 1987 1989 5202535 MOSES CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLVOL HID010HIDDEN CR. UPSTRM OF CONFLWITH MOSES CR 1996 1996 2082535 MOSES CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLVOL ICW190MOSES CR APPROX 0.5 MIUPSTRM OF I.C.W.1996 19962062535 MOSES CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010051MOSES CR @ CR 2062004 20057102502 SALT RUN ESTUARY 3M 21FLSEAS92SEAS773 Creek mouth E shore of Salt Run2502 SALT RUN ESTUARY 3M 21FLSEAS92SEAS774 Drainage ditch at S end of Salt Run2502 SALT RUN ESTUARY 3M 21FLSEAS92SEAS777Southernmost dock in Salt Runmainland2502 SALT RUN ESTUARY 3M 21FLSEAS92SEAS778 Salt Run between Jet Ski signs2502 SALT RUN ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010138SALT RUN OFFSHOREFROM LIGHTHOUS 1980 2005 12342502 SALT RUN ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 92773SEAS Creek mouth E shore of Salt Run 1979 200437042502 SALT RUN ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 92774SEAS Drainage ditch at S end of Salt Run 1979 200432062502 SALT RUN ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 92777SEASSouthernmost dock in Salt Runmainland 1993 2004 26622502 SALT RUN ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 92778SEAS Salt Run between Jet Ski signs 1995 200421282502 SALT RUN ESTUARY 3M 21FLFMRIHAL200104Halifax - Salt Run2001 2001342502 SALT RUN ESTUARY 3M 21FLVOL ICW170SALT RUN-LIGHTHOUSE PIER STAUGUSTINE 1996 1996 842502 SALT RUN ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010137SALT RUN OFFSHOREFROM ANASTASIA 2004 2005 6082363GMATANZASRIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLGTM GTMSSNUTSan Sebastian & Matanzas Riverconfluence Channel Marker 1 2002 2005 23542363GMATANZASRIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010155INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY ATEAST CREEK1985 200515762363GMATANZASRIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010156 ICW @ CM 43 ST JOHNS CO 1985 2005 13702363GMATANZASRIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010157 ICW AT CM 21 1992 1998 16842363GMATANZASRIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010158 ICW AT ASD WWTP POD 1992 1998 16602363GMATANZASRIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010159 ICW AT CM 18 1992 1998 16402363GMATANZASRIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010160 ICW 50 FEET NORTH OF SR 312 1992 1998 1642272Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations2363GMATANZASRIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010161 ICW AT CM 12 1992 1998 17022363GMATANZASRIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010132ICWW NR MARKER #13 NRMATANGAS R 1973 1992 11162363GMATANZASRIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010133ICWW MARKER 35 NRMATANZAS R 1973 2005 11782363GMATANZASRIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010139MATANZAS R 1/2 MI SOF BRIDGE 1981 2005 9582363GMATANZASRIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010140MATANZAS R BY CHANNELMARKER NO1978 19915622363GMATANZASRIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLFMRIHAL200105 Halifax - Matanzas River 2001 2001 242363GMATANZASRIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSJWMMR312 MATANZAS RIVER AT CR 312 1991 2006 178802363GMATANZASRIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLVOL ICW150I.C.W. ST. AUGUSTINE N OFSR312 19951996 3602363GMATANZASRIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLVOL ICW210 I.C.W. ST. AUGUSTINE 1995 1996 5322363GMATANZASRIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSJWMJXTR21Matanzas River north of CrescentBeach @ SR206 Bridge1997 200613350Pellicer Creek Unit2551 LAKE TRIPLET LAKE 3F 112WRD 02247200FISH SWAMP OUTLET NRSUMMER HAVEN, FLA.2551 LAKE TRIPLET LAKE 3F 112WRD 294011081193802LAKE TRIPLET (.3 MI SSE OFCENTER)2551 LAKE TRIPLET LAKE 3F 112WRD 294011081193804LAKE TRIPLET (.3 MI N OFCENTER)2551 LAKE TRIPLET LAKE 3F 112WRD 294011081193805 LAKE TRIPLET (AT CENTER)2580CPELLICERCREEK STREAM 3F 21FLSJWMUEC006PELLICER CREEK AT RRTRESTLE 1992 1992 1042580CPELLICERCREEK STREAM 3F 21FLSJWMUEC009PELLICER CREEK PRINGLEBRIDGE BEFORE FORK 1992 1992 362577STEVENSBRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010070 STEVENS BR. OFF CR 204 1998 2005 7702577STEVENSBRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLSJWMUEC008PELLICER CREEK STEVENSBRIDGE BEHIND CEMETERY 1992 1992 1228120PELLICERCREEK OCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH FLAGLER104 FL493550 2000 2006 1194Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast273WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations8120PELLICERCREEK OCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH FLAGLER3 VARN PARK/BEVERLY BEACH8120PELLICERCREEK OCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH FLAGLER318 FL283799 2000 2006 11588120PELLICERCREEK OCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH FLAGLER4 PICKNICKERS/BEVERLY BEACH2553CRACKERBRANCH BLACKWATER 3F 21FLA 27010060 CRACKER BR. @ CR 204 1998 2005 7982553CRACKERBRANCH BLACKWATER 3F 21FLSJWMUEC005PELLICER CREEK CRACKERBRIDGE OFF US 1 1992 1993 1762553CRACKERBRANCH BLACKWATER 3F 21FLA 27010063 CRACKER BR 1.3 MILE N CR 204 2005 2005 5842363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 1113S000120915-DPALM COAST ICW N FRM CLUBHSE WW1976 19763722363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 1113S000120920-DPALM COAST ICW N FRM CLUBHSE WW1976 19762582363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 1113S000120925-DPALM COAST ICW N FRM CLUBHSE WW1976 19762902363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 1113S000120930-DPALM COAST ICW N CLUB HSEWW ENT 1976 1976 5482363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 1113S000120935-DPALM COAST JUNC.CLB HSE WW& ICW 1976 1976 4242363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 1113S000120940-DPALM COAST CLB HSE WWINLND ICW 1976 1976 2482363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 1113S000120945-DPALM COAST CLB HSE WWINLND ICW 1976 1976 2682363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 1113S000120950-DPALM CAOST 100' FRM HEADC.H.WW 19761976 3262363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 1113S000120960-DPALM COAST 400' FRM HEADC.H. WW1976 1976362363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 1113S000120965-DPALM COAST 1000' FRM HEADC.H.WW 1976 1976 362363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010150ICWW FLAGLER PALMCOAST MID CANA 1978 2005 16482363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010102ICWW MARKER AT ITT NP PALMCST C 1971 2005 24502363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010103ICWW AT ST JOE CANAL 1971 200523622363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010104 ICWW MARKER 1 AT FOX CUT 1971 200523562363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010105ICW @ CM 3 S FOX CUT 1971 20051462274Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations2363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMPALMCMAIN CANAL TO PALM COASTUPSTREAM OF BRIDGE 1992 1992 1682363D PALM COAST ESTUARY 3M 21FLSJWMJXTR26ICWW marker @ Fox Cut 1997 200688922597 HULETT BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLSJWMUEC010PELLICER CREEK HUTLETTBRIDGE 50 M ABOVE MOUTH 1992 19921042580APELLICERCREEK STREAM 2 21FLGTM GTMPCNUT Pellicer Creek 2002 2005 102062580APELLICERCREEK STREAM 2 112WRD 2940090811PELLICER CREEK NEARESPANOLA, FL2550 UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM 3F 21FLSEAS88SEAS017 Upcreek southwest of CM 78 1978 200076682550 UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM 3F 21FLA 88017SEAS Upcreek southwest of CM 78 1978 2004156268121PELLICERCREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLSEAS88SEAS030Culvert south of boat ramp east ofCM 72 1978 2000 21178121PELLICERCREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLSEAS88SEAS031 Mouth of creek east of CM 75 1978 2000 23378121PELLICERCREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLSEAS88SEAS032 Up creek from station 31 1986 2000 19928121PELLICERCREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLSEAS88SEAS055Mouth of residential canal south ofinlet 1995 2000 10678121PELLICERCREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLSEAS88SEAS061East of Summer Haven at northwestturn 1978 2000 25648121PELLICERCREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLSEAS88SEAS081 Mouth of creek southwest of CM 85 1978 2000 18838121PELLICERCREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLSEAS88SEAS091Tip of small island east ofRattlesnake Is 1978 2000 22188121PELLICERCREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLA 88030SEASCulvert south of boat ramp east ofCM 72 1978 2004 52168121PELLICERCREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLA 88031SEAS Mouth of creek east of CM 75 1978 2004 57748121PELLICERCREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLA 88032SEAS Up creek from station 31 1986 2004 47868121PELLICERCREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLA 88055SEASMouth of residential canal south ofinlet 1995 2004 30308121PELLICERCREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLA 88061SEASEast of Summer Haven at northwestturn 1978 2004 6346Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast275WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations8121PELLICERCREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLA 88081SEAS Mouth of creek southwest of CM 85 1978 2004 43168121PELLICERCREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLA 88091SEASTip of small island east ofRattlesnake Is 1978 2004 55028121PELLICERCREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH FLAGLER1 MARINELAND BEACH8121PELLICERCREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH FLAGLER102 FL384046 2000 2002 2088121PELLICERCREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH FLAGLER103 FL401201 2000 2006 11828121PELLICERCREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH FLAGLER2 WASHINGTON OAKS BEACH8121PELLICERCREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS1 MATANZAS INLET8121PELLICERCREEK OCEAN 2 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS240 FL446186 2000 2006 14562363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS010 Mouth of creek southeast of CM 79 1978 200082052363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS011Across from Fort Matanzas at creekmouth 1978 2000 25052363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS012Up creek from station 111978 200012592363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS015Up creek from station 101978 200060752363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS100CM 80A2363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS130CM 722363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS171Mouth of creek southwest of CM83A2363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS172Up creek from station 1712363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS174Up creek from station 1892363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS183 West of CM 64 lease 55-AQ-0152363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS185Up creek west of CM 752363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS187 Creek mouth west of CM 752363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS189Mouth of 2nd creek southwest ofCM 81C2363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS190 Southwest of SR 206 bridge2363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLGTM GTMFMNUT Matanzas River Channel Marker 75 2002 200523542363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010098ICWW AT CHANNEL CUT TOMATANZAS 1971 2005 2150276Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations2363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88010SEAS Mouth of creek southeast of CM 79 1978 2004175362363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88011SEASAcross from Fort Matanzas at creekmouth 1978 2004 62462363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88012SEASUp creek from station 111978 200428142363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88015SEASUp creek from station 101978 2004129282363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88100SEASCM 80A1995 200429142363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88130SEASCM 721995 200429002363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88171SEASMouth of creek southwest of CM83A 19782004 34482363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88172SEASUp creek from station 171 1981 200425862363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88174SEASUp creek from station 189 1993 200417362363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88183SEAS West of CM 64 lease 55-AQ-015 1993 200429622363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88185SEASUp creek west of CM 751993 200430422363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88187SEASCreek mouth west of CM 75 1993 200434362363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88189SEASMouth of 2nd creek southwest ofCM 81C 1993 2004 21102363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88190SEASSouthwest of SR 206 bridge 1993 200431362363F ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLFMRIHAL200106 Halifax - Intracoastal Waterway 2001 2001242580BPELLICERCREEK STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010016PELLICER CR AT US 11961 200514442580BPELLICERCREEK STREAM 3F21FLSJWMPELPELLICER CREEK AT US 1 1984 2006120102363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS101 Mouth of creek northwest of CM 862363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS102 Upstream from station 1012363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS176 Culvert on west shore of Summer Is2363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 1113S000120900-DPALM COAST ICW N FRM CLUBHSE WW 1976 1976 5302363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 1113S000120905-DPALM COAST ICW N FRM CLUBHSE WW 1976 1976 3542363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 1113S000120910-DPALM COAST ICW N FRM CLUBHSE WW 1976 1976 3302363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010149ICWW FLAGLER PALMCOAST NORTH CN 1980 2005 16362363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010099ICWW MARKER 87 ATMARINELAND 1971 2005 22822363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010100ICWW MARKER 94 AT PELLICERCR CO1971 200515422363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010101ICWW MARKER 108 AT LONG CRCONF 1971 2005 2346Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast277WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations2363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010142ICW N OF MARINELAND 1995 1995402363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010143ICW S OF MARINELAND 1995 20053182363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010144 ICW BETWEEN CM 100 & 102 1995 1995322363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88101SEAS Mouth of creek northwest of CM 86 1978 200439662363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88102SEASUpstream from station 101 1981 200431702363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLA 88176SEAS Culvert on west shore of Summer Is 1993 200423362363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSJWMMATMATANZAS R S OF WASHINGTONOAKS MKR 1091986 2006198202363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSJWMMRTConfluence of Pellicer Creek andICWW 19862006 106042363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLVOL ICW220I.C.W. PARK-FLAGLER CO. 1995 19951442363E ICWW ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS88SEAS105ICWW @CM 86 near Flagler Co.line 19972004 1226Tolomato River Unit2487ROBINSONCREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS085Up Robinson Creek as far aspossible 1992 2001 14002487ROBINSONCREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010152INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY ATROBINSON CREEK 1985 2005 27322487ROBINSONCREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010178ROBINSON CR N PRONG NW OFFORK 1995 2005 5242487ROBINSONCREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010179ROBINSON CR S PRONG SW FOFORK 1995 2005 5242487ROBINSONCREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92085SEASUp Robinson Creek as far aspossible 1992 2004 31282487ROBINSONCREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLFMRIHAL200129Halifax - Tolomato River2001 2001242468CASA COLACREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS195Up Casa Cola Creek as far aspossible2468CASA COLACREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010151INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY ATCASA COLA CREEK 1985 2005 6702468CASA COLACREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010173CASA COLA CR N PRONG NEARWEST BEND 1995 2005 6782468CASA COLACREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010174 CASA COLA CR AT MOUTH 1995 2005 6782468CASA COLACREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92195SEASUp Casa Cola Creek as far aspossible 1992 2004 23942468CASA COLACREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLSJWMCCC CASA COLA CREEK 1986 2006 11744278Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations2470SOMBREROCREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS205Up Sombrero Creek as far aspossible2470SOMBREROCREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92205SEASUp Sombrero Creek as far aspossible 19922004 21762470SOMBREROCREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010010SOMBRERO CR AT N BEND ABICW 2004 2005 6482470SOMBREROCREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010054SOMBRERO CR 50 M BELOWFORK 2004 2005 5582363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS010W end of basin adjacent to St. Aug.Airport 1978 2001 21562363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS015ICWW CM 481978 200118722363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS021Northernmost marker Lease 1088 inXimaniesC. 1978 2001 41182363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS065Creek mouth E shore north ofICWW CM 55 1993 2001 12202363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS071 W shore W of ICWW CM 55 1978 200123572363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS081Mouth of Robinson Creek 1978 200126872363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS091Mouth of Pancho Creek1978 200126682363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS141Creek on E shore north of ICWWCM 512363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS145ICWW CM 512363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS161Mouth of airport canal2363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS190 Mouth of Casa Cola Creek2363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS200Mouth of Sombrero Creek2363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS210ICWW CM 472363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS601Mouth of Deep Creek2363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS606ICWW CM 452363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS609Mouth of creek on E shore N ofICWW CM 442363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS610ICWW CM 44Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast279WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations2363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS612ICWW CM 382363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS613Mouth of Stokes Creek2363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS614Creek E of ICWW CM 352363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS615 Spartina flats NE of ICWW CM 332363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS620Midway between ICWW CMs 28 &292363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS621 W shore across from ICWW CM 242363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLGTM GTMPINUT Pine Island Channel Marker 25 2002 200523322363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 112WRD 295502081175401SJ-00912363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 112WRD 295713081203401SJ-00891978 200021382363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 20030446ICW @ PLANTATION CANAL 1995 19951842363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010175ICW @ UNNAMED CR SE OFXIMANIES CR 1995 2005 4262363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010177 ICW @ DITCH SE OF AIRPORT 1995 19951722363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010123ICW AT POWERLINES1973 199518802363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010124ICW AT WARDS LANDING 1973 199511842363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010125ICWW DK NR QUONSET HUT DPC#5 19731995 11922363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010126ICWW DK PAINTED DPC #6 1973 19877802363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010127ICWW RED CHANNEL MARKER#2 1973 1998 30482363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010128CREEK 1/2 MILE FROM BRIDGEICWW 1973 1995 11802363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010130ICWW CONF TOLOMATO R &GUANO R 1973 1994 17242363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010145ICWW ST JOHNS #91977 19958562363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010146ICWW 10 MARKER 21 TOLOMATORIVER 1977 1998 2586280Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations2363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010147 ICWW ST JOHNS #11 MARKER 30 1977 20059742363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92010SEASW end of basin adjacent to St. Aug.Airport 1978 2004 47782363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92015SEASICWW CM 481978 200443162363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92021SEASNorthernmost marker Lease 1088 inXimaniesC. 1978 2004 88842363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92041SEASCamanche Cove Marina1978 199219162363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92065SEASCreek mouth E shore north ofICWW CM 55 1993 2004 28002363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92071SEASW shore W of ICWW CM 55 1978 200454402363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92081SEASMouth of Robinson Creek 1978 200461142363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92091SEASMouth of Pancho Creek1978 200460702363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92141SEASCreek on E shore north of ICWWCM 511978 200431282363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92145SEASICWW CM 511992 200433722363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92161SEASMouth of airport canal1981 200434382363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92190SEASMouth of Casa Cola Creek 1978 200443742363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92200SEASMouth of Sombrero Creek 1986 200435962363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92210SEASICWW CM 471993 200431862363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92601SEASMouth of Deep Creek1978 200434642363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92602SEASE Tip of Pine Island1978 200425142363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92606SEASICWW CM 451978 200446442363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92609SEASMouth of creek on E shore N ofICWW CM 441978 200433562363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92610SEASICWW CM 441992 200433142363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92612SEASICWW CM 381978 20044596Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast281WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations2363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92613SEASMouth of Stokes Creek1978 200440202363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92614SEASCreek E of ICWW CM 35 1978 200431262363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92615SEAS Spartina flats NE of ICWW CM 33 1979 200431782363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92620SEASMidway between ICWW CMs 28 &29 19862004 38662363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92621SEAS W shore across from ICWW CM 24 1979 200434102363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLFMRIHAL200101Halifax - Tolomato River2001 2001902363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLFMRIHAL200102Halifax - Tolomato River2001 2001242363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLFMRIHAL200103Halifax - Tolomato River2001 2001842363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSJWMTOLTOLOMATO RIVER AT SPANISHLANDING 1986 2006 238382363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLVOL ICW050 I.C.W. AT PALM VALLEY BRIDGE 1995 19961622363ITOLOMATORIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSJWMJXTR17Confluence of Tolomato and GuanaRivers - ICWW1997 200690962320 GUANA RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS600 Tip of Guana River at dam2320 GUANA RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS617Smith's lease mid-way up GuanaRiver2320 GUANA RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS618Mouth of Guana River2320 GUANA RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010168 GUANA LAKE @ BOAT RAMP 1995 20056462320 GUANA RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010169GUANA LAKE APPROX 50 YARDSS OF DAM 1995 2005 6582320 GUANA RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010148ICW AT GUANA RIVER1980 20054022320 GUANA RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92600SEASTip of Guana River at dam 1992 200423302320 GUANA RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92617SEASSmith's lease mid-way up GuanaRiver 1978 2004 37822320 GUANA RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92618SEASMouth of Guana River1978 200440742320 GUANA RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLSJWMGARGUANA RIVER 100 meters south ofthe Dam1986 2006112922320 GUANA RIVER ESTUARY 2 21FLVOL ICW110GUANA RIVER DAM1995 19974688125TOLOMATORIVER OCEAN 3 COASTAL 3M 21FLA 27010180 LAKE VEDRA AT SOLANA RD. 1996 1996 450282Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations8125TOLOMATORIVER OCEAN 3 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS246 FL881296 2000 2006 14648125TOLOMATORIVER OCEAN 3 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS247 FL644388 2000 2006 14628125TOLOMATORIVER OCEAN 3 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS7 MICKLER'S LANDING8125TOLOMATORIVER OCEAN 3 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS8 SOLANA RD2320A LAKE VEDRA ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010181 LAKE VEDRA AT CORONA RD. 1996 200510602320A LAKE VEDRA ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010182PONTE VEDRA LAKE ATSAWGRASS 1996 2005 10742320A LAKE VEDRA ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010110PONTE VEDRA COUNTRY CLUBLAGOON 1972 1972 422320A LAKE VEDRA ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010111PONTE VEDRA COUNTRY CLUBLAGOON 1972 1972 422320A LAKE VEDRA ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010112PONTE VEDRA LAGOON #3 - OFFFAIR 19721972 422320A LAKE VEDRA ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010113PONTE VEDRA #4 AT RUTILE DRBRID 1972 1972 422435 CAPO CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010019CAPO CR 300 M AB MOUTH 2004 200512022435 CAPO CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010052CAPO CR @ 1st NE BEND 2004 2004502451 STOKES CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS619 Up Stokes Creek as far as possible2451 STOKES CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010170STOKES CR N PRONG NEARWEST BEND 1995 1995 1722451 STOKES CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010171STOKES CR S PRONG S MEDICISISLAND 19952002 12422451 STOKES CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA27010172STOKES CR AT MOUTH 1995 19951722451 STOKES CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010185STOKES CR 1/4 MILE AB MOUTH 1999 2002 11422451 STOKES CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92619SEAS UpStokes Creek as far as possible 1986 200433262451 STOKES CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLSJWMSTOKESCR Stokes Creek 1997 2006 93148123TOLOMATORIVER OCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLSEAS92SEAS111 Fishing pier E of ICWW CM 528123TOLOMATORIVER OCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLA 92111SEAS Fishing pier E of ICWW CM 52 1979 2004 47108123TOLOMATORIVER OCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS245 FL156952 2000 2006 14748123TOLOMATORIVER OCEAN 1 COASTAL 3M 21FLDOH ST JOHNS6 VILANO BEACHWater Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast283WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType Class STORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear # of Observations2477 XIMANIES CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLA 27010053XMANIES CR @ 1st SE BEND 2004 200510802483 PANCHO CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLSEAS92SEAS095 UpPancho Creek as far s possible 1992 2001 13372483 PANCHO CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 92095SEAS UpPancho Creek as far s possible 1992 200429722483 PANCHO CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010191PANCHO CR ABOVE MOUTH 2004 20055442483 PANCHO CREEK ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010192PANCHO CR @ 1ST NORTHBEND ABOVE ICW 2004 2005 5422400 SMITH CREEK STREAM 3M 21FLA 27010065SMITH CREEK SOUTH FORK 300M AB MOUTH 2005 2006 3742400 SMITH CREEK STREAM 3M 21FLA 27010066SMITH CREEK SOUTH FORK 50 MAB MOUTH 2005 2006 3742400 SMITH CREEK STREAM 3M 21FLA 27010067SMITH CREEK NORTH FORK @2ND SOUTH BEND2005 20063742400 SMITH CREEK STREAM 3M 21FLSJWMSMITHSCRSmith's Creek1997 200694382442MARSHALLCREEK STREAM 3M 21FLA 27010183MARSHALL CR 3/4 MILE ABMOUTH 1999 2004 11062442MARSHALLCREEK STREAM 3M 21FLA 27010184 MARSHALL CR AT MOUTH 1999 2005 19942406DEEP CREEKUPPER STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010166 DEEP CR AT SWEETWATER CR 1995 200516362406DEEP CREEKUPPER STREAM 3F 21FLA 27010190DEEP CREEK AT TRAIL(WOODEN) BRIDGE 2001 2002 4222406ADEEP CREEKLOWER ESTUARY 2 21FLA 27010165DEEP CREEK AT MOUTH 1995 200516662457AST. MARKSPOND ESTUARY ESTUARY 2 112WRD 300036081213501 SJ-88 CHARD NR STOKEE CREEK2647HOLLY HILLDITCHSTREAM 3F 112WRD 02247509ELEVENTH STREET CANAL ATHOLLY HILL,FL284Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastAppendix E: Permitted Discharge Facilities, SuperfundSites, and Landfillsin the Upper EastCoast Basin, by Planning UnitTable E.1: Permitted Facilities with Discharges to Surface Water and Ground Water, by Planning UnitFacility ID Name Facility Type1Status NPDESDesign Capacity(millions of gallonsper day)Tolomato River Planning UnitFL0117897 SawgrassWWTF DWAY1.5000FL0117951Ponte Vedra WWTFDW A Y0.5000FLA011765North Beach Utilities WWTFDW A N0.1500FLG110334Rinker Materials–North St. Augustine FacilityCBP A Y0.0000FLA011773Ponce de Leon WWTFDW A N0.4000Matanzas River Planning UnitFLA011761J C 'S Car WashIWA N0.0015FLA016927FDOT–St. Augustine MaintenanceIWA N0.0120FLA011769Moultrie Woods WWTFDW A N0.0240FL0043109State Road 16 WWTFDW A Y1.5000FL0021938St. Augustine WWTF No. 1DW A Y5.0000FLA011783South Gate CarwashIW N N0.0015FL0038831Anastasia Island WWTFDW A Y4.0000FLA011791Spanish Trail Mobile Home Park WWTFDW A N0.0250FLG110373Florida Rock Industries–St. AugustineCBP A Y0.0000FLA011781Wagon Wheel Mobile Home Park WWTFDW A N0.0042FL0117471State Road 207 WWTFDW A Y0.2500FLG110563Tarmac–St. Augustine FacilityCBP A Y0.0000FLA011762Wildwood/Oakridge Apartments WWTFDW C N0.0350Pellicer Creek Planning UnitFL0039756 BeverlyBeachWWTF DWAY0.2150FLA011602Dunes Community Development District WWTFDW A N0.5000FLA011611 Flagler-by-the-SeaWWTF DWAN0.0100FLA011784Charlie T'S Truckstop WWTFDW C N0.0050Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast285Facility IDNameFacility Type1Status NPDESDesign Capacity(millions of gallonsper day)FLA011797Dairy Queen Restaurant WWTFDW A N0.0110FLA011599Matanzas Shores WWTFDW A N0.3220FLA011593 MaritimeIEstates DWAN0.0120FLA011612Marine Park of Flagler WWTFDW A N0.0600FLA011604 MaritimeEstates IIDW A N0.0134FLRNEE181 AscomEnergySystems NEXAY0.0000FLA011595Palm Coast Intracoastal Waterway WWTFDW A N0.0100FLRNEE282City of Palm Coast Wastewater Treatment PlantNEX A Y0.0000FLA175463Grand Haven District Reuse WaterTreatment Facility (CDD)DW A N1.0000FL0116009Palm Coast WWTFDW A Y4.0000Halifax River Planning UnitFLA011164Oceanaire Condo (DW)DW A N0.0050FLA011188Seabridge WWTF (DW)DW A N0.2100FLA011176VCUD/Pelican Dunes (DW)DW A N0.0180FLA011603Holiday Travel ParkDW A N0.0600FLA011601 BulowVillageWWTF DWAN0.0880FLA011597 PlantationBayWWTF DWAN0.4750FL0043125VCUD/Highbridge Park Reverse Osmosis Water Treatment PlantIWA Y0.0018FLA011131 VCUD/HalifaxPlantation WWTFDW A N0.3000FLA011192Kingston Shores Condos (DW)DW A N0.0500FL0026611 FlaglerBeachWWTF DWAY1.0000FLA017453 VCUD/HalifaxPlantation RO (IW)IWA N0.0625FLA011185Madeira Villa Condos North (DW)DW A N0.0099FLA011151Windemere Shores Condo (DW)DW A N0.0090FLA011252Ormond Beach SurfsideClub North WWTFDW A N0.0150FLA011116 VCUD/SunnyBeach WWTFDW A N0.0110FLA011156Van Lee Condominiums (DW)DW A N0.0200FLA011162Ocean House Condo (DW)DW A N0.0180FLA011167Sand Dunes Condo WWTF (DW)DW A N0.0050286Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastFacility IDNameFacility Type1Status NPDESDesign Capacity(millions of gallonsper day)FLA011170 OrmondyCondominium(DW) DWAN0.0180FLA011178Ocean Shore Plaza WWTFDW A N0.0120FLA011183Madeira Villa South (DW)DW A N0.0035FLA011184Madeira Villa Central (DW)DW A N0.0080FLA011206Ormond Oceanside Condo (DW)DW A N0.0033FLA011253Ormond Surfwide Club South WWTFDW A N0.0150FLA011259Regency Plaza Condominium (DW)DW A N0.0400FLA011117VCUD/Leeward Wind WWTFDW A N0.0120FLA111554Gemini Condominiums (DW)DW A N0.0160FLA017020VCUD/Ocean Dunes Condo (DW)DW A N0.0070FLA011174Ocean Watch WWTFDW A N0.0240FLA011122 VCUD/Atlantic22Condo (DW)DW A N0.0070FLA011150Mariners Bay Condo (DW)DW A N0.0075FLA011161Seascape Condominium WWTFDW A N0.0110FLA011160Indies House Condo (DW)DW A N0.0125FLA011171 SunriseCondominiumDWAN0.0100FLA011213Traders Inn Beach Club WWTF (DW)DW A N0.0150FLA011120 VCUD/TiffanyCondominiumWWTF DWAN0.0090FLA011157Fairwind Shores (DW)DW A N0.0310FLA011205Comfort Inn/Ormond Beach (DW)DW A N0.0300FLA011146 ScottishInn(DW) DWAN0.0200FLA011169Villages of Pine Run (DW)DW A N0.0400FLA011226Super 8 Motel/Ormond Beach WWTFDW A N0.0100FLA011239Encore Superpark aka Sunshine Holiday Camper Resort (DW)DW A N0.0400FLA011242Ramada Inn (I-95)DW A N0.0250FLA016726Ormond Septic Systems RMFRES A N0.0500FLA011152Ocean Shore (DW)DW A N0.0083FLA011196Villa Sereno Condo (DW)DW A N0.0090FLA011272Winchester Manor (DW)DW A N0.0100Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast287Facility IDNameFacility Type1Status NPDESDesign Capacity(millions of gallonsper day)FLA011228Camino Real Apartments WWTFDW A N0.0065FLA011247VCUD/Spanish Waters (DW)DW A N0.0090FLA011153Starboard Lights Condominium WWTFDW A N0.0075FLA011215Ormond Breakers Condominium , STPDW A N0.0200FLA011225Aquarius Condo (DW)DW A N0.0200FLA011233Corinthian Villas (DW)DW A N0.0150FLA011240Ormond by the Sea (DW)DW A N0.0100FLA011236Emerald Palms WWTFDW A N0.0030FLRNEE153 Airport NEXAY0.0000FLA011193 TymberCreek(DW) DWAN0.1310FLG110216Rinker Materials/Ormond Beach Concrete Batch PlantCBP A Y0.0016FLG910598BP Station #24650 (IW)PET A Y0.0000FLRNEE154 Southland NEXAY0.0000FL0020532Ormond Beach WWTFDW A Y6.0000FL0037877VCDSWM/Tomoka Farms Road Landfill IWTPIWA Y0.0000FLA017086Florida N-Viro/Tomoka RMF (DW)RES A N0.0580FLA016692Ringhaver/Tomoka Farms Road/Equipment Wash Recycle SystemIWA N0.0016FLG110452 Tarmac/DaytonaBeach CBPAN0.0250FLG110462Cemex/Daytona Beach CB Plant (IW)CBP A Y0.0560FLRNEE148Vehicle Maintenance FacilityNEX A Y0.0000FLA011274Konny’s Coin Laundry (IW)IWA N0.0040FLA011125VCUD/Northeast Barn/Equipment & Truck Wash Recycle SystemIWA N0.0000FLA016556VCSB/Daytona Beach Bus Wash FacilityIWA N0.0012FL0027677City of Holly HillDW A Y2.4000FLRNEE285Airborne Freight Corp.NEX A Y0.0000FLA111392Daytona Beach Westside Regional WWTFDW A N15.0000FL0025984Daytona Beach/Bethune Point WWTFDW A Y13.0000FLA112551Battelle Florida Material Research CenterIW N N0.0750FLA011201Mansfield Mobile Home Park, STPDW A N0.0050288Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastFacility IDNameFacility Type1Status NPDESDesign Capacity(millions of gallonsper day)FLA011224Colony in the Woods (DW)DW A N0.0660FLG110181Rinker Materials/South Daytona Concrete Batch PlantCBP A N0.0025FL0020559City of Port Orange WWTFDW A Y6.0000FLA011181Double D Mobile Ranch WWTFDW A N0.0075FLA185086 VCUD/SpruceCreek(IW) IWAN0.3500FLA011113VCSB Samsula Elementary School (DW)DW A N0.0050FLA011173Sugar Mill Ruins Travel Park WWTFDW A N0.0150FLA011256Sugar Mill Country Club (DW)DW A N0.2700FLA011209El Dorado Mobile Home Community (DW)DW A N0.0200FLRNEE083New Smyrna Beach–Reddy Plant #343NEX A Y0.0000FL0172090New Smyrna Beach Water Reclamation Facility (DW)DW A Y7.0000FLA011249Tropical Chevron/New Smyrna (DW)DW A N0.0024FLA011243Sugar Mill MHP (DW)DW A N0.02501CBP – Concrete batch plantDW – Domestic wasteIW – Industrial wasteNEX – No exposure certificationPET – PetroleumWater Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast289Table E.2: Superfund Sites, by Planning UnitPlanningUnitSite Name City County District Program Status Operation ProgramLeaderMatanzasRiver000000000043ControlProductsAssociatedSt.AugustineStJohnsNortheastStateFundedDelistedPesticide/Insecticide/HerbicideFlorida Department ofEnvironmental Protection290Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastTable E.3: Permitted Landfill Facilities, by Planning UnitFacility NameAddressCityCountyDepartmentDistrictStatus1Facility TypeFacility Code2Tolomato River Planning UnitNine Mile CompostingFacility Cof445 A International GolfPkwySt. Augustine St. Johns Northeast J Solid Waste320Nine Mile RoadSouthland CDS445 A International GolfPkwySt. Augustine St. Johns Northeast A Solid Waste540Nine Mile Rd MaterialsRecovery Facility4454 Nine Mile Rd St. Augustine St. Johns Northeast J Solid Waste 810Matanzas River Planning UnitAnastasia IslandOff State Rd 3 & FishIsland RdSt. Augustine St. Johns Northeast K Solid Waste100St. Augustine BeachLFEnd of Pope RdSt. AugustineBeachSt. Johns Northeast K Solid Waste200Ravenswood DumpRavenswood Dr &Volusia StSt. Augustine St. Johns Northeast K Solid Waste300Hicks Land Clearing &Fill Dirt CDS, LCD3445 Old Moultrie Rd St. Augustine St. Johns Northeast A Solid Waste540St. Augustine TransferStation (TS)Holmes Blvd St. Augustine St. Johns Northeast I Solid Waste 75016thStreet CollectionCenter WTC (WasteTires)840 W 16thSt St. Augustine St. Johns Northeast J Solid Waste751Ravenswood RecylingCollection Center WTC(Waste Tires)870 Pacific Blvd St. Augustine St. Johns Northeast J Solid Waste 751Old City MaterialsRecovery Facility(MRF)3953 Deerpark Blvd Elkton St. Johns Northeast I Solid Waste 810Saint Johns Pk2 Miles E of St.Augustine BeachSt. Augustine Flagler Northeast J Solid Waste520Pellicer Creek Planning UnitLCD of FlaglerHwy US 1Bunnell Flagler Northeast A Solid Waste310William Paterson(C&D) CDSOld Kings Rd N Palm Coast Flagler Northeast J Solid Waste540Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East Coast291Facility NameAddressCityCountyDepartmentDistrictStatus1Facility TypeFacility Code2Halifax River Planning UnitFlagler County CentralLandfill LFC1 (OldKings Rd)Old Kings Rd 1 Mile SState Rd 100Bunnell FlaglerNortheastDistrictK Solid Waste 100Tomoka Farms RoadLandfill1990 Tomoka Farms Rd Daytona Beach Volusia Central A Solid Waste 100Flagler County Class IIILF1.7 Miles S State Rd 100 Bunnell FlaglerNortheastDistrictI Solid Waste 300Ormond Beach NovaRoad Landfill III520 North Nova Rd Ormond Beach VolusiaCentralDistrictK Solid Waste 300Port Orange LandfillHerbert St, East of ClydeMorris BlvdPort Orange VolusiaCentralDistrictJ Solid Waste 300Tomoka Farms RoadLandfill1990 Tomoka Farms Rd Daytona Beach VolusiaCentralDistrictA Solid Waste 300Kirton C&D LF (East)—Land Clearing DebrisOnly1630 Tomoka Farms Rd Daytona Beach VolusiaCentralDistrictA Solid Waste 310Flagler County DitchCleaning @ C&D Fac(SW0)1700 S Old Kings Rd Flagler FlaglerNortheastDistrictA Solid Waste 500Daytona BeachInternational AirportGeneral AviationDevelt700 Catalina Drive, Suite110Daytona Beach VolusiaCentralDistrictP Solid Waste 520New Smyrna BeachAirport Landfill1800 Turnbull Bay RdNew SmyrnaBeachVolusiaCentralDistrictK Solid Waste 520Ormond Beach NovaRoad Landfill III520 North Nova Rd Ormond Beach VolusiaCentralDistrictK Solid Waste 520Port Orange LandfillHerbert St, East of ClydeMorris BlvdPort Orange VolusiaCentralDistrictJ Solid Waste 520Flagler County C&DCDS1 Mile S State Rd 100Old Kings RdBunnell FlaglerNortheastDistrictA Solid Waste 540Kirton-Self C&DLandfill (West)West of Tomoka FarmRd, 1/4 Miles South of I-4Daytona Beach VolusiaCentralDistrictA Solid Waste 540Klenk C&D3555 Jackson St Port Orange VolusiaCentralDistrictA Solid Waste 540292Water Quality Assessment Report: Upper East CoastFacility NameAddressCityCountyDepartmentDistrictStatus1Facility TypeFacility Code2Port OrangeIncinerator4625 Recreation Dr Port Orange VolusiaCentralDistrictI Solid Waste 610Tomoka Farms RoadLandfill1990 Tomoka Farms Rd Daytona Beach VolusiaCentralDistrictA Solid Waste 630Airport Used AutoParts Salvage Yard1295 Kenard StNew SmyrnaBeachVolusiaCentralDistrictP Solid Waste 710Reti Co Inc.1527 Pine StHolly Hill VolusiaCentralDistrictP Solid Waste 710Tire City Waste TireProcessing892 S Nova Rd Ormond Beach VolusiaCentralDistrictP Solid Waste 710Ormond BeachTransfer Station450 North Orchard St Ormond Beach VolusiaCentralDistrictA Solid Waste 750Ormond Beach NovaRoad Landfill III520 North Nova Rd Ormond Beach VolusiaCentralDistrictK Solid Waste 900Flagler County WasteTire Collection Center1700 Old Kings Rd Bunnell FlaglerNortheastDistrictA Solid Waste 751Flagler County WasteTire Collection Center1700 Old Kings Rd Bunnell FlaglerNortheastDistrictA Solid Waste 7511Status:A – Active J – Closed, No Monitoring K – Closed, Monitored P – Permitted I – Inactive2100 Class I Landfill200 Class II Landfill300 Class III Landfill310 Land Clearing Debris320 Yard Trash Composting with Disposal500 Other Disposal Facility520 Old Dump540 Construction/Demolition Debris610 Incineration630 Other Treatment710 Waste Tire Processing Facility750 Transfer Station Processing Facility751 Waste Tire Collection Center810 Material Recovery900 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 Pr ovided 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 ex tent possible during development of the final
draft Verified List.

Submitted by: Jan Miller, Environmental Scientist III, No rthern 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 ta rgeted 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 tabl e 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