FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Division of Water Resource Management

Water Quality Status Report

NORTHEAST • GROUP 5 BASIN • 2005

Upper East Coast

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Division of Water Resource Management

Water Quality Status Report

2005

Upper East Coast

Acknowledgments

The Upper East Coast Water Quality Status Report was prepared by the 

Northeast District Basin Team of the 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:

John Abendroth, Basin Coordinator

Thomas Singleton, Basin Coordinator

David Wainwright, Water Quality Assessment Coordinator

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 Information, Training, and Evaluation Services

Florida State University

210 Sliger Building

2035 E. Dirac Dr.

Tallahassee, FL 32306-2800

Map production assistance provided by

Florida Resources and Environmental Analysis Center

Florida State University

University Cetner, C2200

Tallahassee, FL 32306-2641

For additional information on the watershed management approach 

and potentially impaired waters in the Upper East Coast Basin, contact

John Abendroth

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Bureau of Watershed Management, Watershed Planning and 

Coordination Section

2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3565

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400

john.abendroth@dep.state.fl.us

Phone: (850) 245-8557; SunCom: 205-8557

Fax: (850) 245-8434

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

obtained by contacting

David Wainwright

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Bureau of Watershed Management, Watershed Assessment Section

2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3555

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400

david.wainwright@dep.state.fl.us

Phone: (850) 245-8469; SunCom: 805-8469

Fax: (850) 245-8356

Web Sites

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of 

Watershed Management

TMDL Program

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

Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/docs/AmendedIWR.pdf

STORET Program

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

2004 305(b) Report

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

Criteria for Surface Water Quality Classifications

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/legal/rules/shared/62-302t.pdf

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 Status 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 fit in a sidebar.

• Definitions: Appear where scientific terms occur that may not 

be familiar to all readers. The word being defined 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 flow, types of natural communities, 

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

facilities.

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 7

Executive Summary

Upper East Coast

The Water Quality Status Report for the Upper East Coast Basin is 

developed in the first phase of the Florida Department of Environmental 

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

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

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

designated uses is defined as impaired. The watershed approach, which is 

implemented using a cyclical management process, provides a framework 

for implementing the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act and the 

1999 Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA) (Chapter 99-223, Laws 

of Florida).

This Status Report provides a preliminary identification of impaired 

waters in the Upper East Coast Basin that may require the development 

and implementation of TMDLs, unless the impairment is documented to 

be a naturally occurring condition that cannot be abated by a TMDL, or 

unless a management plan that is already in place is expected to correct the 

problem. This preliminary assessment, based on readily available data, will 

be revised as additional data are evaluated. The report broadly characterizes the basin’s setting and its surface water and ground water resources, 

permitted discharges, land uses, and ecological status. It also identifies 

potential surface water quality concerns and water quality monitoring 

needs, and summarizes plans and projects that are under way or projected 

to improve water quality. Tables in Chapters 3 and 5 include the current 

Planning List of potentially impaired waterbodies, as well as other summary 

information. The report also provides the results of a preliminary ground 

water quality assessment and discusses priorities for further evaluation, 

resource priorities, and proposed actions. See Noteworthy in Chapter 1 for 

a description of the contents of this report, by chapter.

In the Upper East Coast Basin, state, federal, regional, and local agencies and organizations are making progress towards 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 the efforts of key stakeholders 

and initiatives 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.

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 9
Not only do stakeholders in the basin share responsibilities in achieving water quality improvement objectives, they also play a crucial role in 

providing the Department with important monitoring data and information on management activities. Significant data providers in the basin 

include the Department, the SJRWMD, Volusia County, and the Florida 

Department of Health.

During the next few years, further data collection and 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 on the participation of the water management district, local 

governments, businesses, and other stakeholders. The Department will 

work with these groups and individuals to undertake or continue reductions in the discharge of pollutants and achieve the established TMDLs for 

impaired waterbodies.

The information in this report is being used to identify waterbodies and parameters for which additional data are needed to verify water 

quality impairments. Data gathering and monitoring will then focus on 

these potentially impaired waters. Once these data are reevaluated and 

reassessed, in summer 2006 the Department will present a list of waters 

for which impairments have been verified and for which TMDLs will be 

developed.

The Verified List of impaired waters will be adopted by Secretarial 

Order in accordance with the FWRA. Once adopted, the list will be 

submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for approval as 

the state’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters for the basin.

Summary of Surface Water Findings

The following summarizes, by planning unit, potential 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. Parameters in 

italics are identified on the 1998 303(d) list but currently have insufficient 

data for an assessment under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) 

methodology. Figures 3.3 through 3.6 (in Chapter 3) depict the results 

of this evaluation.

Tolomato River Planning Unit

Of the 23 waterbody segments in the planning unit, 13 segments have 

sufficient data for assessment. Of these, 9 are potentially impaired for at 

least 1 parameter assessed, and 4 meet water quality standards.

The nine potentially impaired segments in the planning unit, and the 

parameters of impairment, are as follows:

Guana River (WBID 2320) Fecal coliforms, total 

coliforms

Matanzas River (WBID 2363I) Total coliforms

10 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
Marshall Creek (WBID 2442) Dissolved oxygen (DO)

Tolomato River Ocean 1 (WBID 8123) Mercury in fish

Vilano Beach (WBID 8123A) Mercury in fish

Tolomato River Ocean 2 (WBID 8124) Mercury in fish 

Tolomato River Ocean 3 (WBID 8125) Mercury in fish 

Mickler’s Landing (WBID 8125A) Mercury in fish 

Solana Rd. (WBID 8125B) Mercury in fish 

Matanzas River Planning Unit

Of the 26 waterbody segments in the planning unit, 12 segments have 

sufficient data for assessment. Of these, 10 are potentially impaired for at 

least 1 parameter assessed, and 2 meet standards. In addition, 1 segment 

that had insufficient data for an assessment is listed as potentially impaired 

as a result of its placement on the 1998 303(d) list.

The 11 potentially impaired segments in the planning unit, and the 

parameters of impairment, are as follows:

Matanzas River (WBID 2363G) Copper, iron, nickel,

total coliforms, zinc

Matanzas River (WBID 2363H) Nutrients

San Sebastian River (WBID 2491) DO

Moultrie Creek (WBID 2493) Copper, fecal coliforms, iron, 

nickel, nutrients (historical)

Oyster Creek (WBID 2499) DO

Moses Creek (WBID 2535) DO

Matanzas River Ocean (WBID 8122) Mercury in fish

Crescent Beach (WBID 8122A) Mercury in fish

St. Augustine Beach

 Ocean Trace (WBID 8122B) Mercury in fish 

St. Augustine Beach

 A Street (WBID 8122C) Mercury in fish

Anastasia State Park (WBID 8122D) Mercury in fish

Pellicer Creek Planning Unit

Of the 24 waterbody segments in the planning unit, 12 segments have 

sufficient data for assessment. Of these, 10 are potentially impaired for at 

least 1 parameter assessed, and 2 meet standards. In addition, 1 segment 

that had insufficient data for an assessment is listed as potentially impaired 

as a result of its placement on the 1998 303(d) list.

The 11 potentially impaired segments in the planning unit, and the 

parameters of impairment, are as follows:

Palm Coast (WBID 2363D) Cadmium, lead, selenium, 

silver, thallium

ICWW (WBID 2363E) Arsenic, cadmium, copper, 

iron, lead, nickel, selenium, 

zinc

Cracker Branch (Pellicer Creek)

 (WBID 2553) Biology, DO, fecal coliforms, 

total coliforms, iron

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 11
Pellicer Creek (WBID 2580B) DO, fecal coliforms, total 

coliforms, iron, lead, 

selenium, silver

Pellicer Creek Ocean 1 (WBID 8120) Mercury in fish

Picknickers/Beverly Beach 

 (WBID 8120A) Mercury in fish

Varn Beach/Beverly Beach 

 (WBID 8120B) Mercury in fish

Pellicer Creek Ocean 2 (WBID 8121) Mercury in fish

Washington Oaks Beach 

 (WBID 8121A) Mercury in fish

Marineland Beach (WBID 8121B) Mercury in fish

Matanzas Inlet (WBID 8121C) Mercury in Fish

Halifax River Planning Unit

Of the 53 waterbody segments in the planning unit, 31 segments have 

sufficient data for assessment. Of these, 25 are potentially impaired for at 

least 1 parameter assessed, and 6 meet standards.

The 25 potentially impaired segments in the planning unit, and the 

parameters of impairment, are as follows:

Halifax River (WBID 2363B) Copper, iron

Bulow Creek (WBID 2620) DO, selenium

Tomoka River (WBID 2634) Copper, DO, fecal coliforms, 

iron, lead

Tomoka River (WBID 2634A) Copper, DO, iron, lead

Grover Branch (WBID 2635) Biology

Holly Hill Ditch (WBID 2647) Biology

Unnamed Ditch (B-19 Canal)

 (WBID 2666) DO, nutrients

Halifax Canal (WBID 2670) DO

Rose Bay (WBID 2672) Fecal coliforms

Spruce Creek (WBID 2674) DO, fecal coliforms, iron

Spruce Creek (WBID 2674A) DO, fecal coliforms, iron

Turnbull Bay (WBID 2678) Nutrients (chlorophyll a), DO

Halifax River Ocean 1 (WBID 8117) Mercury in fish

Toronita (WBID 8117A) Mercury in fish

Dunlawton (WBID 8117B) Mercury in fish 

Hilton (WBID 8117C) Mercury in fish

Silver Beach (WBID 8117D) Mercury in fish

Main Street (WBID 8117E) Mercury in fish

Seabreeze Blvd. (WBID 8117F) Mercury in fish

Halifax River Ocean 2 (WBID 8118) Mercury in fish

Granda Blvd. (WBID 8118A) Mercury in fish

Bicentennial Park (WBID 8118B) Mercury in fish

Halifax River Ocean 3 (WBID 8119) Mercury in fish

Gamble Rogers State Park

 (WBID 8119A) Mercury in fish

Flagler Pier at Flagler Beach 

 (WBID 8119A) Mercury in fish

12 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
Summary of Ground Water Findings

This section summarizes the results of a preliminary assessment of the 

quality of ground water available for potable supply, the impact of ground 

water on surface water resources, and resource priorities in the Upper East 

Coast Basin. The assessment uses planning units consistent with the surface water assessment and readily available data.

Basinwide Observations of Elevated Parameter Concentrations

From available data, basinwide median concentrations of phosphorus 

and several metals were higher than threshold levels. Dissolved phosphorus and orthophosphate in both unconfined and confined aquifers were 

higher than the Ground Water–Surface Water Relational Assessment 

(SRA) threshold for phosphorus, which is based on surface water guidance 

levels. Medians for cadmium, lead, copper, iron, and zinc in both confined 

and unconfined aquifers were higher than their respective SRA screening 

thresholds. The data also showed that the median mercury concentration is 

higher than its SRA screening threshold in unconfined aquifer samples. In 

addition, median concentrations of several metals were above their thresholds based on potable ground water standards or guidance levels (known 

as the ground water relational index [GRI] assessment). These included 

lead and aluminum (in unconfined aquifers) and iron (in both unconfined 

and confined aquifers). Each of these evaluations is protective, in that the 

maximum parameter concentration per well is used. Before actual water 

quality issues related to these parameters are confirmed, however, further 

data evaluation and monitoring would be conducted. The likelihood of 

ground water discharge to surface waterbodies will also be evaluated further. Seepage from unconfined aquifers to surface water occurs throughout 

the basin, but discharge from confined aquifers would occur under more 

limited conditions.

Tolomato River Planning Unit

Based on ambient monitoring network data, lead, and total dissolved 

solids (TDS) were detected at concentrations above their GRI screening 

thresholds in one confined aquifer well. In addition, the volatile organic 

compound dichoromethane was found in a private supply well by the 

Florida Department of Health (DOH) at a concentration that exceeds its 

threshold. Ambient monitoring data indicate that in several wells, metals 

concentrations exceeded their SRA screening thresholds; however, none of 

these metals were identified as potential surface water pollutants. Further 

evaluation of the lead and TDS will occur in Phase 2 of the basin cycle. 

Elevated TDS are often naturally occurring. Further action, as appropriate, 

to address private supply well contamination was taken by DOH and the 

Department’s Water Supply Restoration Program (WSRP).

Matanzas River Planning Unit 

Lead and TDS is one confined aquifer well and TDS in one unconfined aquifer well were identified in the ambient monitoring program 

data at concentrations above the lead and TDS GRI thresholds. As noted 

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 13
previously, elevated TDS are often naturally occurring. DOH monitoring identified four volatile organic compounds (1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, 

1,35-trimethylbenzene, benzene, and ethylbenzene) in a private well. In 

this planning unit, phosphorus concentrations in one confined and one 

unconfined aquifer well were above the SRA screening threshold, and four 

potentially nutrient-impaired surface waterbodies are present. Also one 

confined aquifer well sample was found to contain above-SRA threshold concentrations of copper and iron, which are also potential causes of 

impaired surface waters in the planning unit. In Phase 2, these elevated 

detections and potential for ground water to surface water discharge will be 

evaluated further. The water supply issue associated with the private well 

contamination was addressed by DOH/WSRP. 

Pellicer Creek Planning Unit

From Department ambient monitoring data, lead in three confined 

aquifer wells and TDS in three unconfined and four confined aquifer wells 

are higher than their GRI screening thresholds and will be further evaluated in Phase 2. The volatile organic compound trichloroethylene was 

detected in one private supply well by DOH monitoring and the impact 

to those served by the well was addressed by DOH and the WSRP. Phosphorus levels in four unconfined and four confined aquifer wells were 

higher than the SRA screening threshold and the potential relationship of 

phosphorus in ground water to two potentially nutrient-impaired surface 

waterbodies will be evaluated further in Phase 2. Several metals—including cadmium, copper, iron, selenium, and zinc—were detected at concentrations higher than their SRA thresholds in confined and/or unconfined 

aquifer well samples and also correspond with surface waterbodies that are 

potentially impaired by these metals. The significance of elevated concentrations and likelihood for ground water–surface water interaction will be 

further evaluated in Phase 2.

Halifax River Planning Unit

Fecal and total coliforms were detected at levels above the GRI screening threshold in confined aquifer ambient monitoring wells (fecal and total 

coliforms in one well and total coliforms alone in a well). Ground water 

samples from both unconfined and confined aquifers were above the GRI 

thresholds for lead (six wells each), barium (one unconfined), cadmium 

(one confined), chromium (one well each), and mercury (one well each). 

TDS was above its GRI threshold in two unconfined and six confined 

aquifer wells, which may in one or all wells be a natural condition. The 

WSRP database showed that one private supply well sampled and addressed 

by DOH contained 1,1-dichloroethylene above its GRI threshold. Nitrate 

and phosphorus were found at above-SRA threshold concentrations in 

unconfined and confined aquifer wells and may be related to the potentially nutrient-impaired surface waterbodies identified by the IWR evaluation. Similarly, several metals (including copper, iron, lead, and selenium) 

detected at above-SRA threshold levels in ground water samples may be 

related to potentially metals-impaired surface waters identified by the IWR 

evaluation.

14 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Purposes and Content of the Status Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Explanation of the Planning List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Explanation of the Verified List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Stakeholder Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

The Watershed Management Cycle in the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection’s Northeast District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Chapter 2: Basin Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Basin Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

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

Surface Water Quality Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Special Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Outstanding Florida Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Surface Water Improvement and Management Priority Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Ground Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Aquifers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Ground Water Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Ground Water–Surface Water Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Ground Water Quality Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Priority Water Resource Caution Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Watershed Management Activities and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Major Programs and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Northern Coastal Basin Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

St. Johns River Water Management District Stormwater Management 

Cost-Share Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Guana Marsh Renovation Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Rose Bay Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Guana–Tolomato–Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

St. Johns County Model Fertilizer Ordinance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Agricultural Best Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

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

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

Sources of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Attainment of Designated Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

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

Planning Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

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

Pellicer Creek Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Halifax River Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 15
Chapter 4: Ground Water Quality Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Scope of the Ground Water Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Ground Water Resource Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98

Ground Water–Surface Water Interaction Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98

Ground Water Data Sources and Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Ground Water Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Basinwide Screening Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Ground Water as a Resource: Issues Related to the Ground Water 

Resource Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Use of Affected Aquifers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Data Evaluation and Priorities for Further Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Ground Water–Surface Water Interaction: Issues Related to the Ground 

Water–Surface Water Relational Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Ground Water to Surface Water Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111

Data Evaluation and Priorities for Further Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111

Addressing Potential Ground Water Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Ground Water Resource Priorities and Proposed Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Ground Water–Surface Water Interaction Priorities and Proposed Actions . . . . . . . 116

Chapter 5: The Planning List of Potentially Impaired Waters . . . . . .119

The Planning List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Relationship Between the Planning List and the 303(d) List . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Summary of Potential Impairments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Waters with Insufficient Data to Determine Impairment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Chapter 6: Strategic Monitoring and Data Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . .127

Strategic Monitoring and Data Acquisition Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Data Acquisition Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Phase 2 Assessment: Data Collection and Database Management 

Leading to the Development of the 303(d) List of Impaired Waters . . . . . . . 128

Verified List Development and Public Comment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Tables

Table 1.1: Stakeholder Involvement in the TMDL Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table 2.1: Outstanding Florida Waters in the Upper East Coast Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

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

(January 1, 1994–December 31 2003), Based on IWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table 3.2: Designated Use Attainment Categories for Surface Waters in Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Table 3.3: Categories for Waterbodies or Waterbody Segments in the 2002 Integrated Report . . . . 47

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 . . . 55

Table 3.6: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Matanzas River Planning Unit . . . 61

Table 3.7: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Pellicer Creek Planning Unit . . . . 72

Table 3.8: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Halifax River Planning Unit . . . . . 82

Table 4.1: Summary of Ground Water Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Table 4.2: Ground Water Assessment Categories and Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Table 4.3: Screening Thresholds and Basinwide Summary of Ground Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Table 4.4: Evaluation Summary: Ground Water Quality and Potential Impacts to Potable Supply . . 103

16 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
Figures

Figure 1.1: Schedule for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle in the 

Department’s Northeast District, Basin Groups 1 through 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 2.1: Geopolitical Map of the Upper East Coast Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure 2.2: Surface Water Resources of the Upper East Coast Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Figure 2.3: Ground Water Usage and Known Contaminated Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

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 

and Planning List Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

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

and Planning List Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

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

and Planning List Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

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

and Planning List Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Figure 4.1: Ground Water Resource Index Assessment for Primary Metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Figure 4.2: Ground Water Resource Index Assessment for Organics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Figure 4.3: Ground Water Resource Index Assessment for Saline Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Figure 4.4: Ground Water–Surface Water Relational Assessment for Nutrients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113

Figure 4.5: Ground Water–Surface Water Relational Assessment for Metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115

Figure 5.1: Upper East Coast Basin Planning List for All Causes of Potential Impairment, with 

Overlay of 1998 303(d) List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124

Table 4.5: Evaluation Summary: Ground Water Influence on Surface Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . .110

Table 5.1: Planning List of Potentially Impaired Waters in the Upper East Coast Basin . . . . . . . . . . 120

Table 5.2: Parameters Causing Potential Impairments in the Upper East Coast Basin . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 17

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 Status 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 federal 

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

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

waters that do not meet their designated uses (such as drinking water, recreation, and shellfish harvesting) and are thus defined 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.

This report presents a Planning List of potentially impaired waterbodies 

in the Upper East Coast Basin, identifies general surface water quality monitoring needs, and provides an overview of surface water quality restoration 

plans and projects. 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 Status Report, by chapter). The 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.

A description of the legislative and regulatory background for TMDL 

development and implementation through the watershed management 

approach, and a brief explanation of the TMDL Program, are available 

in Appendix A. 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.

Explanation of the Planning List

The Planning List is the preliminary list of potentially impaired surface 

waterbodies or waterbody segments in the Upper East Coast Basin. Under 

the FWRA, the Planning List is submitted to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) for informational purposes only and is not used 

to administer or implement any regulatory program.

To be placed on the Planning List, waters must meet specific data 

sufficiency and data quality requirements in the state’s Identification of 

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 19
Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) (Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]). Developed in cooperation with a Technical Advisory 

Committee, the rule provides a science-based methodology for identifying 

impaired waters (Appendix B). It addresses chemical parameters, interpretation of narrative nutrient criteria, biological impairment, fish consumption advisories, and ecological impairment. The complete text of the IWR 

is available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/index.htm. Additionally, if a water is on the 1998 303(d) list, but has insufficient data for 

analysis, it will be placed on the Planning List as stated in the IWR.

Explanation of the Verified List

The publication of the Status Report is followed by a period of monitoring and data gathering and, at the end of Phase 2 of the watershed 

management cycle, by an Assessment Report containing a Verified List of 

impaired waterbodies or segments for which TMDLs will be calculated, as 

provided in Subsection 403.067(2), Florida Statutes (F.S.). This Assessment Report also contains additional data gathered by the Department, 

other agencies, and groups doing monitoring in the basin; a more complete 

evaluation of water quality and biological resources; and a designated use 

attainment assessment for basin waters.

The 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. This integrated assessment is used to 

identify the status of data sufficiency, the potential for impairment, and the 

need for TMDL development for each waterbody or waterbody segment in 

the basin.

The Verified List is required by Subsection 403.067(4), F.S., and Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act. It is adopted by the Department 

in accordance with the FWRA and the IWR (Rule 62-303, F.A.C.). Once 

adopted, the list is submitted to the EPA under Section 303(d)1.c of the Clean 

Water Act and becomes the 303(d) list of impaired waters for the basin.

The first 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. 

Tables 3.5 through 3.8 in Chapter 3 list these waters, by planning unit.

Stakeholder Involvement

The FWRA requires the Department to work closely with stakeholders to develop and implement TMDLs. In addition, the Department’s 

Allocation Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC) report, submitted to 

the legislature, recommends relying on stakeholder involvement. Stakeholder involvement in the TMDL process will vary with each phase of 

implementation to achieve different purposes (Table 1.1). A copy of the 

ATAC report is available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/docs/

Allocation.pdf.

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 St. Johns River Water Management District, 

20 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
local governments, and the Guana–Tolomato–Matanzas Estuarine 

Research Reserve.

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 basin groups will be evaluated under the watershed management cycle. 

These groups are identified according to a U.S. Geological Survey classification system using hydrologic unit codes. It should be noted that a portion 

of the Upper East Coast Basin lies within the regulatory boundaries of the 

Department’s Central District.

Suwannee, a Group 1 basin, was the first basin in the district to 

undergo a preliminary assessment in 2000. A preliminary assessment for 

the Group 2 basin, Lower St. Johns River, was completed in 2001. There 

is no designated Group 3 basin in the Northeast District. The Group 4 

preliminary assessment for the Nassau–St. Marys Basin was carried out in 

2003. The Group 5 basin, Upper East Coast, is the subject of this report. 

In 2005, the cycle will resume with the Group 1 basin, Suwannee.

Watershed Management Cycle Nature of Stakeholder Involvement

Phase 1: 

Preliminary

Evaluation

Close coordination with local stakeholders to conduct a preliminary basin 

water quality assessment, inventory existing and proposed management activities, identify management objectives and issues of concern, develop a Strategic Monitoring Plan, and produce a preliminary Status Report that includes a 

Planning List of potentially impaired waters

Phase 2:

Strategic Monitoring

and Assessment

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

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

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

management plans and projects are adequate to restore water quality without 

the establishment of a TMDL

Phase 3:

Development and

Adoption of TMDLs

Coordination with stakeholders to discuss TMDL model framework, including 

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

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

process; public workshops for rule adoption of TMDLs

Phase 4:

Development of Basin 

Management Action Plan 

Broad stakeholder participation in developing a Basin Management Action Plan 

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

during the planning process

Phase 5:

Implementation of Basin 

Management Action Plan

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

and local watershed management structures; Department will continue to 

provide technical assistance, fulfill oversight responsibilities, and administer 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System point and nonpoint source 

permits

Table 1.1: Stakeholder Involvement in the TMDL Program

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 21
Figure 1.1: Schedule for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle in the Department’s Northeast 

District, Basin Groups 1 through 5

22 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
Contents of This Report

• Chapter 1: Introduction briefly 

characterizes the purpose and 

content of the Status Report, 

discusses stakeholder involvement, and describes how 

the watershed management 

cycle will be implemented in 

the Department’s Northeast 

District. 

• Chapter 2: Basin Overview

characterizes the basin’s 

general setting, surface water 

and ground water resources, 

major water quality trends, and 

watershed management activities and processes.

• Chapter 3: Preliminary 

Surface Water Quality Assessment discusses the scope of 

the assessment, summarizes 

data-gathering activities and 

sources of data, describes the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s terminology for 

designated use attainment and 

its integrated report categories, and provides, by basin 

planning unit, an evaluation of 

water quality and a discussion 

of permitted discharges and 

land uses.

• Chapter 4: Ground Water 

Quality Assessment describes 

the Department’s principal ground water monitoring networks, the basin 

assessment methodology, 

the ground water assessment 

results, and resource priorities 

and proposed actions.

• Chapter 5: The Planning List 

of Potentially Impaired Waters

contains the Planning List of 

potentially impaired waterbodies. The chapter also describes 

the relationship between the 

Planning and Verified Lists, 

and summarizes water quality 

findings for the basin.

• Chapter 6: Strategic Monitoring and Data Evaluation

summarizes strategic monitoring and data evaluation 

priorities and objectives that 

are critical to the development 

of the Verified List of impaired 

waters during the next phase 

of the watershed management 

cycle. It includes a general 

inventory of monitoring and 

data-gathering activities by 

other groups and programs 

that could be incorporated into 

the assessment.

Noteworthy 23 Water Quality Status Report: 

Upper East Coast

Basin Setting

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

of Florida. It covers approximately 692 square miles (not including estuarine areas) and includes the watersheds along the Intracoastal Waterway 

(ICWW) from Ponce de Leon Inlet in Volusia County, north through 

Flagler and St. Johns Counties, to southern Duval County. The basin 

encompasses coastal lowlands and extensive marshes interspersed with 

numerous creeks and small rivers draining east to form a series of shallow 

bays and lagoons. These are separated from the Atlantic Ocean by a barrier 

island system with three inlets: St. Augustine, Matanzas, and Ponce de 

Leon.

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

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

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

along the coast. Urban development is expected to continue expanding 

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

under development pressure.

The basin has 188,854 acres in the 100-year floodplain, 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 floodplain 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. Nonpoint sources of pollution in 

the basin, which can degrade ground water as well as surface water quality, 

include stormwater runoff or 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). Total numbers of septic tanks 

in counties in the basin ranged from 3,352 in Flagler County (serving 18 

percent of the population) to 66,949 in Volusia County (serving 32 percent 

Chapter 2: Basin Overview

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 25
of the population) in 1995 (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 identified regionally significant 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 flatwoods west of I-95; wetlands, 

flatwoods, 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, flatwoods, 

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, flatwoods, and hardwood forest in between; other 

linear swamps

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

recent years. In Flagler County, it grew from 28,701 in 1990 to 49,832 in 

2000, an increase of approximately 74 percent. An estimated 2003 population of 62,206 shows an additional increase of about 25 percent from 

April 2000 to July 2003. The population of St. Johns County increased 

47 percent between 1990 (83,829) and 2000 (123,135), with an additional 

increase of 16 percent estimated between 2000 and 2003 (142,869). In 

Volusia County, the population grew from 370,712 in 1990 to 443,343 in 

2000, an increase of 20 percent. The county’s population was estimated to 

increase an additional 6 percent by 2003, to 468,663 (U.S. Census Bureau 

Web site, December 21, 2004).

Figure 2.1 shows the principal geopolitical features in the Upper East 

Coast Basin.

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

(May 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 

reference section contains 

a complete listing of all the 

resources used in creating 

this report.

26 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
Figure 2.1: Geopolitical Map of the Upper East Coast Basin 

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 27
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, briefly describes the major characteristics of surface 

waters that influence water quality in the basin, and describes surface water 

classifications and special designations.

The natural hydrology of the basin has been altered by a combination of water control structures, dikes, drainage ditches, and canals. The 

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

of the watersheds in this 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 identified previously, the ICWW extends northward out of the 

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

which flows 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 flows to the Atlantic Ocean via the St. Augustine 

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

with the flow 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 artificial channel created as an extension of the 

ICWW. The Halifax River extends south from the artificial channel north 

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

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, ground water 

seepage, and inputs of substances from the surrounding environment. The 

transport of suspended and dissolved substances in the estuaries and channels are driven primarily by tides and winds (SJRWMD, 2003).

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

A more detailed discussion in Chapter 3 provides information on each 

planning unit.

Surface Water Quality Classifications 

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

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

beneficial 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 specific parameters, describe the 

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

classified using the following five designated use categories:

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

28 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
Figure 2.2: Surface Water Resources of the Upper East Coast Basin

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 29
Class IV Agricultural water supplies

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

 waters currently in this class)

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, ICWW, and tributaries (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); 

• Pellicer Creek; 

• Guana River and tributaries, from Guana Lake Dam south to the 

Tolomato River; 

• Salt Run, waters south of an east-west line connecting Lighthouse 

Park boat ramp with Conch Island; and 

• 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.

There are two shellfish harvesting areas in the basin designated by 

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

North St. Johns County and South St. Johns County areas. More restrictive shellfish harvesting classifications have been adopted in most of the 

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

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

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

been classified as conditionally restricted or prohibited for the same reason. 

Potential sources of the bacteria affecting the shellfish harvesting areas are 

numerous, ranging from stormwater runoff and septic tanks to wildlife 

(SJRWMD, 2000).

Special Designations

Outstanding Florida Waters

The waterbodies in the basin identified in Table 2.1 have been given 

additional protection through designation as Outstanding Florida Waters 

(OFWs). 

OFWs are designated for “special protection due to their natural 

attributes” (Section 403.061, 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 classification. Most OFWs are associated with managed areas in the 

state or federal park system, such as aquatic preserves, national seashores, or 

wildlife refuges. Other OFWs may also be designated as “Special Waters” 

30 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
based on a finding that the waters are of exceptional recreational or ecological significance, and are identified as such in Rule 62-302, F.A.C.

Surface Water Improvement and Management Priority Waters

In 1987, the Florida legislature created the Surface Water Improvement 

and Management (SWIM) Program to restore waterbodies. The initial 

legislation identified 6 priority waterbodies: Lake Apopka, Tampa Bay, the 

Indian River Lagoon, Biscayne Bay, the 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.

The SJRWMD considers the entire Upper East Coast Basin a SWIM 

priority water for restoration. The District identifies this basin as the 

Northern Coastal Basin. 

Ground Water Resources

Aquifers

Hydrologically, the Upper East Coast Basin lies between the Atlantic 

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

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

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

by undifferentiated sediments of Pleistocene and Holocene ages that consist 

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

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

layer of undifferentiated sediments comprises the surficial aquifer in the 

Table 2.1: Outstanding Florida Waters in the Upper East Coast 

Basin

Fort Mose (designation undetermined)

Anastasia State Recreation Area

Faver-Dykes State Park

Washington Oaks State Gardens

Gamble Rogers Memorial State Recreation Area at Flagler Beach

Bulow Creek State Park

North Peninsula State Recreation Area

Tomoka River and Tomoka State Park

Spruce Creek 

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

Pellicer Creek Aquatic Preserve

Tomoka River and Tomoka Marsh Aquatic Preserve

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 31
basin (Bermes et al., 1963). The surficial aquifer is less than 50 feet in 

thickness and is unconfined (Bermes et al., 1963).

The surficial aquifer is underlain by interbedded lenses of marine, fineto-medium sand, shell, and silty clay of Pliocene and Upper Miocene ages, 

followed by a confining layer—the Hawthorn Formation of Miocene age. 

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

marl that are interbedded with lenses of phosphorite pebbles, phosphatic 

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

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

Maddox, 1991). 

The intermediate aquifer is confined and consists of more permeable 

lenses of sand, shell, and limestone that occur within the confining 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 confined and under artesian pressure in most of the basin. The Floridan 

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

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

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

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

However, it is under artesian pressure where 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 surficial aquifer, intermediate aquifer, and Floridan aquifer are all 

significant 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 surficial aquifer to be used as 

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

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

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

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

of New Smyrna Beach (12 wells). Figure 2.3 shows public supply well 

locations in the Upper East Coast Basin.

Ground Water–Surface Water Interactions 

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

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

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

the surficial aquifer and, in turn, part of the intermediate aquifer. Both 

32 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
Figure 2.3: Ground Water Usage and Known Contaminated Areas

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 33
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. 

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 flux through 

seepage or springs to the surficial 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 confining layer. In 

Volusia County, the confining Hawthorn Formation is missing, and the 

Floridan aquifer may contribute to surface water where the confining layer 

is absent. 

Surface water in the basin can be a mixture of direct precipitation, 

surface runoff, seepage from the surficial aquifer, and seepage or spring flow 

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 surficial aquifer occurs.

Ground Water Quality Issues

A well-known ground water quality issue in the basin is the naturally 

occurring high content of sodium and chloride in the Floridan aquifer and, 

to a lesser extent, in the intermediate aquifer. This is due to the natural setting of the coastal basin and the underlying aquifers. The Floridan aquifer 

is highly productive and is under artesian pressure. However, the upper 

Floridan, especially deeper portions and locations closer to the coast, may 

contain up to 3,000 parts per million or more of chloride. This situation is 

further aggravated by the increasing pumpage of water supply wells associated with the growing population and agricultural and industrial activities. 

The vertical upwelling of high chloride–high sodium water induced by 

pumping wells is the most significant problem for public water supplies in 

the basin. In some cases, water withdrawn from the Floridan aquifer must 

undergo membrane treatment and be blended with water from the surficial 

aquifer before it can be used as public water supply or agricultural water 

supply. 

Ground water quality in the basin is affected in some areas by contaminant sources that are being addressed by several programs managed by the 

Department, and Department databases contain information on a number 

of sites or facilities. Figure 2.3 shows known sources of contamination in 

the Upper East Coast Basin. These include the following: 

• One State-funded Waste Cleanup Site: The Control Products 

Associated facility, a state cleanup site with pesticide contamination, 

was delisted in February 1990; no contamination of any wells was 

found.

• Petroleum Contaminated Monitoring Sites: Approximately 

600 sites identified in the basin are undergoing ground water monitoring, and some are being remediated. Public or private drinking 

water supplies affected by petroleum contamination are protected in 

1 of several ways: (1) the affected well is decommissioned and water 

34 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
provided from an alternative source, (2) treatment is provided at the 

water plant, or (3) for affected residential wells, activated carbon 

filters are installed to remove the contamination and meet drinking 

water standards.

• State Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program Sites: Nineteen 

sites with known contamination were identified in the basin. All 

of them are located in cities such as St. Augustine, Flagler Beach, 

and Daytona Beach. Affected water supplies are being addressed as 

described for petroleum facilities. 

Priority Water Resource Caution Areas 

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

Areas (PWRCAs), 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 PWRCAs 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 their 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 PWRCAs:

• Impacts to native vegetation, primarily wetlands;

• Impacts to minimum flows and levels, primarily spring flows;

• 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 discharges 

of polluted stormwater from urban and agricultural areas; and protect, 

preserve, and restore special areas. The following section describes historical, current, and ongoing activities and processes to address water quality 

problems. 

Much of the progress in the Upper East Coast Basin for developing 

water quality restoration plans and implementing watershed and water 

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 35
quality improvements is attributable to coordinated local, state, and 

regional efforts. Many plans share common goals, and their implementation is based on various groups playing critical roles in planning, funding, 

managing, and executing projects. The Department continues to coordinate its efforts with these entities to obtain data, strengthen monitoring 

activities, and exchange information through periodic meetings.

Major Programs and Projects

A number of major restoration initiatives, if continued, will have significant 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 fiscal 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 was developed and adopted in 

December 2003. Detailed projects and strategies can be found in the 

SWIM Plan. 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 identification of 

problem areas. Detailed remedial actions will be determined using 

hydrologic models to simulate water volumes and flows under a range 

of climate conditions.

• Stormwater retrofit and master plan implementation: This 

initiative involves developing and implementing a prioritized stormwater retrofit program focusing on areas built prior to 1983. Also, 

the SJRWMD will support the development of local government and 

land acquisition programs for buying land to 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.

36 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
The SJRWMD received a state appropriation of $1.35 million in 

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

SWIM plan. Projects to be funded through this appropriation include 

Local Government Cooperative Stormwater Program–Priority Watersheds; 

North Peninsula Wastewater and Reuse–Phase 1; North Peninsula Swale 

and Stormwater Improvements–Phase 1; Raleigh Drive, Atlanta 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 that time, it has provided 

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

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

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

Water Quantity and Water Quality Abatement Program; Maria Sanchez 

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

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

Drainage Improvements System (St. Johns County); Wild Olive Stormwater Improvements (city of Daytona); Holly Hill State Revolving Fund 

Stormwater Improvements–Phase II; and Standish Drive and Royal Palm 

Avenue Baffle Boxes (Ormond Beach) (SJRWMD, 2003). New projects 

approved for funding in FY 2004–05 include Pelican-Grandview exfiltration in Daytona Beach and Hand Avenue sediment traps in Ormond 

Beach (Florida Water Resources Journal, 2004; Daytona Beach NewsJournal, 2004).

Guana Marsh Renovation Project

The Guana Marsh Basin is an area of 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 flow and allowed the upper 

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

flushed 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 flooding in the area, 

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

widespread septic tank failures and saturated septic drainfields.

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 calls for a series of marsh improvements, 

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 37
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 watershed 

(SJRWMD, 2004a).

The construction of water quality and flow structure improvements 

was completed in 2000. Ongoing activities include supporting efforts to 

remove septic effluent from affected waters by replacing the septic tanks 

with a central sewer system; maintaining the historical channel through 

the continued harvesting of nuisance aquatic plants; establishing a watershed education program through the Florida Yards, Neighborhoods and 

Ponds Program; continuing water quality monitoring activities; and working with golf courses and landscape professionals to develop and implement 

best management practices (BMPs) for existing and new developments.

Rose Bay Restoration

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

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

proximity to the Atlantic Ocean provided vital nursery grounds and habitat 

for young estuarine and offshore 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 five-point 

restoration plan was developed, and partnerships were established with the 

Florida Department of Transportation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. All phases of the restoration plan are being implemented. The five 

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.

The final stages of the plan are scheduled for completion in spring 

2005 (SJRWMD, 2004b).

Guana–Tolomato–Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve

Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act establishes the 

National Estuarine Research Reserve System. Under the system, 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 

as such in August 1999.

38 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
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.

The mission of the reserve system is “to promote stewardship of the 

nation’s estuaries through science and education using a system of protected 

areas (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2003). The 

2003–2008 Strategic Plan for the reserve system identifies 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 first 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 fields. Training and certification may be obtained 

from the county extension office or from other certified trainers.

Agricultural Best Management Practices

The Florida Watershed Restoration Act authorizes DACS to develop 

interim measures and agricultural BMPs. Additional authority for agricultural BMPs is provided in legislation on nitrates and ground water (Section 576.045, F.S.), the Lake Okeechobee Protection Program (Section 

373.4595, F.S.), Agricultural Water Conservation (Section 570.085, F.S.), 

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

BMPs are often adopted by rule, they are voluntary if not covered by regulatory programs. If they are adopted by rule and the Department verifies 

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, the 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 Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 39
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.

Manuals for Best Management Practices

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

a number of Florida 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.floridaagwaterpolicy.com. Manuals for row 

crops, equine or horse farms, and ornamental nurseries are currently being 

developed. The use of a BMP manual alone, however, does not afford a 

presumption of compliance with the Department’s water quality standards. 

In general, qualifying for a presumption of compliance requires that a sitespecific BMP assessment process be in place or that practices being used 

have been proven effective through research and demonstration.

The agricultural BMP manuals currently in use, to a greater or lesser 

extent, in the Upper East Coast Basin are as follows:

• Silviculture BMPs: BMPs for silviculture activities in Florida were 

first established in the mid-1970s in response to the 1972 federal 

Clean Water Act. In 1992, DACS established a BMP Technical 

Advisory Committee to review the existing silviculture BMP manual 

and revise the practices where necessary to reflect the scientific, 

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. Since the manual is not Florida 

specific, an effort is currently under way to use the document in 

developing a Florida-specific manual. It is referenced in the Container Nursery Interim Measures adopted under 576.045, F.S.

• BMPs for Agrichemical Handling and Farm Equipment Maintenance: Recently revised and available on the DACS Office of Agricultural Water Policy Web site, 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 BMPs 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 

40 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
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 (a collection of industry associations); the Department; 

DACS; the Florida Department of Community Affairs; and the 

St. Johns, South Florida, and Southwest Florida Water Management 

Districts.

• Aquaculture BMPs: As directed by the 1998 Florida legislature, 

DACS worked cooperatively with industry, state agencies, and the 

environmental community to develop a comprehensive BMP manual 

for aquaculture. Florida law requires that the Department adopt the 

manual by rule and provides regulatory exemptions under Chapters 

373 and 403, F.S., for growers who implement BMPs and are certified by DACS’ Division of Aquaculture. The manual, which was 

printed and distributed in 2000, has been adopted by rule.

• Water Quality/Quantity BMPs 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 

flatwoods citrus operations can benefit from the same practices. The 

Indian River Citrus League led a cooperative effort involving 15 

agencies and industry associations in developing these BMPs. Beginning in 2000, the BMP manual and guidance booklets were published using EPA Section 319 and industry funds.

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 41

Scope of the Preliminary Assessment

This chapter presents the results of a preliminary 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 Planning List of potentially impaired waterbodies. The listing will be in accordance with evaluation thresholds and data sufficiency 

and data quality requirements in the Identification of Impaired Surface 

Waters Rule (IWR) (Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]). 

The results of the assessment will be used to identify monitoring priorities 

in Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle and help the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) coordinate with regional 

and local monitoring activities.

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

for the preliminary assessment. A section on each planning unit contains 

a general description and summary of key water quality indicators (such 

as nutrients, chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen [DO], and microbiological 

parameters). Permitted discharges and land uses are summarized for each 

planning unit. The discussion notes where applicable surface water quality criteria have been exceeded and summarizes the report’s findings 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 

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

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

cycle, including total maximum daily load (TMDL) development and 

implementation.

Appendix A contains a discussion of the legislative and regulatory 

background for TMDL development and implementation. The methodology used to develop the Planning List is provided in Appendix B. The 

complete text of the IWR is available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/

tmdl/docs/AmendedIWR.pdf.

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 

Chapter 3: Preliminary Surface Water Quality 

Assessment

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 43
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Legacy and “new” 

STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) databases, the U.S. Geological 

Survey, and the Florida Department of Health. The STORET databases 

contain water quality data from a variety of sources, including the Department, water management districts, local governments, and volunteer monitoring groups. Appendix B contains a detailed description of STORET 

and the methodology used to develop the Planning and Verified Lists, 

based on the IWR.

Table 3.1 summarizes the main data providers who contributed to the 

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

used in this assessment. Figure 3.1 contains a chart showing the amount 

of data provided by each source for each year. In addition to these data 

providers, the Department is working to obtain data from several other 

water quality data samplers.

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

in accordance with the methodology prescribed in the Identification of 

IWR (Rule 62-303, F.A.C.). For the Planning List assessment, the data 

evaluation period of record is 10 years, and for the Verified List, 7.5 years. 

Table B.2 in Appendix B shows the periods of record for the Group 1 

through Group 5 basins for the Verified and Planning Lists in the first 

basin rotation cycle. Data collected between January 1, 1994, and December 31, 2003, were evaluated to establish the Planning List for the Upper 

East Coast Basin (IWR Run 18.1). 

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.

Data Provider

Percentage of 

Data Provided

Volusia County Environmental Health Laboratory 

and Volusia County

41%

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 

Northeast District 

30%

St. Johns River Water Management District 22%

Florida LakeWatch 9.7%

Florida Department of Health 4%

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Ground Water

1%

Watershed Action Volunteers <1%

U.S. Geological Survey <1%

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 

Central District 

<1%

Florida Marine Research Institute <1%

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

Basin (January 1, 1994–December 31, 2003), Based on IWR 

Run 18.1

44 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
Figure 3.1: Sources of Data for the Upper East Coast Basin 

Attainment of Designated Use

While the designated uses of a given waterbody are established using 

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

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

description of designated uses. Because the Department is required to provide use attainment status for both the state’s 305(b) report and the state’s 

303(d) list of impaired waters, the Department uses EPA terminology when 

assessing waters for use attainment. The water quality evaluations and 

decision processes that are defined in Florida’s IWR for listing impaired 

waters are based on the following designated use attainment categories:

Aquatic Life Use Support-Based Attainment

Primary Contact and Recreation Attainment

Fish and Shellfish Consumption Attainment

Drinking Water Use Attainment

Protection of Human Health

Table 3.2 summarizes the designated uses assigned to Florida’s various 

surface water classifications.

1990

19911992

1993

1994

1995

1996

19971998

1999

2000

2001

U.S. Geological Survey

Florida Department of Health

Florida LakeWatch

21FLVOL

Department's Northeast District

Florida Marine Research Institute

St. Johns River Water

Management District

Department's Southeast District

Department's Central District

Florida Department of

Environmental Protection

Volusia County Environmental

Health Lab

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

2002

2003

2004

Numbers of Observations

Year

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

Upper East Coast Data Providers

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 45
Integrated Report Categories and Assessment 

Overview

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

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

Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (Wayland, 2001). Following the 

publication of the Status Report and further data evaluation, the Department will produce an Assessment Report integrating the 303(d) list and the 

305(b) report for the basin.

Following the EPA’s guidance, the Department delineated waterbodies or waterbody segments in each of the state’s river basins, assessed them 

for potential impairment based on individual parameters, and grouped 

them into one of five major assessment categories and subcategories. These 

categories provide information on a waterbody’s status based on water quality, sufficiency of data, and the need for TMDL development (Table 3.3). 

This Status Report contains a preliminary evaluation of waterbodies that 

fall into integrated report Categories 1 through 3 in the table.

Because not enough recent data on chemistry, biology, and fish consumption advisories have been collected, currently only a few waterbodies 

or waterbody segments statewide fall into Category 1 (attaining all uses). 

In particular, fish tissues in many waterbodies statewide have not been 

tested for mercury. Out of 126 waterbodies or waterbody segments in the 

Upper East Coast Basin, none is in Category 1.

More waterbodies and segments statewide fall into Category 2 (attaining some uses but with insufficient data to assess completely) than Category 1 (attaining all uses), because monitoring programs can sometimes 

provide sufficient data for partially determining whether a designated use 

in a particular waterbody is attained. A total of 14 waterbody segments in 

the basin falls into Category 2.

However, most waterbodies in the state fall into Category 3 (having 

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

• Category 3a—44 segments for which no data are available to 

determine their water quality status;

• Category 3b—12 segments with some data but not sufficient data for 

making any determinations;

• Category 3c—51 segments that are potentially impaired based on the 

Planning List criteria; and 

• Category 3d—5 segments that may be impaired based on the 

Verified List criteria, but require further evaluation.

Several potentially impaired (Category 3c or 3d) 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 

Understanding the 

Terms “Pollutant” 

and “Pollution”

For purposes of the TMDL 

Program, pollutants are 

chemical and biological 

constituents, introduced by 

humans into a waterbody, 

that may result in pollution 

(water quality impairment). 

There are other causes of 

pollution, such as physical 

alteration of a waterbody 

(for example, canals, dams, 

and ditches). However, 

TMDLs are established only 

for impairments caused by 

pollutants (a TMDL quantifies 

how much of a given pollutant a waterbody can receive 

and still meet its designated 

uses).

Waterbodies that are verified impaired due to specified pollutants, and therefore 

require a TMDL, are listed 

under Category 5 in the Integrated Assessment Report; 

waterbodies with water quality impairments due to other 

causes, or unknown causes, 

are listed under Category 4b. 

Although TMDLs are not 

established for Category 4b 

waterbodies, these waterbodies still may be addressed 

through a watershed management program (for 

example, the Kissimmee 

River restoration).

46 Water Quality Status 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

This indicates that 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

This indicates that 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.

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.”)

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. The table does not 

include a description of Category 5, because no waters are assigned to this category until the end of Phase 2.

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 47
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 or Category 5. These will be proposed at the end of Phase 2 

when the Verified List of impaired waters is developed.

Category 4 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

• 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.

Category 5 waterbodies are determined to be impaired and require 

TMDLs. These are included on the Verified List of impaired waters 

adopted by the Department’s Secretary. However, no waters are formally 

assigned to this category until the listing process has been completed, even 

though sufficient data may be available and a waterbody may meet the 

requirements for impairment under the IWR.

Planning Units

The Upper East Coast Basin encompasses approximately 692 square 

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

geographic basis for identifying and assessing water quality improvement 

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

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

smaller adjacent tributary basins with similar characteristics. Planning 

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

Water quality assessments were conducted for waterbody segments 

within planning units. Each of these smaller, hydrologically-based drainage areas within a planning unit is assigned a unique waterbody identification 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 identified in the Department’s lists 

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

of the Clean Water Act.

48 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
Although WBIDs often encompass several waterbodies, water quality 

data usually reflect conditions in the main waterbody within a polygon. In 

some instances, however, the data from several waterbodies within the polygon have been aggregated. As the water quality assessments are refined in 

Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle, individual waterbodies within 

these aggregations that have unique water quality concerns will be assigned 

unique WBIDs and evaluated individually.

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 of 

each planning unit, information on land use and potential point sources of 

pollution, water quality assessments for individual waterbody segments, and 

summaries of ecological issues and watershed quality improvement plans 

and projects. This report will follow the example of the St. Johns River 

Water Management District’s (SJRWMD’s) Surface Water Improvement 

and Management Plan and treat the Tolomato River and Matanzas River 

Planning Units as a single basin. This consolidation provides consistency 

with that program and with the Guana–Tolomato–Matanzas National 

Estuarine Research Reserve Program, which encompasses parts of the estuaries in both of these planning units.

To determine the status of surface water quality in the Upper East 

Coast Basin, chemistry data, biological data, and, if available, fish consumption, beach closures, and shellfish-harvesting advisories were evaluated 

to determine potential impairment (Note: As of 3/14/05, beach closures 

and shellfish-harvesting areas had not been analyzed for this basin). 

Appendix B contains a detailed description of the methodology used to 

determine potential impairment. Appendix C includes summary information, by planning unit, for permitted wastewater treatment facilities, 

Superfund sites, and permitted landfill facilities in the basin. Appendix D 

contains a list of water quality monitoring stations, by planning unit. 

Appendix E lists Level I land uses, by planning unit.

Table 3.4: Planning Units in the Upper East Coast Basin

Planning Unit Description

Tolomato/Matanzas River The planning unit, located in portions of 

Duval, St. Johns, and Flagler Counties, has 

a drainage area of approximately 128,337 

acres.

Pellicer Creek The planning unit, located south of St. 

Augustine, includes southern St. Johns 

County and northern Flagler County. It has 

a drainage area of approximately 102,884 

acres. 

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

the northeast Florida coast, encompasses 

nearly 211,897 acres.

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

East Coast Basin

50 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
Assessment by Planning Unit

• Tolomato River and Matanzas River Planning Units

General Description

The Tolomato River and Matanzas River Planning Units cover about 

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

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

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

Shores, and Crescent Beach.

Within the Tolomato River watershed, major freshwater drainage to 

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

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

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

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

converges with the Matanzas River and Salt Run before flowing 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 inflow from 

overland urban runoff. Pellicer Creek contributes with flows east to the 

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

Matanzas Inlet, located 14 miles south, tidally influence the estuary.

The waterways in these planning units have been altered, beginning 

with the digging of a series of canals connecting the Matanzas Rivers 

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

Five waterbody segments (WBIDs) in the two planning units were 

previously identified as impaired on the 1998 303(d) list: Cracker Branch, 

Guana River, ICWW (Matanzas River), and two sections of the Matanzas 

River. Figures 3.3 and 3.4, respectively, contain composite maps of the 

Tolomato and Matanzas River Planning Units. Waters on the 1998 303(d) 

list and the Planning List are indicated. Waterbody segments shown as 

Category 3c or 3d on the maps are included on the Planning List of potentially impaired waters.

Tables 3.5 and 3.6 summarize the water quality assessment status of 

all waterbody segments in the two planning units. The tables and figures 

show that 9 waterbody segments in the Tolomato River Planning Unit and 

11 waterbody segments in the Matanzas River Planning Unit are potentially impaired.

In 1995, extensive shellfish harvesting areas were reclassified from 

“conditionally approved” to “conditionally restricted” for shellfish harvesting due to elevated coliform bacteria levels. The net result was a closure of 

virtually all of the primary shellfish 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 reflect tributary loading and 

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

303(d) List and Planning List Waters

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

Planning List Waters

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 53
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 Facility 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 landfill, and two closed landfills.

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 significant 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 4.0 mgd; and the State Road 16 

WWTF, in St. Augustine, at 1.5 mgd. In addition, there are six active 

non-NPDES-permitted 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 landfills in the planning unit.

Figures 3.3 and 3.4, respectively, show permitted wastewater treatment facilities, landfills, and delineated ground water contamination 

areas in the Tolomato River and Matanzas River Planning Units (see 

Noteworthy for a definition of point sources). Appendix C lists the 

basin’s domestic and industrial surface discharge facilities, along with their 

permitted flows, by planning unit. It also lists landfills 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 in use as agricultural land or rangeland. Other land 

uses include transportation, communication, and utilities (1.4 percent) 

and barren land (0.5 percent). These land uses can be associated with 

nonpoint discharges of pollutants and eroded sediments (see Noteworthy

for a definition 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).

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

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

2320 Guana 

River

Estuary IIIM DO DO Not 

Impaired

2 3c Low 2011 Planning period: 14/

116; verified period: 

5/50. Propose to 

delist unless further 

data/information are 

obtained.

2320 Guana 

River

Estuary IIIM Coliforms Fecal 

Coliforms

Planning 

List

3c — Low 2011 Planning period: 

1/79 Values exceed 

criterion; verified 

period: 0/45 Values 

exceed criterion.

2320 Guana 

River

Estuary IIIM Coliforms Total 

Coliforms

Planning 

List

3c — Low 2011 Planning period: 

6/13 Values exceed 

criterion; verified 

period: 0/0 Values 

exceed criterion. 

Data from only one 

season (Spring).

2320A Lake 

Vedra

Estuary IIIM — DO Insufficient 

Data

3b 3b — — Planning period: 

7/16; verified period: 

No Data. Sampling 

only covers two 

seasons.

2320A Lake 

Vedra

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

1/14; verified period: 

No Data. Sampling 

only covers two 

seasons.

2320A Lake 

Vedra

Estuary IIIM — Total 

Coliforms

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

1/16; verified period: 

No Data. Sampling 

only covers two seasons (Summer/Fall).

2320A Lake 

Vedra

Estuary IIIM — Turbidity Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

0/16; verified period: 

No Data. Sampling 

only covers two 

seasons.

2320A Lake 

Vedra

Estuary IIIM — Zinc Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

0/1 Sampling only 

covers one season; 

verified period: No 

Data.

2363I7 Matanzas 

River

Estuary II — DO Not 

Impaired

2 3c — — Planning period: 43/

871; verified period: 

15/204.

2363I7 Matanzas 

River

Estuary II Coliforms Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

111/1166; verified 

period: 5/276. Propose to delist unless 

further data/information are obtained.

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 55
2363I7 Matanzas 

River

Estuary II Coliforms Total 

Coliforms

Planning 

List

3c — Low 2011 Planning period: 20/

88; verified period: 

No Data.

2363I7 Matanzas 

River

Estuary II Nutrients Chlorophyll a

(Nutrients)

Not 

Impaired

2 — Low 2011 Planning period: 

Median TN/TP Ratio 

= 7.2 (N = 106); 

planning period: 

Median TN = 0.58 

mg/L (N = 111); 

planning period: 

Median TP = 0.09 

mg/L (N = 116); 

verified period: TN 

Median = 0.5 (N = 

55); TP Median = 

0.08 (N = 55). TN/TP 

Ratio = 6.66 (N = 

53). Propose to 

delist unless further 

information/data are 

obtained.

2363I7 Matanzas 

River

Estuary II — Turbidity Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

3/1092; verified 

period: 1/247.

2364 Unnamed 

Slough

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2380 Unnamed 

Slough

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2400 Smith 

Creek

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2406 Deep 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — DO Not 

Impaired

2 2 — — Planning period: 

8/74; verified period: 

7/60.

2406 Deep 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 4/

60; verified period: 

3/57.

2406 Deep 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — Chlorophyll a

(Nutrients)

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: TN 

= 0.62 mg/L (N = 

23); TP = 0.09 mg/L 

(N = 26); TN/TP 

Median Ratio = 7.03 

(N = 23); verified 

period: TN = 0.62 

mg/L (N = 23); TP = 

0.09 mg/L (N = 26); 

TN/TP Median Ratio 

= 7.03 (N = 23).

2406 Deep 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — Total 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

1/35; verified period: 

1/27.

2406 Deep 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — Turbidity Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 0/

63; verified period: 

0/63.

2429 Sweet

water 

Creek

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

Table 3.5 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 

303(d) 

Parameters of 

Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

56 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
2435 Capo 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — Chlorophyll a

(Nutrients)

Insufficient 

Data

3b 3b — — TN Median = 0.72 

mg/L (N = 2), TP 

Median = 0.13 mg/L 

(N = 1).

2435 Capo 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — DO Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

No Data; verified 

period: 0/3.

2435 Capo 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

No Data; verified 

period: 0/3.

2435 Capo 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — Turbidity Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

No Data; verified 

period: 0/3.

2442 Marshall 

Creek

Stream IIIM — DO Verified 3d 3d — — Planning period: 9/

54; verified period: 

9/54. May be verified unless further 

data/information are 

obtained.

2442 Marshall 

Creek

Stream IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 3/

48 ; verified period: 

3/51.

2442 Marshall 

Creek

Stream IIIM — Chlorophyll a

(Nutrients)

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

TN = 0.58 (N = 16); 

TP = 0.08 (N = 16); 

TN/TP Median Ratio 

= 7.43 (N = 16); 

verified period: TN 

= 0.60 (N = 17); TP 

= 0.08 (N = 19); 

TN/TP Median Ratio 

= 7.33 (N = 17).

2442 Marshall 

Creek

Stream IIIM — Total 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

0/21; verified period: 

0/21.

2442 Marshall 

Creek

Stream IIIM — Turbidity Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 0/

56; verified period: 

0/56.

2451 Stokes 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — DO Not 

Impaired

2 2 — — Planning period: 15/

146; verified period: 

14/103.

2451 Stokes 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — Chlorophyll a

(Nutrients)

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

TN = 0.56 (N = 81); 

TP = 0.09 (N = 93); 

Median TN/TP Ratio 

= 7.04 (N = 79); 

verified period: TN 

= 0.61 (N = 68); 

TP = 0.08 (N = 71); 

Median TN/TP Ratio 

= 7.11 (N = 67).

2451 Stokes 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 2/

122; verified period: 

1/96.

Table 3.5 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 

303(d) 

Parameters of 

Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 57
2451 Stokes 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — Total 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 0/

33; verified period: 

0/21.

2451 Stokes 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — Turbidity Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 1/

129; verified period: 

1/108.

2457 St. Marks 

Pond 

Outlet

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — —

2468 Casa Cola 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — DO Not 

Impaired

2 3b — — Planning period: 4/

85; verified period: 

3/53.

2468 Casa Cola 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 0/

70; verified period: 

0/49.

2468 Casa Cola 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — Total 

Coliforms

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

0/3; verified period: 

0/4.

2470 Sombrero 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — Chlorophyll a

(Nutrients)

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

No Data; verified 

period: TN = 0.93 

(N = 1); TP = 0.08 

(N = 4); TN/TP 

Median Ratio = 

12.75 (N = 1).

2470 Sombrero 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — DO Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

No Data; verified 

period: 1/4.

2470 Sombrero 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

No Data; verified 

period: 0/4.

2470 Sombrero 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — Turbidity Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

No Data; verified 

period: 1/4.

2477 Ximanies 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — Chlorophyll a

(Nutrients)

Insufficient 

Data

3b 3b — — Planning period: 

No Data; verified 

period: TN = 0.71 

(N = 1); TP = 0.08 (N 

= 2); TN/TP Median 

Ratio = 7.52 (N = 1).

2477 Ximanies 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — DO Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

No Data; verified 

period: 0/2.

2477 Ximanies 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

No Data; verified 

period: 0/2.

2477 Ximanies 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — Turbidity Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

No Data; verified 

period: 0/2.

Table 3.5 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 

303(d) 

Parameters of 

Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

58 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
2483 Pancho 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — DO Not 

Impaired

2 2 — — Planning period: 4/

85; verified period: 

1/22.

2483 Pancho 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — Chlorophyll a

(Nutrients)

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

No Data; verified 

period: TN = 0.47 

(N = 3); TP = 0.07 (N 

= 3); TN/TP Median 

Ratio = 7.35 (N = 2).

2483 Pancho 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 0/

119; verified period: 

0/25.

2483 Pancho 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — Turbidity Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 0/

116; verified period: 

0/21.

2487 Robinson 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — DO Not 

Impaired

2 2 — — Planning period: 4/

85; verified period: 

1/22.

2487 Robinson 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — Chlorophyll a

(Nutrients)

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: TN 

= 0.48 (N = 18); TP 

= 0.085 (N = 17); 

TN/TP Median Ratio 

= 6.98 (N = 17); 

verified period: TN 

= 0.47 (N = 6); TP = 

0.075 (N = 5); TN/TP 

Median Ratio = 5.85 

(N = 5).

2487 Robinson 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 1/

141; verified period: 

0/29.

2487 Robinson 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — Total 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

1/24; verified period: 

No Data.

2487 Robinson 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — Turbidity Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 0/

136; verified period: 

0/25.

8123 Tolomato 

River 

Ocean 1

Estuary IIIM — Mercury in 

Fish

Planning 

List

3c 3c — — Verify data are 

within the last 7.5 

years.

8123A Vilano 

Beach

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 3c — — Planning period: 0/

125; verified period: 

0/157.

8123A Vilano 

Beach

Estuary IIIM — Mercury in 

Fish

Planning 

List

3c — — — Verify data are 

within the last 7.5 

years.

8124 Tolomato 

River 

Ocean 

N 2

Estuary IIIM — Mercury in 

Fish

Planning 

List

3c 3c — — Verify data are 

within the last 7.5 

years.

8125 Tolomato 

River 

Ocean 3

Estuary IIIM — Mercury in 

Fish

Planning 

List

3c 3c — — Verify data are 

within the last 7.5 

years.

Table 3.5 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 

303(d) 

Parameters of 

Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 59
8125A Mickler’s 

Landing

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 3c — — Planning period: 0/

126; verified period: 

0/158.

8125A Mickler’s 

Landing

Estuary IIIM — Mercury in 

Fish

Planning 

List

3c — — — Verify data are 

within the last 7.5 

years.

8125B Solana 

Rd.

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 3c — — Planning period: 0/

133; verified period: 

0/157.

8125B Solana 

Rd.

Estuary IIIM — DO Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

2/8; verified period: 

No Data.

8125B Solana 

Rd.

Estuary IIIM — Total 

Coliforms

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

0/8; verified period: 

No Data.

8125B Solana 

Rd.

Estuary IIIM — Turbidity Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

0/8; verified period: 

No Data.

8125B Solana 

Rd.

Estuary IIIM — Mercury in 

Fish

Planning 

List

3c — — — Verify data are 

within the last 7.5 

years.

Notes:

1

The designation “stream” includes canals, rivers, and sloughs. The designation “lake” includes some marshes.

2

The state’s surface water classifications 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—Parameter 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

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 

coliforms-shellfish as Category 2, the single assessment call for the WBID is Category 5.

5

Where a parameter was 1998 303(d) listed, the priority shown for it in the 1998 303(d) list was retained (High or Low). Dates indicate the date by 

which a TMDL is scheduled. 

6

Planning Period = January 1993 through December 2002; Verified Period = January 1999 through December 2006; X/Y (X = number of 

exceedances of criterion and Y = number of samples).

7

The 1998 303(d) list included WBIDs 2363I, 2363H, and 2205C as a combined listing. WBIDs 2363I and 2363H have been evaluated separately 

under the IWR, and WBID 2205C was assessed as part of the Lower St. Johns River Group 2 list. 

DO = Dissolved oxygen

F = Fresh water

M = Marine

N = Nitrogen

TN = Total nitrogen

TP = Total phosphorus

Table 3.5 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 

303(d) 

Parameters of 

Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

60 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
Table 3.6: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Matanzas River Planning Unit

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern 

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

2363G Matanzas 

River

Estuary II — Arsenic Insufficient 

Data

3b 3c — — Planning period: 

3/8 Values exceed 

criterion; verified 

period: 0/0 Values 

exceed criterion.

2363G Matanzas 

River

Estuary II — Cadmium Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

2/7; verified 

period: 0/0.

2363G Matanzas 

River

Estuary II — Chlorophyll (Historical)

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Annual Averages: 

1994–4.16 μg/L; 

1995–3.62 μg/L; 

1996–2.87 μg/L; 

1997–2.25 μg/L; 

1998–15.1 μg/L; 

1999–4.87 μg/L; 

2000–4.36 μg/L; 

2001–4.63 μg/L; 

2002–4.00 μg/L. 

Planning period: 

Average of Annual 

Averages = 4.59; 

verified period: 

Average of Annual 

Averages = 4.47.

2363G Matanzas 

River

Estuary II — Chlorophyll a 

(Nutrients)

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

Median TN = 0.50 

mg/L (N = 273); 

planning period: 

Median TP = 0.07 

mg/L; verified 

period: Median 

TN = 0.50 mg/L 

(N = 120); verified 

period: Median TP 

= 0.07 mg/L (N = 

123).

2363G Matanzas 

River

Estuary II — Copper Planning 

List

3c — — Planning period: 

17/20 Values 

exceed criterion; 

verified period: 

No Data.

2363G Matanzas 

River

Estuary II — DO Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

10/313; verified 

period: 0/104.

2363G Matanzas 

River

Estuary II — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

37/193 Values 

exceed criterion; 

verified period: 8/

87 Values exceed 

criterion.

2363G Matanzas 

River

Estuary II — Iron Planning 

List

3c — — — Planning period: 

18/28 Values 

exceed criterion; 

verified period: 

No Data.

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 61
2363G Matanzas 

River

Estuary II — Lead Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

2/11; verified 

period: No Data.

2363G Matanzas 

River

Estuary II — Nickel Planning 

List

3c — — — Planning period: 

4/5 Values exceed 

criterion; verified 

period: No Data.

2363G Matanzas 

River

Estuary II — Total 

Coliforms

Planning 

List

3c — — — Planning period: 

15/66 Values 

exceed criterion; 

verified period: 

No Data.

2363G Matanzas 

River

Estuary II — Turbidity Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

0/187; verified 

period: 0/95.

2363G Matanzas 

River

Estuary II — Zinc Planning 

List

3c — — — Planning period: 

6/19 Values exceed 

criterion; verified 

period: No Data.

2363G Matanzas 

River

Estuary II — Selenium Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

0/1; verified 

period: No Data.

2363H Matanzas 

River

Estuary II Nutrients Chlorophyll a 

(Nutrients)

Insufficient 

Data

3c 3c Low 2011 Insufficient data to 

assess, but moved 

to Planning List per 

IWR language.

2363H Matanzas 

River

Estuary II — DO Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

No Data; verified 

period: 0/4.

2363H Matanzas 

River

Estuary II Coliforms Fecal 

Coliforms

Insufficient 

Data

3b — Low 2011 Planning period: 

No Data; verified 

period: 0/4.

2363H Matanzas 

River

Estuary II — Turbidity Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

No Data; verified 

period: 0/4.

2471 Unnamed 

Slough

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2472 Red House 

Branch

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2491 San 

Sebastian 

River

Stream IIIF — DO Planning 

List

3c 3c — — Planning period: 

28/74; verified 

period: 21/51 

Sufficient data to 

impair, but need to 

identify causative 

pollutant. Will 

remain on Planning List until 

identified.

Table 3.6 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern 

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

62 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
2491 San 

Sebastian 

River

Stream IIIF — Chlorophyll (Historical)Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

Annual Averages: 1997–2.92 

μg/L; 1998–4.23 

μg/L; 1999–9.38 

μg/L; 2000–3.92 

μg/L; 2001–5.23 

μg/L; 2002–4.43 

μg/L; planning 

period: Average 

of Annual Averages = 5.02 μg/L; 

verified period: 

Annual Averages: 

1999–9.38 μg/L; 

2000–3.92 μg/L; 

2001–5.23 μg/L; 

2002–4.43 μg/L.

2491 San 

Sebastian 

River

Stream IIIF — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

6/62; verified 

period: 2/42.

2491 San 

Sebastian 

River

IIIF — Turbidity Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

0/71; verified 

period: 0/51.

2491 San 

Sebastian 

River

Stream IIIF — Chlorophyll a 

(Nutrients)

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

TN Median = 0.52 

mg/L (N = 67); 

TP = 0.09 mg/L 

(N = 74); TN/TP 

Ratio = 5.96 mg/L 

(N = 66); verified period: TN 

Median = 0.53 

mg/L (N = 53); TP 

Median = 0.09 

mg/L (N = 54); 

TN/TP Ratio = 6.19 

mg/L (N = 52).

2493 Moultrie 

Creek

Stream II — Arsenic Insufficient 

Data

3b 3d — — Planning period: 

0/7; verified 

period: No Data.

2493 Moultrie 

Creek

Stream II — Biology Not 

Impaired

2 — — — “Good” SCI in 

2000.

2493 Moultrie 

Creek

Stream II — Cadmium Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

0/6; verified 

period: No Data.

2493 Moultrie 

Creek

Stream II — Copper Planning 

List

3c — — — Planning period: 

3/9 Values exceed 

criterion; verified 

period: No Data.

2493 Moultrie 

Creek

Stream II — DO Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

5/105; verified 

period: 0/53.

Table 3.6 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern 

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 63
2493 Moultrie 

Creek

Stream II — Iron Planning 

List

3c — — — Planning period: 

26/28 Values 

exceed criterion; 

verified period: 

No Data.

2493 Moultrie 

Creek

Stream II — Manganese

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

0/20; verified 

period: No Data.

2493 Moultrie 

Creek

Stream II — Lead Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

1/9; verified 

period: No Data.

2493 Moultrie 

Creek

Stream II — Nickel Planning 

List

3c — — — Planning period: 

3/9 Values exceed 

criterion; verified 

period: No Data.

2493 Moultrie 

Creek

Stream II — Fecal 

Coliforms

Verified List 3d — — — Planning period: 

23/68; verified 

period: 12/45. 

May be verified 

unless further data 

are obtained.

2493 Moultrie 

Creek

Stream II — Chlorophyll a 

(Nutrients)

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

TN = 1.23 (N = 

30); TP = 0.07 

(N = 31); TN/TP 

= 17.15; verified 

period: TN = 

1.01 (N = 1); TP = 

0.07(N = 1); TN/TP 

= 14.08.

2493 Moultrie 

Creek

Stream II — Nutrients 

(Historical)

Verified List 3d — — — Annual Averages: 

1994–1 μg/L; 

1996–1.25 μg/L; 

1997–2.6 μg/L; 

1998–4.51 μg/L; 

1999–6.37 μg/L; 

2000–8.63 μg/L; 

2001–4.94 μg/L; 

2002–3.93 μg/L; 

planning period: 

Average of Annual 

Averages: 4.15 μg/

L; verified period: 

Average of Annual 

Averages = 5.97 

μg/L. May be verified unless further 

data or information are obtained.

2493 Moultrie 

Creek

Stream II — Selenium Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

0/8; verified 

period: No Data.

Table 3.6 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern 

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

64 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
2493 Moultrie 

Creek

Stream II — Total 

Coliforms

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

1/1; verified 

period: 1/1.

2493 Moultrie 

Creek

Stream II — Turbidity Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

0/99; verified 

period: 0/53.

2493 Moultrie 

Creek

Stream II — Zinc Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

0/19; verified 

period: No Data.

2499 Oyster 

Creek

Stream IIIF — DO Planning 

List

3c 3c — — Planning period: 

5/17; verified 

period: No Data.

2502 Salt Run Estuary II — DO Insufficient 

Data

3b 3b — — Planning period: 

0/7; verified 

period: 0/5.

2502 Salt Run Estuary II — Chlorophyll a 

(Nutrients)

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — —

2502 Salt Run Estuary II — Fecal 

Coliforms

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

No Data; verified 

period: 0/4.

2502 Salt Run Estuary II — Turbidity Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

0/1; verified 

period: 0/5.

2506 Unnamed 

Slough

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2508 Unnamed 

Slough

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2510 Quarry 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2513 Unnamed 

Bayou

Estuary IIIM — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2514 Unnamed 

Slough

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2519 East Creek Estuary IIIM — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2520 Wildwood 

Creek

Stream IIIF — DO Insufficient 

Data

3b 2 — — Planning period: 

0/1; verified 

period: 0/3.

2520 Wildwood 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Fecal 

Coliforms

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

0/1; verified 

period: 0/1.

2520 Wildwood 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Total 

Coliforms

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

0/1; verified 

period: 0/1.

2520 Wildwood 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Turbidity Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

0/1; verified 

period: 0/1.

2520 Wildwood 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Biology Not 

Impaired

2 — — — “Excellent” SCI in 

2001.

2521 Unnamed 

Slough

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

Table 3.6 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern 

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 65
2529 San Julian 

Creek

Estuary II — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2532 Unnamed 

Slough

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2535 Moses 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Biology Not 

Impaired

2 3c — — “Suspect” BioRecon in 1995, 

“Healthy” BioRecon in 1996, “Suspect” BioRecon in 

2000; two “Excellent” SCI scores in 

1996, “Excellent” 

SCI score in 2000.

2535 Moses 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Fecal 

Coliforms

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

1/1; verified 

period: 1/1.

2535 Moses 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Total 

Coliforms

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

0/1; verified 

period: 0/1.

2535 Moses 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Turbidity Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 

0/1; verified 

period: 0/3.

2535 Moses 

Creek

Stream IIIF — DO Planning 

List

3c — — — Planning period: 

14/29; verified 

period: 0/3.

2536 Unnamed 

Slough

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2537 Unnamed 

Ditch

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

8122 Matanzas River 

Ocean

Estuary IIIM — DO Not 

Impaired

2 3c — — Planning period: 

2/88; verified 

period: 1/16.

8122 Matanzas River 

Ocean

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

2/127; verified 

period: 0/21.

8122 Matanzas River 

Ocean

Estuary IIIM — Mercury 

in Fish

Planning 

List

3c — — — Verify data are 

within the last 7.5 

years.

8122 Matanzas River 

Ocean

Estuary IIIM — Turbidity Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

0/124; verified 

period: 0/19.

8122A Crescent 

Beach

Estuary IIIM — DO Not 

Impaired

2 3c — — Planning period: 

0/18; verified 

period: No Data.

8122A Crescent 

Beach

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

1/139; verified 

period: 1/155.

8122A Crescent 

Beach

Estuary IIIM — Mercury 

in Fish

Planning 

List

3c — — — Verify data are 

within the last 7.5 

years.

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 

303(d) 

Parameters of 

Concern 

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

Table 3.6 (continued)

66 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
8122A Crescent 

Beach

Estuary IIIM — Total 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

0/16; verified 

period: No Data.

8122A Crescent 

Beach

Estuary IIIM — Turbidity Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

0/18; verified 

period: No Data.

8122B St. Augustine Bch 

Ocean 

Trace

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 3c — — Planning period: 

1/124; verified 

period: 1/156.

8122B St. Augustine Bch 

Ocean 

Trace

Estuary IIIM — Mercury 

in Fish

Planning 

List

3c — — — Verify data are 

within the last 7.5 

years.

8122C St. Augustine Bch A 

Street

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 3c — — Planning period: 

0/126; verified 

period: 0/158.

8122C St. Augustine Bch A 

Street

Estuary IIIM — Mercury 

in Fish

Planning 

List

3c — — — Verify data are 

within the last 7.5 

years.

8122D Anastasia 

State Park

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 3c — — Planning period: 

0/1234; verified 

period: 0/157.

8122D Anastasia 

State Park

Estuary IIIM — Mercury 

in Fish

Planning 

List

3c — — — Verify data are 

within the last 7.5 

years.

Notes:

1

The designation “stream” includes canals, rivers, and sloughs. The designation “lake” includes some marshes.

2

The state’s surface water classifications 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—Parameter 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 italics are in Category 4 (a, b, or c), waters that do not require TMDL development.

5

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 coliforms-shellfish as Category 2, the single assessment call for the WBID is Category 5.

6

Planning Period = January 1993 through December 2002; Verified Period = January 1999 through December 2006; X/Y (X = number 

of exceedances of criterion and Y = number of samples).

7

The 1998 303(d) list included WBIDs 2363I, 2363H, and 2205C as a combined listing. WBIDs 2363I and 2363H have been evaluated 

separately under the IWR, and WBID 2205C was assessed as part of the Lower St. Johns River Group 2 list. 

DO = Dissolved oxygen F = Fresh water M = Marine N = Nitrogen SCI = Stream condition index 

TN = Total nitrogen TP = Total phosphorus

Table 3.6 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern 

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 67
Information on Point Sources in Planning Units

Point sources discharging pollutants to surface water or ground 

water originate from discrete, 

well-defined areas such as a facility discharge from the end of a 

pipe, a disposal well, or a wastewater sprayfield. Point sources 

generally fall into two major types: 

domestic wastewater sources 

(which consist of sewage from 

homes, businesses, and institutions) and industrial wastewater 

sources (which include wastewater, runoff, and leachate from 

industrial or commercial storage, 

handling, or processing facilities). Landfills, hazardous waste 

sites, dry cleaning solvent cleanup 

program (DSCP) sites, and petroleum facility discharges are also 

considered point sources. These 

sites have the potential to leach 

contaminants into ground water 

and surface water.

Identifying the source of waterbody impairment is an important 

part of assessing water quality 

and developing TMDLs. As part of 

this report, information is presented on point sources, including 

permitted facilities that discharge 

wastewater and landfills.

Rainfall generates stormwater 

runoff. As it flows over the land 

and through the ground, runoff 

may carry nonpoint source pollutants from many different sources 

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.

Nonpoint Sources and Land Uses

68 Noteworthy Water Quality Status Report: 

Upper East Coast
In the Matanzas River Planning Unit, upland forests, wetlands, and 

surface waters comprise about 68 percent of the planning unit’s area. 

Approximately 24 percent of the area is urbanized, and about 6 percent is 

in use as agricultural land or rangeland. Other land uses include transportation, communication, and utilities (1.3 percent) and barren land (0.2 percent), which can be associated with nonpoint discharges of pollutants and 

eroded sediments. Appendix E provides summary information on Level I 

land uses in the basin, by planning unit.

A municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) is a publicly owned 

conveyance or system of conveyances (i.e., ditches, curbs, catch basins, and 

underground pipes) designed for the discharge of stormwater to surface 

waters of the state. An MS4 can be operated by municipalities, counties, drainage districts, colleges, military bases, or prisons, to name a few 

examples. 

As implemented under Rule 62-624, F.A.C., Phase 1 addresses discharges of stormwater runoff from “medium” and “large” MS4s (i.e., those 

located in areas with populations of 100,000 or greater). There are no 

Phase 1 MS4s in the Upper East Coast Basin. Under Phase 2, the program regulates discharges from certain MS4s that are not regulated under 

Phase 1, and that meet criteria set forth in Rule 62-624, F.A.C. Regulated 

MS4 operators must obtain an NPDES stormwater permit and implement 

a comprehensive stormwater management program to reduce the contamination of stormwater runoff and prohibit illicit discharges to the MS4.

MS4s in the Tolomato and Matanzas Planning Units that will be covered under Phase 2 of Florida’s NPDES stormwater program and required 

to obtain an NPDES stormwater permit are the Florida Department of 

Transportation, District 2; St. Johns County; the city of St. Augustine; and 

the city of St. Augustine Beach.

• 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 shellfishing 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 shellfish harvesting, others 

have been reclassified as “conditionally restricted.”

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 69
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

Two waterbody segments (WBIDs) in the planning unit were previously identified as impaired on the 1998 303(d) list: Pellicer Creek and 

Palm Coast. Figure 3.5, a composite map of the planning unit, shows 

waters on the 1998 303(d) list and the Planning List. Table 3.7 summarizes the water quality assessment status of all waterbody segments in the 

planning unit. The table and figure show that 11 waterbody segments in 

the planning unit are potentially impaired.

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 traffic 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 certification (NEX) 

facilities. The most significant of the active facilities is the Palm Coast 

WWTF, with a design capacity of 4.0 mgd. In addition, there are nine 

active non-NPDES permitted domestic waste facilities in the planning unit. 

There are no designated Superfund sites, and there is one active and one 

closed landfill.

Figure 3.5 shows permitted wastewater treatment facilities, landfills, 

and delineated ground water contamination areas in the planning unit. 

Appendix C lists the basin’s domestic and industrial surface discharge 

facilities, along with their permitted flows, by planning unit. It also lists 

landfills or solid waste facilities and Superfund sites, by planning unit.

Nonpoint Sources. Upland forests, wetlands, and surface waters comprise about 74 percent of the planning unit’s area. Approximately 19 percent of the area is urbanized, and about 5 percent is in use as agricultural 

land or rangeland. Other land uses include transportation, communication, and utilities (1.2 percent) and barren land (0.8 percent). These land 

uses can be associated with nonpoint discharges of pollutants and eroded 

sediments. Appendix E provides summary information on Level I land 

uses in the basin, by planning unit.

The MS4 in the Pellicer Creek Planning Unit that will be covered 

under Phase 2 of Florida’s NPDES stormwater program and required to 

obtain an NPDES stormwater permit is the city of Beverly Beach.

70 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
Figure 3.5: Composite Map of the Pellicer Creek Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List and 

Planning List Waters

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 71
Table 3.7: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Pellicer Creek Planning Unit

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

2363D Palm 

Coast

Estuary IIIM Cadmium Cadmium No Data 3c 3c — — Propose to delist 

unless further 

data/information are 

obtained. No data in 

planning or verified 

periods. Thought to 

be a flaw in the original 

analysis.

2363D Palm 

Coast

Estuary IIIM DO DO Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Propose to delist 

unless further 

data/information are 

obtained. Planning 

period: 2/97 Values 

below DO criterion; 

verified period: 2/48 

Values below DO 

criterion.

2363D Palm 

Coast

Estuary IIIM Coliforms Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Propose to delist 

unless further 

data/information are 

obtained. Planning 

period: 2/88 Values 

exceed criterion; 

verified period: 0/41 

Values exceed 

criterion.

2363D Palm 

Coast

Estuary IIIM Coliforms Total 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Propose to delist 

unless further 

data/information are 

obtained. Planning 

period: 1/24 Values 

exceed criterion.

2363D Palm 

Coast

Estuary IIIM Lead Lead No Data 3c — — — Propose to delist 

unless further 

data/information are 

obtained. No data in 

planning or verified 

periods. Thought to 

be a flaw in the original 

analysis. Moved to 

Planning List per language in IWR.

2363D Palm 

Coast

Estuary IIIM Nutrients Chlorophyll a

(Nutrients)

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Propose to delist 

unless further 

information/data are 

obtained. Annual 

Averages: 1997 = 3.3 

μg/L; 1998 = 6.45 μg/

L; 1999 = 3.86 μg/L; 

2000 = 5.5 μg/L; 2001 

= 8.37 μg/L; 2002 = 

5.88 μg/L.

72 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
2363D Palm 

Coast

Estuary IIIM Selenium Selenium No Data 3c — — — Propose to delist 

unless further 

information/data are 

obtained. No data in 

planning or verified 

periods. Thought to 

be a flaw in the original 

analysis. Moved to 

Planning List per language in IWR.

2363D Palm 

Coast

Estuary IIIM Silver Silver No Data 3c — — — Propose to delist 

unless further 

information/data are 

obtained. No data in 

planning or verified 

periods. Thought to 

be a flaw in the original 

analysis. Moved to 

Planning List per language in IWR.

2363D Palm 

Coast

Estuary IIIM Thallium Thallium No Data 3c — — — Propose to delist 

unless further 

information/data are 

obtained. No data in 

planning or verified 

periods. Thought to 

be a flaw in the original 

analysis. Moved to 

Planning List per language in IWR.

2363D Palm 

Coast

Estuary IIIM — Turbidity Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 0/94; 

verified period: 0/49.

2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM — Arsenic Planning 

List

3c 3c — — Planning period: 25/43 

Values exceed criterion; verified period: 

No Data.

2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM — Cadmium Planning 

List

3c — — — Planning period: 10/36 

Values exceed criterion; verified period: 

No Data.

2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM — Copper Planning 

List

3c — — — Planning period: 32/42 

Values exceed criterion; verified period: 

No Data.

2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM — DO Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 10/

279; verified period: 

5/137.

2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

0/217; verified period: 

0/131.

2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM — Iron Planning 

List

3c — — — Planning period: 46/

62 Values exceed criterion; verified period: 

No Data.

Table 3.7 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 73
2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM — Lead Planning 

List

3c — — — Planning period: 9/32 

Values exceed criterion; verified period: 

No Data.

2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM — Nickel Planning 

List

3c — — — Planning period: 35/

40 Values exceed criterion; verified period: 

No Data.

2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM — Chlorophyll a

(Nutrients)

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

Median TN = 0.52 μg/L 

(N = 286); planning 

period: Median TP 

= 0.07 μg/L; verified period: Median 

TN = 0.52 μg/L (N = 

157); verified period: 

Median TP = 0.07 μg/L 

(N = 159).

2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM — Chlorophyll (Historical)

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Annual Averages: 1994 

= 7.6 μg/L; 1995 = 2.0 

μg/L; 1996 = 4.5 μg/L; 

1997 = 2.7 μg/L; 1998 

= 5.2 μg/L, 1999 = 

4.5 μg/L; 2000 = 10.1 

μg/L; 2001 = 5.8 μg/L; 

2002 = 4.5 μg/L.

2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM — Selenium Planning 

List

3c — — — Planning period: 20/31 

Values exceed criterion; verified period: 

No Data.

2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM — Total 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 0/18; 

verified period: No 

Data.

2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM — Turbidity Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

1/251; verified period: 

0/126.

2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM — Zinc Planning 

List

3c — — — Planning period: 9/44 

Values exceed criterion; verified period: 

No Data.

2363F ICWW Estuary IIIM — DO Not 

Impaired

2 2 — — Planning period: 11/

382; verified period: 

4/82.

2363F ICWW Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

3/579; verified period: 

0/128.

2363F ICWW Estuary IIIM — Turbidity Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

1/546; verified period: 

0/98.

2550 Unnamed 

Drain

Stream IIIF — DO Not 

Impaired

2 2 — — Planning period: 8/87; 

verified period: 2/16.

Table 3.7 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

74 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

2550 Unnamed 

Drain

Stream IIIF — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

0/128; verified period: 

0/21.

2550 Unnamed 

Drain

Stream IIIF — Turbidity Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

0/125; verified period: 

0/19.

2551 Lake 

Triplet

Lake IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2551A Lake 

Triplet 

Drain

Lake IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2553 Cracker 

Branch 

(Pellicer 

Creek)

Stream IIIF — Biology Planning 

List

3c 3c — — Two “Impaired” BioRecons in 1998.

2553 Cracker 

Branch 

(Pellicer 

Creek)

Stream IIIF DO DO Insufficient 

Data

3c — Low 2011 Blackwater. Planning 

period: 1/1 Values 

below DO criterion; 

verified period: No 

Data. Placed on 

Planning List due to 

language in IWR.

2553 Cracker 

Branch 

(Pellicer 

Creek)

Stream IIIF Coliforms Fecal 

Coliforms

Insufficient 

Data

3c — Low 2011 Blackwater. Planning 

period: 1/1 Values 

below DO criterion; 

verified period: No 

Data. Placed on 

Planning List due to 

language in IWR.

2553 Cracker 

Branch 

(Pellicer 

Creek)

Stream IIIF Coliforms Total 

Coliforms

Insufficient 

Data

3c — Low 2011 Blackwater. Planning 

period: 1/1 Values 

below DO criterion; 

verified period: No 

Data. Placed on 

Planning List due to 

language in IWR.

2553 Cracker 

Branch 

(Pellicer 

Creek)

Stream IIIF Iron Iron Insufficient 

Data

3c — Low 2011 Blackwater. Planning 

period: 0/1 Values 

exceed criterion; verified period: No Data. 

Placed on Planning 

List due to language 

in IWR.

2566 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2573 Unnamed 

Drain

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2577 Stevens 

Branch

Stream IIIF — Beryllium Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: No 

Data.

2577 Stevens 

Branch

Stream IIIF — Cadmium Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: No 

Data.

2577 Stevens 

Branch

Stream IIIF — Chromium 

3

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: No 

Data.

Table 3.7 (continued)

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 75
2577 Stevens 

Branch

Stream IIIF — Copper Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: No 

Data.

2577 Stevens 

Branch

Stream IIIF — DO Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 1/1; 

verified period: No 

Data.

2577 Stevens 

Branch

Stream IIIF — Fecal 

Coliforms

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 1/1; 

verified period: No 

Data.

2577 Stevens 

Branch

Stream IIIF — Iron Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: No 

Data.

2577 Stevens 

Branch

Stream IIIF — Nickel Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: No 

Data.

2577 Stevens 

Branch

Stream IIIF — Total

Coliforms

Insufficient

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 1/1; 

verified period: No 

Data.

2577 Stevens 

Branch

Stream IIIF — Turbidity Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: No 

Data.

2577 Stevens 

Branch

Stream IIIF — Zinc Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: No 

Data.

2580A Pellicer 

Creek

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2580B Pellicer 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Arsenic Not 

Impaired

2 3c — — Planning period: 1/11; 

verified period: No 

Data.

2580B Pellicer 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Cadmium Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 2/31; 

verified period: No 

Data.

2580B Pellicer 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Copper Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 3/31; 

verified period: No 

Data.

2580B Pellicer 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Chromium 

3

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 3/7; 

verified period: No 

Data.

2580B Pellicer 

Creek

Stream IIIF DO DO Planning 

List

3c — Low 2011 Planning period: 

17/31; verified period: 

2/5.

2580B Pellicer 

Creek

Stream IIIF Coliforms Fecal 

Coliforms

Insufficient 

Data

3c — Low 2011 Planning period: 1/1 

Values exceed criterion; verified period: 

3/5 Values exceed 

criterion. Placed on 

Planning List due to 

language in IWR.

2580B Pellicer 

Creek

Stream IIIF Coliforms Total

Coliforms

Insufficient Data3c — Low 2011 Planning period: 1/1 

Values exceed criterion; verified period: 

No Data.

Table 3.7 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

76 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
2580B Pellicer 

Creek

Stream IIIF Iron Iron Planning 

List

3c — Low 2011 Planning period: 8/31 

Values exceed criterion; verified period: 

No Data.

2580B Pellicer 

Creek

Stream IIIF Lead Lead Planning 

List

3c — Low 2011 Planning period: 6/27 

Values exceed criterion; verified period: 

No Data.

2580B Pellicer 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Nickel Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 0/31; 

verified period: No 

Data.

2580B Pellicer 

Creek

Stream IIIF Nutrients Chlorophyll a

(Nutrients)

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Propose to delist 

unless further 

data/information are 

obtained. Planning 

period: Median TN/TP 

Ratio = 11.71 (N and 

Co-Limitation), Based 

on 31 Values; planning period: Median 

TN = 0.86 mg/L (N = 

31); planning period: 

Median TP = 0.09 

mg/L (N = 31); verified period: Median 

TN/TP Ratio = 4.09 (N 

= 4); verified period: 

Median TN = 0.61 (N 

= 4); verified period: 

Median TP = 0.11 (N 

= 5).

2580B Pellicer 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Chlorophyll (Historical)

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Annual Averages: 

1994–2.05 μg/L; 

1996–2.41 μg/L; 1997–

2.05 μg/L; 1998–5.10 

μg/L; Planning period: 

Average of Annual 

Averages 2.90; verified 

period: No Data.

2580B Pellicer 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Selenium Planning 

List

3c — — — Planning period: 5/7 

Values exceed criterion; verified period: 

0/0 Values exceed 

criterion.

2580B Pellicer 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Silver Planning 

List

3c — — — Planning period: 3/3 

Values exceed criterion; verified period: 

0/0 Values exceed 

criterion.

2580B Pellicer 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Turbidity Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 0/30; 

verified period: 0/1.

2580B Pellicer 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Unionized 

Ammonia

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 0/30; 

verified period: 0/0.

2580B Pellicer 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Zinc Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 1/31; 

verified period: 0/0.

Table 3.7 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 77
2580C Pellicer 

Creek

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2588 Schoolhouse 

Branch

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2595 Styles 

Creek

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2597 Hulett 

Branch

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2598 Dave 

Branch

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2609 St. Joe 

Canal

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

8120 Pellicer 

Creek 

Ocean 1

Estuary IIIM — Mercury 

in Fish

Planning 

List

3c 3c — — Verify data are within 

the last 7.5 years.

8120A Picknickers/

Beverly 

Beach

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 3c — — Planning period: 

0/124; verified period: 

0/159.

8120A Picknickers/

Beverly 

Beach

Estuary IIIM — Mercury 

in Fish

Planning 

List

3c — — Verify data are within 

the last 7.5 years.

8120B Varn 

Park/

Beverly 

Beach

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 3c — — Planning period: 

0/124; verified period: 

0/159.

8120B Varn 

Park/

Beverly 

Beach

Estuary IIIM — Mercury 

in Fish

Planning 

List

3c — — — Verify data are within 

the last 7.5 years.

8121 Pellicer 

Creek 

Ocean 2

Estuary IIIM — DO Not 

Impaired

2 3c — — Planning period: 17/

641; verified period: 

7/131.

8121 Pellicer 

Creek 

Ocean 2

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 7/

1006; verified period: 

0/224.

8121 Pellicer 

Creek 

Ocean 2

Estuary IIIM — Mercury 

in Fish

Planning 

List

3c — — — Verify data are within 

the last 7.5 years.

8121 Pellicer 

Creek 

Ocean 2

Estuary IIIM — Turbidity Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 

1/942; verified period: 

0/167.

8121A Washington Oaks 

Beach

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 3c — — Planning period: 

0/124; verified period: 

0/159.

8121A Washington Oaks 

Beach

Estuary IIIM — Mercury 

in Fish

Planning 

List

3c — — — Verify data are within 

the last 7.5 years.

8121B Marineland 

Beach

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 3c — — Planning period: 0/52; 

verified period: 0/53.

Table 3.7 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

78 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
8121B Marineland 

Beach

Estuary IIIM — Mercury 

in Fish

Planning 

List

3c — — — Verify data are within 

the last 7.5 years.

8121C Matanzas 

Inlet

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 3c — — Planning period: 

0/126; verified period: 

0/158.

8121C Matanzas 

Inlet

Estuary IIIM — Mercury 

in Fish

Planning 

List

3c — — — Verify data are within 

the last 7.5 years.

Notes:

1

The designation “stream” includes canals, rivers, and sloughs. The designation “lake” includes some marshes.

2

The state’s surface water classifications 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—Parameter 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

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 

coliforms-shellfish as Category 2, the single assessment call for the WBID is Category 5.

5

Where a parameter was 1998 303(d) listed, the priority shown for it in the 1998 303(d) list was retained (High or Low). Dates indicate the date by 

which a TMDL is scheduled. 

6

Planning Period = January 1993 through December 2002; Verified Period = January 1999 through December 2006; X/Y (X = number of 

exceedances of criterion and Y = number of samples).

DO = Dissolved oxygen

F = Fresh water

M = Marine

N = Nitrogen

SCI = Stream condition index

TN = Total nitrogen

TP = Total phosphorus

• 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.

Table 3.7 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 79
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 flow 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 identified 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 (OFWs) 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 and the Planning List. Table 3.8 summarizes the water quality assessment status of all 

waterbody segments in the planning unit. The table and figure show that 

25 waterbody segments in the planning unit are potentially impaired.

The Volusia County Health Department has identified 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 significant 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 7.0 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 1.0 mgd. In addition, there 

are 73 active non-NPDES-permitted facilities, including 62 domestic waste 

facilities, 7 industrial waste facilities, 2 residuals/septage management facilities, and 2 concrete batch plants. The planning unit has no designated 

Superfund sites, and there are 11 active, 6 inactive, and 7 closed landfills.

80 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
Figure 3.6: Composite Map of the Halifax River Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) 

List and Planning List Waters

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 81
Table 3.8: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Halifax River Planning Unit

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

2363A Halifax 

River

Estuary IIIM — DO Not 

Impaired

2 2 — — Planning period: 4/497; 

verified period: 1/147.

2363A Halifax 

River

Estuary IIIM Coliforms Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Propose to delist unless 

further data are obtained. 

Planning period: 3/462; 

verified period: 0/154.

2363A Halifax 

River

Estuary IIIM Coliforms Total 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Propose to delist unless 

further data are obtained. 

Planning period: 0/500; 

verified period: 0/119.

2363A Halifax 

River

Estuary IIIM — Chlorophyll (Historical)Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: Average 

of Annual Averages: 6.44 

μg/L; verified period: 

Average of Annual Averages: 7.01 μg/L.

2363A Halifax 

River

Estuary IIIM Nutrients Chlorophyll a

(Nutrients)

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Propose to delist unless 

further data are obtained. 

Planning period: Chlorophyll Median is 5.47 μg/L; 

verified period: Chlorophyll Median is 4.13 

μg/L. TMDL has been 

completed; however, it 

was done before TMDL 

Program was initiated 

and therefore is not an 

approved TMDL.

2363A Halifax 

River

Estuary IIIM — Turbidity Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 0/535; 

verified period: 0/129.

2363B Halifax 

River

Estuary IIIM — Arsenic Insufficient 

Data

3b 3c — — Planning period: 0/2; 

verified period: 0/0.

2363B Halifax 

River

Estuary IIIM — Cadmium Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: 0/0.

2363B Halifax 

River

Estuary IIIM Nutrients Chlorophyll a

(Nutrients)

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — For the Planning period: 

160 TP samples from 

1999–2001 are currently not being used, 

as they appeared to be 

misreported. Planning 

period: Median TN/TP 

Ratio = 5.99 Based on 

695 Values; planning 

period: Median TN = 

0.78 mg/L (N = 855); 

planning period: Median 

TP = 0.15 mg/L (N = 695). 

For the verified period: 

160 TP samples. The 

Department is checking 

into the situation. Call 

may change pending 

the outcome of status of 

these samples. Propose 

to delist unless more 

information/data are 

obtained. 

2363B Halifax 

River

Estuary IIIM Copper Copper Potentially 

Impaired

3c — Low 2011 Planning period: 13/19 

Values exceed criterion; 

verified period: 0/0.

82 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
2363B Halifax 

River

Estuary IIIM — DO Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 13/769; 

verified period: 11/245.

2363B Halifax 

River

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 9/667; 

verified period: 4/213.

2363B Halifax 

River

Estuary IIIM Iron Iron Potentially 

Impaired

3c — Low 2011 Planning period: 18/22 

Values exceed criterion; 

verified period: 0/0.

2363B Halifax 

River

Estuary IIIM Lead Lead Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Propose to delist unless 

further data are obtained. 

Planning period: 0/12 

Values exceed criterion, 

Range 1.00–7.44 μg/L, 

Mean 2.71 μg/L; verified 

period: No Data.

2363B Halifax 

River

Estuary IIIM — Total 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 1/718; 

verified period: 0/171.

2363B Halifax 

River

Estuary IIIM — Turbidity Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 11/773; 

verified period: 3/177.

2363B Halifax 

River

Estuary IIIM — Zinc Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 1/14; 

verified period: 0/0.

2363B Halifax 

River

Estuary IIIM — Chlorophyll (Historical)

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Annual Averages: 

1994–10.30 μg/L; 1995–

5.94 μg/L; 1996–6.45 

μg/L; 1997–6.84 μg/L; 

1998–7.07 μg/L; 1999–

9.40 μg/L; 2000–7.24 

μg/L; 2001–5.73 μg/L; 

2002–8.23 μg/L. Planning period: Average of 

Annual Averages: 7.47; 

verified period: Average 

of Annual Averages: 7.65.

2363C Tomoka 

Basin

Estuary IIIM — DO Not 

Impaired

2 2 — — Planning period: 4/82; 

verified period: 3/29.

2363C Tomoka 

Basin

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 0/74; 

verified period: 0/26.

2363C Tomoka 

Basin

Estuary IIIM — Chlorophyll a

(Nutrients)

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: TN 

Median = 0.744 μg/L 

(N = 130); TP Median 

= 0.08 μg/L (N = 132); 

TN/TP Ratio = 8.96 (N = 

130); verified period: TN 

Median = 0.63 (N = 71); 

TP Median = 0.056 (N = 

71); TN/TP Ratio = 10.65 

(N = 71).

2363C Tomoka 

Basin

Estuary IIIM — Total 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 0/78, 

0/23.

2363C Tomoka 

Basin

Estuary IIIM — Chlorophyll (Historical)

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Annual Averages: 1994–

9.21 μg/L; 1995–4.30 

μg/L; 1996–4.73 μg/L; 

1997–4.31 μg/L; 1998–

5.48 μg/L; 1999–6.92 

μg/L; 2000–4.66 μg/L; 

2001–2.82 μg/L. Planning period: Average of 

Annual Averages: 5.30 

μg/L; verified period: 

Average of Annual Averages: 4.80 μg/L.

Table 3.8 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 83
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

2363C Tomoka 

Basin

Estuary IIIM — Turbidity Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 3/80, 

0/24.

2363J Palm 

Coast

Estuary IIIM — DO Not 

Impaired

2 2 — — Planning period: 8/130; 

verified period: 0/0.

2363J Palm 

Coast

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 4/117; 

verified period: 0/0.

2363J Palm 

Coast

Estuary IIIM — Chlorophyll a

(Nutrients)

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: TN 

Median = 0.74 μg/L (N 

= 137); planning period: 

TP Median = 0.12 μg/L 

(N = 141); TN/TP Ratio = 

7.6 (N = 137). No Data in 

verified period.

2363J Palm 

Coast

Estuary IIIM — Chlorophyll (Historical)

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Annual Averages: 

1994–5.48 μg/L; 1995–

5.80 μg/L; 1996–5.65 

μg/L; 1997–4.28 μg/L; 

1998–4.98 μg/L. Planning period: Average of 

Annual Averages: 5.24 

μg/L; no data from verified period to calculate 

average.

2363J Palm 

Coast

Estuary IIIM — Total 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 1/124; 

verified period: 0/0.

2363J Palm 

Coast

Estuary IIIM — Turbidity Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 0/132; 

verified period: 0/0.

2620 Bulow 

Creek

Stream IIIM — Arsenic Not 

Impaired

2 3c — — Planning period: 2/15; 

verified period: No Data.

2620 Bulow 

Creek

Stream IIIM — Cadmium Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 2/29; 

verified period: No Data.

2620 Bulow 

Creek

Stream IIIM — Chlorophyll (Historical)Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Annual Averages: 1994–

17.17 μg/L; 1996–6.98 

μg/L; 1997–6.76 μg/L; 

1998–9.39 μg/L. Planning period: Average of 

Annual Averages: 10.08 

μg/L; no data from verified period to calculate.

2620 Bulow 

Creek

Stream IIIM — Chlorophyll a

(Nutrients)

Not 

Impaired

2 — — —

2620 Bulow 

Creek

Stream IIIM — Chromium 

3

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 0/12; 

verified period: No Data.

2620 Bulow 

Creek

Stream IIIM — Copper Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 1/30; 

verified period: No Data.

2620 Bulow 

Creek

Stream IIIM — DO Potentially 

Impaired

3c — — — Planning period: 9/31; 

verified period: 1/1.

2620 Bulow 

Creek

Stream IIIM — Iron Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 3/30; 

verified period: No Data.

2620 Bulow 

Creek

Stream IIIM — Lead Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 2/30; 

verified period: No Data.

2620 Bulow 

Creek

Stream IIIM — Nickel Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 0/30; 

verified period: No Data.

Table 3.8 (continued)

84 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
2620 Bulow 

Creek

Stream IIIM — Selenium Planning 

List

3c — — — Planning period: 8/11; 

verified period: No Data.

2620 Bulow 

Creek

Stream IIIM — Silver Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 2/2; 

verified period: No Data.

2620 Bulow 

Creek

Stream IIIM — Turbidity Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 0/31; 

verified period: 1/1.

2620 Bulow 

Creek

Stream IIIM — Zinc Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 0/30; 

verified period: No Data.

2631 Unnamed 

Ditch

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — —

2634 Tomoka 

River

Stream IIIF — Arsenic Not 

Impaired

2 3d — — Planning period: 0/13; 

verified period: 0/12.

2634 Tomoka 

River

Stream IIIF — Biology Not 

Impaired

2 — — — “Excellent” SCI score 

in 1992, 1993 (2), 1994, 

1995, 1996, 1998, 2000 

(2); “Good” SCI scores in 

2000 and 2003. Possible 

reference stream.

2634 Tomoka 

River

Stream IIIF Nutrients Chlorophyll a

(Nutrients)

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Propose to delist unless 

more data are obtained. 

Planning period: Chlorophyll Median = 1.00 

μg/L; Mean = 2.70 μg/L; 

Min. = 1.00 μg/L; Max. 

= 36.58 μg/L; N = 290; 

verified period: Chlorophyll Median = 1.00 

μg/L; Mean = 2.66 μg/L; 

Min. = 1.00 μg/L; Max. = 

25.2 μg/L; N = 104. See 

historical chlorophyll for 

annual averages.

2634 Tomoka 

River

Stream IIIF — Chlorophyll (Historical)

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Annual Averages: 

1994–4.26 μg/L; 1995–

3.43 μg/L; 1996–2.33 

μg/L; 1997–2.27 μg/L; 

1998–2.50 μg/L; 1999–3.7 

μg/L; 2000–2.66 μg/L; 

2001–1.80 μg/L; 2002–

1.93 μg/L; 2003–2.21 

μg/L. Planning period: 

Average of Averages is 

2.71 μg/L; verified period: 

Average of Averages is 

2.46 μg/L.

2634 Tomoka 

River

Stream IIIF — Chlorine Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 1/1; 

verified period: 1/1.

2634 Tomoka 

River

Stream IIIF — Chromium 

3

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/3; 

verified period: 0/0.

2634 Tomoka 

River

Stream IIIF — Copper Planning 

List

3c — — — Planning period: 7/41; 

verified period: 1/12.

Table 3.8 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 85
2634 Tomoka 

River

Stream IIIF DO DO Verified 

List

3c — Low 2011 DO met verification 

threshold of IWR, but 

need to identify causative pollutant. Planning 

period: 169/287 values 

below DO criterion; 

verified period: 80/

127 values below DO 

criterion. Will remain 

on Planning List until 

causative pollutant can 

be identified.

2634 Tomoka 

River

Stream IIIF — BOD Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: Median 

= 0.4 mg/L (N = 1); 

verified period: No Data.

2634 Tomoka 

River

Stream IIIF Coliforms Fecal 

Coliforms

Verified 

List

3d — Low 2011 Planning period: 41/264; 

verified period: 16/108. 

Will be verified unless 

more data are obtained 

showing otherwise.

2634 Tomoka 

River

Stream IIIF — Fluoride Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 0/35; 

verified period: 0/52.

2634 Tomoka 

River

Stream IIIF Iron Iron Planning 

List

3c — Low 2011 Planning period: 13/31 

Values exceed criterion; 

verified period: 1/2 

Values exceed criterion.

2634 Tomoka 

River

Stream IIIF Lead Lead Planning 

List

3c — Low 2011 Planning period: 7/26 

Values exceed criterion; 

verified period: 1/2 

Values exceed criterion.

2634 Tomoka 

River

Stream IIIF — Silver Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 2/2; 

verified period: 0/0.

2634 Tomoka 

River

Stream IIIF Coliforms Total 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 10/214; 

verified period: 6/64 

Propose to delist unless 

other data/information 

are obtained.

2634 Tomoka 

River

Stream IIIF — Turbidity Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 3/278; 

verified period: 1/113.

2634 Tomoka 

River

Stream IIIF — Unionized 

Ammonia

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 0/36; 

verified period: 0/0.

2634 Tomoka 

River

Stream IIIF — Zinc Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 2/29; 

verified period: 0/0.

2634A Tomoka 

River

Estuary IIIM — Arsenic Insufficient 

Data

3b 3c — — Planning period: 0/2; 

verified period: 0/0.

2634A Tomoka 

River

Estuary IIIM Nutrients Chlorophyll a

(Nutrients)

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Propose to delist unless 

further data are obtained. 

Planning period: Chlorophyll Median is 3.99 

μg/L; Mean is 5.65 μg/L; 

verified period: Chlorophyll Median is 4.18 μg/L; 

Mean is 4.85 μg/L.

2634A Tomoka 

River

Estuary IIIM — Chromium 

3

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: 0/0.

Table 3.8 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

86 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
2634A Tomoka 

River

Estuary IIIM — Copper Planning 

List

3c — — — Planning period: 10/14; 

verified period: 0/0.

2634A Tomoka 

River

Estuary IIIM — DO Planning 

List

3c — — — DO met verification 

threshold of IWR, but 

need to identify causative pollutant. Planning 

period: 52/193 values 

below DO criterion; verified period: 16/51 values 

below DO criterion. Will 

remain on Planning List 

until causative pollutant 

can be identified.

2634A Tomoka 

River

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 8/179; 

verified period: 3/47.

2634A Tomoka 

River

Estuary IIIM Iron Iron Planning 

List

3c — Low 2011 Planning period: 18/24 

Values exceed criterion; 

verified period: 1/2 

Values exceed criterion.

2634A Tomoka 

River

Estuary IIIM Lead Lead Insufficient 

Data

3c — Low 2011 Planning period: 0/7 

Values exceed criterion; 

verified period: 0/2 

Values exceed criterion. 

Placed on Planning List 

due to lack of data to 

complete call.

2634A Tomoka 

River

Estuary IIIM — Total 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 0/168; 

verified period: 0/37.

2634A Tomoka 

River

Estuary IIIM — Turbidity Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 1/185; 

verified period: 0/39.

2634A Tomoka 

River

Estuary IIIM — Zinc Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 0/14; 

verified period: 0/0.

2635 Grover 

Branch

Stream IIIF — Lead Insufficient 

Data

3b 3c — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: 0/1.

2635 Grover 

Branch

Stream IIIF — Iron Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 1/1; 

verified period: 1/1.

2635 Grover 

Branch

Stream IIIF — Turbidity Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: 0/1.

2635 Grover 

Branch

Stream IIIF — Biology Planning 

List

3c — — — “Healthy” BioRecon in 

1997; “Impaired” BioRecon in 1997; “Excellent” 

SCI in 2000; “Poor” SCI 

in 2000.

2640 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2641 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF — DO Insufficient 

Data

3b 3b — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: 0/0.

2641 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF — Fecal 

Coliforms

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 1/1; 

verified period: 0/0.

Table 3.8 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 87
2641 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF — Turbidity Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: 0/0.

2641 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF — Unionized 

Ammonia

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: 0/0.

2642 Unnamed 

Branch

Estuary IIIM — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2643 Unnamed 

Ditches

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2645 Mizners 

Branch

Stream IIIF — Iron Insufficient 

Data

3b 2 — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: 0/1.

2645 Mizners 

Branch

Stream IIIF — Lead Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: 0/1.

2645 Mizners 

Branch

Stream IIIF — Turbidity Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: 0/1.

2645 Mizners 

Branch

Stream IIIF — Biology Not 

Impaired

2 — — — “Excellent” SCI in 2000; 

“Good” SCI in 2000.

2646 Little 

Tomoka 

River

Stream IIIF — Lead Insufficient 

Data

3b 3b — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: 0/1.

2646 Little 

Tomoka 

River

Stream IIIF — Turbidity Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: 0/1.

2646 Little 

Tomoka 

River

Stream IIIF — Biology Not 

Impaired

2 — — — “Healthy” BioRecons 

in 1997, 1998 (3), one 

“Suspect” BioRecon in 

1998; two “Excellent” 

SCI scores in 2000; one 

“Healthy” BioRecon in 

2003.

2647 Holly Hill 

Ditch

Stream IIIF — DO Insufficient 

Data

3b 3c — — Planning period: 1/1; 

verified period: 0/0.

2647 Holly Hill 

Ditch

Stream IIIF — Fecal 

Coliforms

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 1/1; 

verified period: 0/0.

2647 Holly Hill 

Ditch

Stream IIIF — Turbidity Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: 0/0.

2647 Holly Hill 

Ditch

Stream IIIF — Unionized 

Ammonia

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: 0/0.

2647 Holly Hill 

Ditch

Stream IIIF — Biology Planning 

List

3c — — — “Impaired” BioRecon in 

1996.

2649 Priest 

Branch

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2650 Unnamed 

Slough

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2652 Unnamed 

Ditch

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2653 Unnamed 

Drain

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

Table 3.8 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

88 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
2654 Drainage 

Canals

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2655 Unnamed 

Ditch

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2656 Unnamed 

Ditch

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2657 Int 

Speedway Ditch

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2664 Reed 

Canal

Stream IIIF — DO Insufficient 

Data

3b 3b — — Planning period: 1/1; 

verified period: 0/0.

2664 Reed 

Canal

Stream IIIF — Fecal 

Coliforms

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 1/1; 

verified period: 0/0.

2664 Reed 

Canal

Stream IIIF — Turbidity Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: 0/0.

2664 Reed 

Canal

Stream IIIF — Unionized 

Ammonia

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: 0/0.

2665 Unnamed 

Ditch

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

2666 Unnamed 

Ditch (B19 Canal)

Stream IIIF DO DO No Data 3c 3c Low 2011 Delist. No DO data in 

planning or verified periods. Thought to be a flaw 

in the original analysis.

2666 Unnamed 

Ditch (B19 Canal)

Stream IIIF Nutrients Chlorophyll a

(Nutrients)

No Data 3c — Low 2011 Planning period: No data 

to calculate values; verified period: No data to 

calculate values.

2666A Sweetwater 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Chlorophyll a

(Nutrients)

Insufficient 

Data

3b 2 — — —

2666A Sweetwater 

Creek

Stream IIIF — DO Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 2/2; 

verified period: 1/1.

2666A Sweetwater 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Turbidity Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/2; 

verified period: 0/1.

2666A Sweetwater 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Unionized 

Ammonia

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: 0/0.

2666A Sweetwater 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Biology Not 

Impaired

2 — — — “Suspect” BioRecon in 

1999.

2668 Port 

Orange 

Canal

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

Table 3.8 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 89
2670 Halifax 

Canal

Stream IIIF — DO Verified 

List

3c 3c — — DO met verification 

threshold of IWR, but 

need to identify causative pollutant. Planning 

period: 7/25 values 

below DO criterion; verified period: 7/27 values 

below DO criterion. Will 

remain on Planning List 

until a causative pollutant 

can be identified.

2670 Halifax 

Canal

Stream IIIF — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — Low 2011 Planning period: 4/25 

Values exceed criterion; 

verified period: 4/27 

Values exceed criterion.

2670 Halifax 

Canal

Stream IIIF — Chlorophyll a

(Nutrients)

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: Median 

TN = 0.83 μg/L; planning period: Median 

TP = 0.20 μg/L; verified period: Median TN 

= 0.83 μg/L; verified 

period: Median TP = 

0.20 μg/L.

2670 Halifax 

Canal

Stream IIIF — Chlorophyll (Historical)

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Annual Averages: 1999–

11.26 μg/L; 2000–10.51 

μg/L; 2001–8.145 μg/L. 

Planning period: Average 

of Annual Averages: 9.97 

μg/L; verified period: 

Average of Annual Averages: 9.97 μg/L.

2670 Halifax 

Canal

Stream IIIF — Total 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 1/22; 

verified period: 1/22.

2670 Halifax 

Canal

Stream IIIF — Turbidity Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 0/22; 

verified period: 0/22.

2672 Rose Bay Estuary IIIM DO DO Not 

Impaired

2 3c — — Propose to delist unless 

further data are obtained. 

Planning period: 7/99 

values below DO criterion, Range 3.18–10.23 

mg/L, Mean 5.75 mg/L; 

verified period: No Data.

2672 Rose Bay Estuary IIIM Coliforms Fecal 

Coliforms

Planning 

List

3c — Low 2011 Planning period: 20/108 

Values exceed criterion; 

verified period: No Data.

2672 Rose Bay Estuary IIIM Coliforms Total 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 0/113; 

verified period: 0/0. 

Propose to delist unless 

further data are obtained.

Table 3.8 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

90 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
2672 Rose Bay Estuary IIIM Nutrients Chlorophyll a

(Nutrients)

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: Median 

TN/TP Ratio = 5.70 

(Mostly N and CoLimited) Based on 229 

Values. Planning period: 

Median TN = 0.74 mg/L 

(N = 229); planning 

period: Median TP = 

0.14 mg/L (N = 231); 

verified period: Median 

TN/TP Ratio = 5.94 (nitrogen limited) based on 93 

values; verified period: 

TN Median = 0.61 mg/L 

(N = 93); verified period: 

TP Median = 0.11 mg/L 

(N = 93). Propose to 

delist unless further data/

information are obtained.

2672 Rose Bay Estuary IIIM — Chlorophyll (Historical)

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Annual Averages: 1994–

15.40 μg/L; 1995–8.27 

μg/L; 1996–7.41 μg/L; 

1997–6.96 μg/L; 1998–

8.99 μg/L; 2001–9.92 

μg/L; 2002–10.94 μg/L; 

2003–15.33μg/L. Planning period: Average of 

Annual Averages: 10.38 

μg/L; verified period: 

Average of Annual Averages: 12.06 μg/L.

2672 Rose Bay Estuary IIIM — Turbidity Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 0/118; 

verified period: 0/0.

2673 Unnamed 

Drain

Stream IIIF — Chlorophyll a

(Nutrients)

Insufficient 

Data

3b 3b — — —

2673 Unnamed 

Drain

Stream IIIF — DO Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 2/2; 

verified period: 0/1.

2673 Unnamed 

Drain

Stream IIIF — Turbidity Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/2; 

verified period: 0/1.

2673 Unnamed 

Drain

Stream IIIF — Unionized 

Ammonia

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: 0/0.

2674 Spruce 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Biology Not 

Impaired

2 3c — — Portions classified as an 

OFW. “Healthy” BioRecon in 1997; “Suspect” 

BioRecon in 1999.

2674 Spruce 

Creek

Stream IIIF Nutrients Chlorophyll a

(Nutrients)

Not 

Impaired

2 — High 2006 Portions classified as 

an OFW. Propose to 

delist unless further data 

are obtained. Planning 

period: TN Median Value 

is 0.94 mg/L (N = 349); 

planning period: Median 

TP 0.083 (N = 348); 

verified period: Median 

TN 0.88 mg/L (N = 181); 

verified period: Median 

TP 0.08 (N = 180).

Table 3.8 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 91
2674 Spruce 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Copper Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Portions classified as an 

OFW. Planning period: 

0/23; verified period: No 

Data.

2674 Spruce 

Creek

Stream IIIF DO DO Planning 

List

3c — High 2006 Portions classified as an 

OFW. Planning period: 

5/24 Values exceed criterion; verified period: 0/1 

Values exceed criterion.

2674 Spruce 

Creek

Stream IIIF Coliforms Fecal 

Coliforms

Planning 

List

3c — High 2006 Portions classified as an 

OFW. Planning period: 

8/20 Values exceed 

criterion; verified period: 

No Data.

2674 Spruce 

Creek

Stream IIIF Iron Iron Planning 

List

3c — High 2006 Portions classified as an 

OFW. Planning period: 

20/23 Values exceed 

criterion; verified period: 

No Data.

2674 Spruce 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Lead Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Portions classified as an 

OFW. Planning period: 

0/17; verified period: No 

Data.

2674 Spruce 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Nickel Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Portions classified as an 

OFW. Planning period: 

0/2; verified period: No 

Data.

2674 Spruce 

Creek

Stream IIIF Coliforms Total

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — High 2006 Portions classified as an 

OFW. Planning period: 

2/17; verified period: 0/0. 

Propose to delist unless 

further data are obtained.

2674 Spruce 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Turbidity Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Portions classified as an 

OFW. Planning period: 

0/25; verified period: 0/1.

2674 Spruce 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Unionized 

Ammonia

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Portions classified as an 

OFW. Planning period: 

0/23; verified period: No 

Data.

2674 Spruce 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Zinc Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Portions classified as an 

OFW. Planning period: 

0/23; verified period: No 

Data.

2674A Spruce 

Creek

Estuary IIIM DO DO Verified 

List

3c 3d High 2006 Portions classified as an 

OFW. Planning period: 

90/285 Values exceed 

criterion; verified period: 

31/83 Values exceed 

criterion.

2674A Spruce 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — BOD Insufficient 

Data

3a — — — Planning period: No 

Data ; verified period: 

No Data.

2674A Spruce 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Verified 

List

3d — Low 2011 Portions classified as an 

OFW. Planning period: 

69/284 Values exceed 

criterion; verified period: 

32/88 Values exceed 

criterion. Will be verified 

unless further data are 

obtained.

Table 3.8 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

92 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
2674A Spruce 

Creek

Estuary IIIM Iron Iron No Data 3c — — — Portions classified as an 

OFW. Delist. No data 

in planning and verified 

periods. Thought to 

be a flaw in the original 

analysis.

2674A Spruce 

Creek

Estuary IIIM Nutrients Chlorophyll a

(Nutrients)

Verified 

List

2 High 2006 Portions classified as an 

OFW. Planning period: 

Median TN/TP Ratio = 

5.43 (Mostly nitrogen 

limited, with some colimitation based on 339 

values. Planning period: 

Median TN = 0.88 

mg/L (N = 339); planning period: Median TP 

= 0.15 mg/L (N = 346); 

verified period: Median 

TN/TP Ratio = 5.35 

(Mostly nitrogen limited, 

with some co-limitation based on 82 values; 

verified period: Median 

TN = 0.83 mg/L; verified 

period: Median TP = 0.15 

mg/L.

2674A Spruce 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — Chlorophyll (Historical)

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Portions classified as an 

OFW. 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. Planning period: Average of 

Annual Averages: 7.15 

μg/L.

2674A Spruce 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — Total 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Portions classified as an 

OFW. Planning period: 

2/286; verified period: 

0/61.

2674A Spruce 

Creek

Estuary IIIM — Turbidity Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Portions classified as an 

OFW. Planning period: 

2/310; verified period: 

0/76.

2674B Strickland 

Bay

Estuary IIIM — DO Insufficient 

Data

3b 3b — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: 0/0.

2674B Strickland 

Bay

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: 0/0.

2674B Strickland 

Bay

Estuary IIIM — Total 

Coliforms

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: 0/0.

2674B Strickland 

Bay

Estuary IIIM — Turbidity Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: 0/0.

Table 3.8 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 93
Table 3.8 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

2674B Strickland 

Bay

Estuary IIIM — Unionized 

Ammonia

Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: 0/0.

2675 Sand 

Creek

Stream IIIF — DO Insufficient 

Data

3b 2 — — Planning period: 1/1; 

verified period: 1/1.

2675 Sand 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Turbidity Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: 0/1.

2675 Sand 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Biology Not 

Impaired

2 — — — “Healthy” BioRecon in 

1999.

2678 Turnbull 

Bay

Estuary IIIM — DO Planning 

List

3c — — — Planning period: 7/13 

Values below DO 

criterion.

2678 Turnbull 

Bay

Estuary IIIM — Arsenic Not 

Impaired

2 — — — Planning period: 0/12; 

verified period: 0/12.

2678 Turnbull 

Bay

Estuary IIIM — Chlorophyll a

(Nutrients)

Verified 

List

3d — — — Planning period: Median 

TN/TP Ratio = 5.24 (N 

limited) based on 10 

values. Planning period: 

Median TN = 1.10 mg/L 

(exceeds threshold of 1.0 

mg/L)(N = 11); planning 

period: Median TP = 0.19 

mg/L (meets threshold 

of 0.19 mg/L)(N = 12); 

verified period: Median 

TN/TP Ratio = 5.24 (nitrogen limited) based on 10 

values.

2678 Turnbull 

Bay

Estuary IIIM — Copper Not 

Impaired

3b — — — Planning period: 0/12; 

verified period: 0/12.

2678 Turnbull 

Bay

Estuary IIIM — Turbidity Not 

Impaired

3b — — — Planning period: 0/13; 

verified period: 0/13.

2679 Unnamed 

Drain

Stream IIIF — DO Insufficient 

Data

3b 3b — — Planning period: 1/1; 

verified period: 1/1.

2679 Unnamed 

Drain

Stream IIIF — Turbidity Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: 0/1.

2681 Glencoe 

Ditches

Stream IIIF — DO Insufficient 

Data

3b 3b — — Planning period: 1/1; 

verified period: 1/1.

2681 Glencoe 

Ditches

Stream IIIF — Turbidity Insufficient 

Data

3b — — — Planning period: 0/1; 

verified period: 0/1.

2683 Turnbull 

Creek

Stream IIIF — — No Data 3a 3a — — —

8117 Halifax 

River 

Ocean 1

Estuary IIIM — Mercury 

in Fish

Planning 

List

3c 3c — — Verify data are within the 

last 7.5 years.

8117A Toronita Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 3c — — Planning period: 0/105; 

verified period: 0/160.

8117A Toronita Estuary IIIM — Mercury 

in Fish

Planning 

List

3c — — — Verify data are within the 

last 7.5 years.

94 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
8117B Dunlawton

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 3c — — Planning period: 0/117; 

verified period: 0/160.

8117B DunlawtonEstuary IIIM — Mercury 

in Fish

Planning 

List

3c — — — Verify data are within the 

last 7.5 years.

8117C Hilton Estuary IIIM — Mercury 

in Fish

Planning 

List

3c 3c — — Verify data are within the 

last 7.5 years.

8117D Silver 

Beach

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 3c — — Planning period: 0/121; 

verified period: 0/161.

8117D Silver 

Beach

Estuary IIIM — Mercury 

in Fish

Planning 

List

3c — — — Verify data are within the 

last 7.5 years.

8117E Main 

Street

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 3c — — Planning period: 0/121; 

verified period: 0/160.

8117E Main 

Street

Estuary IIIM — Mercury 

in Fish

Planning 

List

3c — — — Verify data are within the 

last 7.5 years.

8117F Seabreeze 

Blvd

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 3c — — Planning period: 0/121; 

verified period: 0/160.

8117F Seabreeze 

Blvd

Estuary IIIM — Mercury 

in Fish

Planning 

List

3c — — — Verify data are within the 

last 7.5 years.

8118 Halifax 

River 

Ocean 2

Estuary IIIM — Mercury 

in Fish

Planning 

List

3c 3c — — Verify data are within the 

last 7.5 years.

8118A Granda 

Blvd

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 3c — — Planning period: 0/122; 

verified period: 0/160.

8118A Granda 

Blvd

Estuary IIIM — Mercury 

in Fish

Planning 

List

3c — — — Verify data are within the 

last 7.5 years.

8118B Bicentennial Park

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 3c — — Planning period: 0/106; 

verified period: 0/157.

8118B Bicentennial ParkEstuary IIIM — Mercury 

in Fish

Planning 

List

3c — — — Verify data are within the 

last 7.5 years.

8119 Halifax 

River 

Ocean 3

Estuary IIIM — Mercury 

in Fish

Planning 

List

3c 3c — — Verify data are within the 

last 7.5 years.

8119A Gamble 

Rogers 

State Park

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 3c — — Planning period: 0/124; 

verified period: 0/159.

8119A Gamble 

Rogers 

State Park

Estuary IIIM — Mercury 

in Fish

Planning 

List

3c — — — Verify data are within the 

last 7.5 years.

8119B Flagler 

Pier at 

Flagler 

Beach

Estuary IIIM — Fecal 

Coliforms

Not 

Impaired

2 3c — — Planning period: 0/196; 

verified period: 0/265.

8119B Flagler 

Pier at 

Flagler 

Beach

Estuary IIIM — Mercury 

in Fish

Planning 

List

3c — — — Verify data are within the 

last 7.5 years.

Notes:

1

The designation “stream” includes canals, rivers, and sloughs. The designation “lake” includes some marshes.

2

The state’s surface water classifications 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)

Table 3.8 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

Waterbody 

Classification2

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

IWR

Proposed 

Status

Integrated 

Report 

Category3

Overall 

Category 

Call4

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development5

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development5 Comments6

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 95
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—Parameter 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

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 

coliforms—shellfish as Category 2, the single assessment call for the WBID is Category 5. 5

Where a parameter was 1998 303(d) listed, the priority shown for it in the 1998 303(d) list was retained (High or Low). Dates indicate the date by 

which a TMDL is scheduled. 

6

Planning Period = January 1993 through December 2002; Verified Period = January 1999 through December 2006; X/Y (X = number of 

exceedances of criterion and Y = number of samples).

BOD = Biological oxygen demand

DO = Dissolved oxygen

F = Fresh water

M = Marine

N = Nitrogen

OFW = Outstanding Florida Water

SCI = Stream condition index

TN = Total nitrogen

TP = Total phosphorus

Figure 3.6 shows permitted wastewater treatment facilities, landfills, 

and delineated ground water contamination areas in the planning unit. 

Appendix C lists the basin’s domestic and industrial surface discharge 

facilities, along with their permitted flows, by planning unit. It also lists 

landfills or solid waste facilities and Superfund sites, by planning unit.

Nonpoint Sources. Upland forests, wetlands, and surface waters comprise about 61 percent of the planning unit’s area. Approximately 26 percent of the area is urbanized, and about 9 percent is in use as agricultural 

land or rangeland. Other land uses include transportation, communication, and utilities (3.4 percent) and barren land (0.6 percent). These land 

uses can be associated with nonpoint discharges of pollutants and eroded 

sediments. Appendix E 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 required to obtain an NPDES 

stormwater permit are the cities of Flagler Beach, Holly Hill, Daytona 

Beach, Daytona Beach Shores, South Daytona, and Port Orange; the town 

of Ponce Inlet; and Volusia County.

Table 3.8 (continued)

96 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
Introduction

Historically, Florida’s ground water monitoring activities focused 

almost entirely on protecting drinking water supplies. In addition to this 

focus, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) 

now also integrates ground water data into its watershed assessments to 

help in the evaluation of ground water impacts on surface water quality. 

This is especially important in Florida, where ground water discharges into 

streams, canals, lakes, and estuaries and can provide as much as 80 percent 

of the total flow to some surface waters. Because of this ground water–

surface water interaction, it is important to assess ground water quality, identify potential pollutants, establish whether they are likely to be 

discharged to surface water, and identify any potential impacts that may 

already be expressed as surface water impairments.

The assessment presented in this chapter uses ground water data to 

evaluate water quality in the potable ground water resource, as well as the 

impact of ground water on surface water resources in the Upper East Coast 

Basin. Although the data historically collected through ground water 

monitoring do not specifically serve this purpose, the Department is using 

the information that is currently available.

Scope of the Ground Water Assessment

This chapter presents the results of a preliminary ground water quality 

assessment, in addition to resource priorities and proposed management 

actions, in the Upper East Coast Basin. It includes an evaluation of the 

quality of the ground water resource used as a potable supply by residents of 

the basin, as well as an evaluation of potential ground water influences on 

water quality and ecological conditions in the basin’s surface waters. The 

ground water resource index assessment (GRI) is based on aquifer use and 

human health-related criteria. The Ground Water–Surface Water Relational Assessment (SRA) includes an evaluation of ground water quality 

in planning units where potentially impaired surface waters were identified, using threshold values derived from surface water quality standards or 

ecological guidelines. These newly developed screening tools provide an 

indication of potential issues that justify more detailed evaluations.

Chapter 4: Ground Water Quality Assessment

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 97
While these preliminary results on the quality and availability of 

ground water do not have regulatory significance, they can assist in identifying priority ground water resource and surface water quality issues that 

should be further evaluated to protect human health and/or the ecological integrity of the basin’s surface waterbodies. In particular, they may be 

instrumental in furthering the goals of the Total Maximum Daily Load 

(TMDL) Program by contributing to an understanding of the extent to 

which ground water may be a source of pollutants that impair surface 

waters or may lead to naturally occurring conditions that cause surface 

water to exceed water quality standards. For example, ground water data 

can be used to verify impairment, to identify natural causes of impairment 

(such as the seepage of ground water low in dissolved oxygen [DO] or high 

in iron into surface waters), to contribute to knowledge of water budgets 

for lakes and rivers receiving ground water seepage or base flow, to contribute to an understanding of the freshwater/saltwater balance in estuarine 

waters, to provide documentation for calculating TMDLs, and to determine the ground water quality component of individual TMDLs. Ground 

water data can also affect TMDL allocations.

In the preliminary ground water assessment for the Upper East Coast 

Basin, a number of significant issues were identified pertaining to the 

ground water resource and potential ground water impacts to surface water. 

These are listed below and discussed in this chapter.

Ground Water Resource Priorities 

• Total dissolved solids (TDS) that exceed primary ground water 

standards,

• Metals that exceed primary ground water standards,

• Organic contaminant plumes, and

• Fecal and total coliform bacteria in wells, a possibly localized 

condition.

Ground Water–Surface Water Interaction Priorities 

• Nutrients exceeding screening threshold limits in the surficial aquifer 

in planning units where potential nutrient-related surface waterbody 

impairments have been identified,

• Ground water influence on surface waterbodies listed as potentially 

impaired, based on low DO, and

• Metals exceeding screening threshold limits in the surficial aquifer 

in planning units where potential metals-related surface waterbody 

impairments have been identified.

98 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
Ground Water Data Sources and Parameters

The Department established a ground water quality monitoring 

network in 1984, under the authority and direction of the 1983 Water 

Quality Assurance Act. From 1984 to 1999, the Background Network was 

maintained to establish the background and baseline ground water quality 

of major aquifer systems in Florida. In 1999, the Department initiated a 

probabilistic sampling Status Network to assess the water quality over areas 

defined as reporting units. Since the Department initiated the watershed 

management approach, the state’s basin groups have become ground water 

quality assessment units. The Status and Background Networks, and the 

additional sources described in Table 4.1, were the data sources used in the 

ground water quality assessment for this report. 

Table 4.1: Summary of Ground Water Data Sources

Monitoring Network or Program Period Description

Status Network 1999–ongoing Statewide probabilistic sampling network for surface water and 

ground water data. Sample locations are randomly selected 

from a list frame of wells. Each year includes approximately 

30 samples from unconfined aquifers and 30 from confined 

aquifers. Objective is to characterize water quality on a basinwide scale. Ground water parameters correspond with those 

targeted in surface water evaluation.

Background Network 1985–1999 Part of statewide network of 1,600 water wells and monitoring 

wells to spatially monitor general background water quality of 

local aquifers (surficial, intermediate, and Floridan). On average, each well was sampled once every 3 years for an extensive list of analytes.

Very Intense Study Area 

(VISA) Network

1989–1999 Network monitored the effects of land uses on ground water 

quality in 23 selected areas of the state. Individual VISAs 

consisted of approximately 20 wells sampled 3 times over an 

11-year period. Sampled for a targeted list of analytes.

Florida Department of Health 

(DOH)/ Department Water 

Supply Restoration Program 

(WSRP) Private Well Sampling 

Program

Ongoing Private well data collected in investigations of potential ground 

water contamination, maintained in a Department WSRP database. Parameter list is variable, depending on contaminants of 

concern.

This chapter contains parameter-specific evaluations of ground water 

data and findings. Evaluations conducted for the Upper East Coast Basin 

were for nutrients, bacteria, metals, and organics. Several parameters 

associated with saline waters were also evaluated. Table 4.2 summarizes 

the assessment categories and the specific analytes evaluated. Data were 

retrieved from several databases maintained by the Department using the 

Hydroport retrieval system maintained by the Ground Water Protection 

Section. Hydroport was also used to produce statistical summaries for the 

evaluations performed for this report.

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 99
Table 4.2: Ground Water Assessment Categories and 

Parameters

Evaluation Category Parameters Evaluated

Nutrients Nitrate, Phosphorus

Bacteria Total Coliforms, Fecal Colifoms

Metals Primary Metals (Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, 

Selenium, Thallium)

Secondary Metals (Aluminum, Copper, Iron, Manganese, Silver, Strontium, Vanadium, Zinc)

Organics Volatile and Semivolatile Organics, Pesticides

Saline Ground Water Sodium, Chloride, Total Dissolved Solids, Specific 

Conductance

Ground Water Assessments

This section includes basinwide and more detailed by-parametercategory evaluations of ground water quality using the GRI thresholds and 

ground water–surface water interaction using the SRA thresholds; the evaluation incorporates a spatial analysis of the data. For reporting the data, 

this chapter uses planning units consistent with the surface water assessment. This approach allows the Department to conduct a preliminary 

assessment of large regional aquifer systems and multiple watersheds, rather 

than individual waterbody segments. The initial step in the ground water 

quality evaluation included a basinwide screening for wells in unconfined 

and confined aquifers. Table 4.3 summarizes the basinwide results of 

this evaluation for the Upper East Coast Basin, and Appendix F contains 

statistical data, by parameter.

Table 4.3 shows, by aquifer, the number of wells sampled and median 

results for the basin. Notably, basinwide median concentrations of phosphorus and several metals are higher than threshold levels. Dissolved 

phosphorus and orthophosphate in both unconfined and confined aquifers 

are higher than the SRA threshold for phosphorus. Medians for cadmium, 

lead, copper, iron, and zinc in both confined and unconfined aquifers 

are higher than their respective SRA screening thresholds. The median 

concentration for mercury is also higher than its SRA screening threshold 

in unconfined aquifer samples. In addition, medians for several metals 

were above GRI thresholds, based on potable ground water criteria. These 

included lead and aluminum (in unconfined aquifers) as well as iron (in 

both unconfined and confined aquifers). 

Basinwide Screening Results 

The following sections describe more detailed steps in the evaluation. 

These are based on data from all sources currently in the Department’s 

ground water database. Most data are from the Status Network, the Background Network, or the Very Intense Study Area Network. The Florida 

Department of Health (DOH)/Department Water Supply Restoration 

Program (WSRP) private well sampling dataset was also used in the GRI 

evaluation. Other sources of data were not available for the detailed evaluation but were considered.

100 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
Table 4.3: Screening Thresholds and Basinwide Summary of Ground Water Quality

(Median concentrations that are higher than the GRI and/or SRA screening threshold in Unconfined Aquifer and 

Confined Aquifer columns are shown in boldface type with light gray highlighting.)

Parameter Screening Thresholds Unconfined Aquifer Confined Aquifers

GRI1 SRA2

Number of 

Wells

Median 

Concentration

Number of 

Wells

Median 

Nutrients (mg/L) Concentration

 Nitrate + Nitrite (dissolved as N) 10 0.45 17 0.037 22 0.035

 Phosphorus (dissolved as P) — 0.025 17 0.12 20 0.0692

 Orthophosphate (dissolved as P) — 0.025 16 0.1242 21 0.0842

Bacteria (Colonies/100mL)

 Total Coliforms 4 1,000 9 0 22 0

 Fecal Coliforms 4 400 14 0 23 0

Metals (μg/L, total)

 Primary Metals:

 Antimony 6 14 5 BDL 12 BDL

 Arsenic 10 10 12 BDL 20 BDL

 Barium 2,000 1,000 14 36.5 23 48.1

 Beryllium 4 0.0077 5 BDL 12 BDL

 Cadmium 5 0.38 14 0.92 23 0.52

 Chromium 100 27.7 14 15 23 11

 Lead 15 0.54 13 27.71,2 23 112

 Mercury 2 0.012 14 0.0752 23 BDL

 Nickel 100 8.3 11 5 20 2

 Selenium 50 5 11 BDL 17 BDL

 Thallium 2 1.7 5 BDL 12 BDL

 Secondary Metals:

 Aluminum 200 1,500 11 8501 18 57

 Copper 1,000 2.85 14 20.52 23 102

 Iron 300 300 14 5,9051,2 23 8871,2

 Manganese 20 100 14 52.5 23 20

 Silver 100 100 14 0.5 23 1

 Strontium 4,200 — 14 484 23 950

 Vanadium 49 — 5 3.1 12 1

 Zinc 5,000 37 14 129.52 21 862

 Organics3 (μg/L)

 1,1—Dichloroethylene 7 — — BDL — BDL

 1,2,4—Trimethylbenzene 10 — — BDL — BDL

 1,3,5—Trimethylbenzene 10 — — BDL — BDL

 Benzene 1 — — BDL — BDL

 Dichloromethane 5 — — BDL — BDL

 Ethylbenzene 30 — — BDL — BDL

 Trichloroethylene 3 — — BDL — BDL

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 101
Parameter Screening Thresholds Unconfined Aquifer Confined Aquifers

GRI1 SRA2

Number of 

Wells

Median 

Concentration

Number of 

Wells

Median 

 Saline Water Influence Concentration

 Sodium (mg/L) 160 — 9 45 22 43

 Chloride (mg/L) 250 250 9 76 22 81.5

 Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 500 — 15 439 23 504

 Specific Conductance (uMhos/cm) — 1,275 19 522 24 874

Notes:

1

Median values in bold are higher than GRI screening threshold; threshold value based on potable ground water 

maximum contaminant level (MCL) or guidance level.

2

Median values in bold are higher than SRA screening threshold; threshold value is based on surface water standard or 

guidance level based on adverse effect to aquatic life.

3

Organic compounds listed were found in ground water at levels that exceed MCLs and/or guidance levels. Organics 

data were obtained from the WSRP private drinking water well sampling. Information on total number of samples, 

aquifer, etc., was not available. 

— = Not applicable. In the case of water quality data, threshold is not applicable to this analyte.

BDL – Median is below detection limit for this analyte.

 Basinwide median concentrations are derived from the maximum value for each well.

Ground Water as a Resource: Issues Related to the Ground 

Water Resource Index

The GRI screening identified parameters that could be significant 

because they exceed ground water standards or guidance concentrations. 

For a specific parameter, this index is based on the percentage of well 

samples that exceed the applicable ground water maximum contaminant 

level (MCL), or Risk Indicator (in the absence of an MCL or when an 

MCL cannot be directly related to the data). To be protective, the maximum parameter concentration detected in each well is used, no minimum 

number of samples is required, and data used are not restricted to a specific 

period of record for this screening. This evaluation is performed by aquifer 

category (i.e., confined or unconfined). Typically, if more than 10 percent 

of the ground water samples in a category exceed a particular GRI threshold, this would warrant a more intensive evaluation. Table 4.3 provides 

the thresholds that are pertinent to this report.

Table 4.4 provides a detailed summary of the findings of the evaluation to identify potential concerns for ground water used for potable supply. 

The significance of potential problems was evaluated using available 

ground water data for each planning unit. The table identifies waterbody 

segments that may be affected by ground water for which further evaluation is required. This information may be relevant to assessing waters that 

are identified as impaired.

Table 4.3 (continued)

102 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
Table 4.4: Evaluation Summary: Ground Water Quality and Potential Impacts to Potable Supply

(Samples above threshold are shown in boldface type with light gray highlighting.)

Planning 

Unit

Data Evaluation

Use of Affected 

Aquifer(s)

Priority for Further 

Evaluation

Nutrients

(# samples 

exceeding GRI 

threshold for 

nitrate)1,2

Bacteria

(# samples 

exceeding GRI 

threshold for 

total coliforms 

and/or fecal 

coliforms)1

Primary Metals

(# samples 

exceeding GRI 

threshold for 

primary metals)1

Organics

(# samples 

exceeding GRI 

threshold for 

an organic 

compound, or 

other significant 

evidence)1,2

Saline Waters

(# samples 

exceeding GRI 

threshold for total 

dissolved solids)1

Unconfined surficial aquiferConfined intermediate or Floridan aquifersUnconfined surficial aquiferConfined intermediate or Floridan aquifersUnconfined surficial aquiferConfined intermediate or Floridan aquifersAquifer not differentiatedUnconfined surficial aquiferConfined intermediate or Floridan aquifers

Tolomato 

River

— — — — — Pb-1 Dichloromethane-1— TDS-1 Potable or 

potential 

potable supply

High 

(volatile organics, 

lead, TDS)

Matanzas 

River

— — — — — Pb-1 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene-1, 

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene-1, 

Benzene-1,

Ethylbenzene-1

TDS-1 TDS-1 Potable or 

potential 

potable supply

High 

(volatile organics, 

lead, TDS)

Pellicer 

Creek

— — — — — Pb-3 Trichloroethylene-1TDS-3 TDS-4 Potable or 

potential 

potable supply

High 

(volatile organics, 

lead, TDS)

Halifax 

River

— — — FC-1, 

TC-2

Pb-6,

Ba-1,

Cr-1,

Hg-1

Pb-6, 

Hg-1, 

Cr-1, 

Cd-1

1,1-Dichloroethylene-1TDS-2 TDS-6 Potable or 

potential 

potable supply

High 

(volatile organics, 

lead, chromium, 

cadmium, mercury, 

barium, TDS, 

bacteria)

Notes:

1

Value indicates number of well samples above MCL or Risk Indicator threshold.

2

Assessment using DOH/Department WSRP private well sampling data, with no information on aquifer available.

FC = Fecal coliforms; TC = total coliforms; Pb = Lead; Ba = Barium; Cr = Chromium; Hg = Mercury; Cd = Cadmium; TDS = Total dissolved 

 solids

Other = Planning unit includes one or more significant area of contamination based on other information.

— = Not applicable; no evidence of samples above ground water criteria.

Significance:

Low = No samples above MCL or Risk Indicator, and issue does not need further evaluation at this time.

Medium = Samples above MCL and/or Risk Indicator, but affected aquifer is not a significant potable water source; issue is a medium priority for 

further evaluation.

High = Samples above MCL and/or Risk Indicator, and affected aquifer is a significant potable water source; issue justifies further evaluation in this 

cycle.

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 103
Use of Affected Aquifers

Unconfined aquifer data are from wells representing the unconfined 

surficial aquifer system, which is present in the entire basin. The surficial 

aquifer is a potable drinking water source. Confined aquifer data represent 

wells in confined zones of the Floridan aquifer, some of which are tapped 

for potable supply, and in a few instances zones in the intermediate aquifer 

system, which may also be used as a potable water source. Clearly, findings 

of GRI threshold exceedances in aquifers used for potable supply are of the 

greatest significance.

Data Evaluation and Priorities for Further Assessment

The data available for this evaluation indicate that different locations 

in several planning units in the basin have or may have water quality issues 

related to TDS, metals, organics, and bacteria. Data insufficiency for 

all parameters is a very significant concern in some planning units. The 

sections below discuss data findings and potential issues of concern in the 

Upper East Coast Basin. Table 4.4 presents the data discussed in this section, by planning unit.

Nitrate. Nitrate was not detected at concentrations higher than the 

potable ground water MCL. Numerous samples were collected for 

nitrate + nitrite and nitrate from the various monitoring networks used in 

this evaluation, and nitrate in drinking water does not appear to be a widespread problem. Nitrate may exist at elevated concentrations, however, in 

localized areas near specific sources. As discussed in a later section in this 

chapter, the presence of significantly lower concentrations of nutrients can 

cause adverse impacts to surface waterbodies.

Bacteria. Basinwide, the bacterial contamination of wells appears to 

be less than 10 percent, according to data from the Status Network wells, 

although 2 wells were found to be contaminated. These 2 wells (located in 

the Halifax Planning Unit) had samples exceeding total and/or fecal coliform GRI thresholds. Bacterial contamination of wells is a common issue 

throughout the state. Numerous studies have indicated that bacteria in 

wells can be attributed to a variety of sources, most of which are localized. 

Well contamination is frequently associated with sanitary conditions in the 

immediate vicinity of the well and water delivery system, and bacteria may 

not actually be present in the ground water. 

Metals. Many metals that exceed potable ground water criteria/

guidance levels may occur naturally at elevated concentrations in the 

aquifer material. Elevated detections may also be related to well construction materials and/or sampling technique, and may not be representative of 

the aquifer being monitored. Stations used in the evaluation were chosen 

to represent background conditions and are minimally affected by anthropogenic activities. Regardless of the source, the occurrence of metals at 

elevated concentrations is important because of the population served by 

wells. That is particularly important for metals that have primary MCLs, 

which pertain to adverse impacts to human health. Lead, barium, mercury, and chromium were found at concentrations exceeding their primary 

MCLs in one or more wells in the basin.

104 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
The most prevalent primary metal, lead, was found at elevated concentrations in 6 unconfined aquifer wells and 11 confined aquifer wells. 

Exceedances of the lead MCL were found in 62 percent of the sampled 

wells in unconfined aquifer and 48 percent of wells in confined aquifers. 

This potentially significant issue should be a priority for follow-up monitoring and investigation. Metals in ground water samples may be naturally 

occurring, they may be associated with the materials used in well construction such as pipe casings or pumps, or they may be from contamination 

sources.

Many of the well samples also exceeded GRI thresholds for aluminum, 

iron, and/or manganese, which are based on secondary standards related 

to taste, odor, and other nuisance effects. Secondary metals are considered 

less significant in terms of protecting the potable water resource, since their 

secondary MCLs pertain to nuisance issues rather than human health. 

They are, however, prioritized differently in the SRA due to their potential 

adverse ecological impacts in surface waterbodies.

Figure 4.1 shows primary metals exceeding criteria in wells, as they are 

of greater concern to drinking water supplies.

Organics. Volatile organics were found at above-GRI threshold levels 

in four private drinking water wells in the WSRP dataset, but none were 

detected in the Department’s ambient monitoring wells, indicating that 

they are not a widespread threat to potable ground water supplies. Volatile 

organic compounds exceeding MCLs or guidance levels included benzene, 

1,2,3-trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene and ethylbenzene (which 

were all detected in one well), and trichloroethene, dichloromethane, and 

dichloroethylene (detected in one well each). Localized contamination like 

this is possibly related to a nearby source of solvents or petroleum fuels. 

Figure 4.2 shows the locations of wells where organics were detected.

Saline Water. A significant ground water quality issue in the basin 

is brackish components (including sodium, chloride, sulfate, TDS, and 

conductivity) that may affect the potability of ground water. Brackish 

to saline water is present in deeper portions of the Floridan aquifer that, 

under natural artesian pressure, feeds the intermediate aquifer, surficial 

aquifer, and surface water (streams, lakes, and wetlands). Another source 

of brackish water affecting both the surficial aquifer and surface water is the 

Atlantic Ocean, through the shifting of the ground water/seawater interface 

(the Ghyben-Herzberg interface) in the surficial aquifer, and through tidecontrolled rivers, estuaries, and lagoons. Increased salinity in potable 

ground water supplies could be caused by overpumping the surficial or 

Floridan aquifer for public supply, agricultural irrigation, or industrial uses.

Elevated TDS in ground water has been a concern of the St. Johns 

River Water Management District (SJRWMD). TDS in the confined 

aquifer samples reflect the saline-to-brackish natural conditions in the 

Floridan aquifer that restrict its use as a potable supply or require blending 

or treatment of the water prior to use. Elevated TDS in the unconfined 

aquifer samples may reflect saltwater intrusion from the Intracoastal Waterway or Atlantic Ocean. Depending on the wells’ location and depth and 

the use of ground water in their vicinity, the conditions observed in these 

wells may be natural. Figure 4.3 shows the locations of wells with elevated 

TDS measurements in the basin.

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 105
Figure 4.1: Ground Water Resource Index Assessment for Primary 

Metals

106 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
Figure 4.2: Ground Water Resource Index Assessment for Organics

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 107
Figure 4.3: Ground Water Resource Index Assessment for Saline 

Waters

108 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
Ground Water–Surface Water Interaction: Issues Related to 

the Ground Water–Surface Water Relational Assessment

The SRA methodology was applied to identify wells in subregional 

areas where ground water contributions to surface water could adversely 

affect surface waterbodies. In an initial SRA screening, ground water concentrations that exceed surface water potential “adverse impact” thresholds 

are identified. The SRA thresholds are based on surface water standards or 

targets related to maintaining healthy aquatic communities.

In this evaluation, the results of the SRA and lists of potentially 

impaired surface waterbodies are reviewed together. Where similar pollutants or analytes occur, the potential for discharge from ground water to 

surface water is assessed. This evaluation is also conservative. As with the 

GRI screening, the maximum value measured for each well is used in the 

analysis, and there are no minimum sample population restrictions or specified periods of record for ground water data. In addition, the threshold 

values selected are intentionally protective. If samples from more than 10 

percent of the wells in a basin are higher than the SRA screening threshold 

for a particular parameter, further assessment may be warranted. Table 4.3

provides the SRA thresholds used in this evaluation, and other statistics are 

provided in Appendix F.

Table 4.5 summarizes the findings of the evaluation for each parameter category for unconfined and confined aquifers, and identifies (also for 

each parameter category) individual waterbody segments in each planning 

unit where ground water could adversely affect surface water quality. The 

two right-hand columns in the table, which list the ground water to surface 

water pathways and the priority for further evaluation, provide information 

about the potential ground water–surface water interaction issues that need 

to be evaluated in Phase 2 of the rotating basin cycle.

The significance and likelihood of potential ground water to surface 

water impacts were evaluated by considering the coincidence of elevated 

concentrations in ground water with impaired or potentially impaired surface waterbodies in the same planning unit. Next, the presence or absence 

of pathways between the aquifer and impaired/potentially impaired surface 

waterbodies was considered. Finally, the type of pathway and its potential 

for transporting and attenuating pollutants over distances was considered. 

Where evidence is present that the pathway exists and a surface waterbody 

is possibly affected, the significance of the ground water issue is increased. 

Following this logic, the need for further evaluation in the planning unit is 

based on the following:

• Sufficient data for a planning unit showing that ground water 

exceeds the SRA threshold value for a specific parameter,

• The identification of that specific parameter as causing potential 

impairment of one or more surface waterbodies in the planning unit,

• Evidence that a pathway may exist between the affected aquifer and 

the impaired or potentially impaired waterbody,

• Reason to believe that the pathway would have an effect over a 

significant subregional area, and

• The 1998 303(d) listing status of the potentially impaired surface 

water and schedule for TMDL development, if any.

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 109
Table 4.5: Evaluation Summary: Ground Water Influence on Surface Water Quality

(Samples above the SRA screening thresholds are shown in boldface type with light gray highlighting.)

Planning Unit

Data Evaluation

Ground Water to Surface Water Pathways

Priority for Further Evaluation

Nutrients (ground water samples 

exceeding SRA threshold for 

nitrate and/or phosphorus; planning unit includes surface waters 

potentially impaired by nutrients 

[based on TSI, chlorophyll a,

DO, or biology])1

Bacteria (ground water 

samples exceeding SRA 

threshold for total and/

or fecal coliforms; planning unit includes surface waters potentially 

impaired by bacteria)1

Metals (ground water samples exceeding

SRA threshold for one of more metals; planning 

unit includes surface waters potentially

impaired by metals)1

Saline Water (ground 

water samples exceeding SRA threshold for 

specific conductance; 

planning unit includes 

surface waters potentially 

impaired by metals)1

Unconfined surficial aquifer

Confined intermediate or 

Floridan aquifer

Potentially impaired surface 

waters (WBIDs)

Unconfined surficial aquifer

Confined Intermediate or 

Floridan aquifer

Potentially impaired surface 

waters (WBIDs)

Unconfined surficial aquifer

Confined intermediate or 

Floridan aquifer

Potentially impaired surface 

waters (WBIDs)

Unconfined surficial aquifer

Confined intermediate or 

Floridan aquifer

Potentially impaired surface 

waters (WBIDs)

Tolomato River

P-2

— WBIDs 2442

—

— WBIDs 

2320, 2363I

Ag-2, Al-2, Cu-1, Fe-2, Hg-2, Mn-1, Ni-1, Pb-2, Zn-2

Fe-1, Zn-1, Cd-1, Ag-1, Pb-1, Hg-1, Cr-1

—

—

—

— Seepage from 

surficial aquifer, possible upwelling or pumpage 

from Floridan aquifer

High (Nutrients)

Matanzas River

P-2 P-1 WBIDs 2363H, 

2491, 2493, 2499, 2535

—

— WBIDs 

2363G, 2493

Ag-1, Cd-1, Cu-1, Fe-2, Hg-1, Pb-2, Zn-1

Cu-1, Fe-1, Zn-1, Cd-1, Ag-1, Pb-1, Hg-1, Cr-1

WBIDs 2493 (Cu, Fe, N), 2363G (Cu, Fe, Ni, Zn)

— SC-1

— Seepage from 

surficial aquifer, possible upwelling or pumpage 

from Floridan aquifer

High (Nutrients, Cu, Fe, Zn)

Pellicer Creek

NO3-1, P-6

P-4 WBIDs 2553, 

2580B

—

— WBIDs 

2553, 2580B

Ag-4, Ba-1, Cd-4, Cu-4, Cr-1, Fe-5, Hg-2, Mn-3, Pb-4, Zn-5

Cu-4, Fe-4, Mn-1, Zn-4, Cd-4, Ag-4, Se-1, Pb-3, Ba-1, Cr-4

WBIDs 2580B (Ag, Fe, Pb, Se), 2363E (As, Cd, Cu, Fe, Ni, Pb, Se, Zn), 2553 (Fe), 2363D (Ag, Cd,Pb,Se,Tl)

SC-1 SC-3

— Seepage from 

surficial aquifer, possible upwelling or pumpage 

from Floridan aquifer

High (Nutrients, Mn, Fe, Cd, Pb, Zn)

Halifax River

NO3-1, P-5

NO3-3, P-16

WBIDs 2620, 2634A, 2635, 2634, 2647, 2666, 2670, 2674A, 2674, 2678

—

— WBIDs 

2634, 2672, 2674, 2674A

Al-3, Ba-1, Ca-3, Cr-1, Fe5, Cu-3, Pb-5, Mn-2, Ni-1, Ag-2, Zn-4

Al-1, Cu-7, Fe-11, Mn-2, Zn-9, Cd-6, Ag-11, Se-1, Pb-11, Hg-4, Cr-14

WBIDs 2363B(Cu,Fe), 2634A (Cu,Fe, Pb), 2634 (Cu,Fe, Pb), 2674A (Fe), 2674 (Fe), 2620 (Se)

SC-2 SC-3

— Seepage from 

surficial aquifer, possible upwelling or pumpage 

from Floridan aquifer

High (Nutrients, Cu, Fe, Pb, Se)

110 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
Notes:

1

Value next to parameter indicates number of wells exceeding SRA 

threshold(s).

— = Not applicable; no evidence of ground water threshold exceedance for 

ground water columns or potential impairment for surface water columns.

NO3

 = Nitrate P = Phosphorus TC = Total coliforms

FC = Fecal coliforms As = Arsenic Ba = Barium

Be = Beryllium Cd = Cadmium Cr = Chromium

Pb = Lead Hg = Mercury Ni = Nickel

Se = Selenium Tl = Thallium Al = Aluminum

Cu = Copper Fe = Iron Mn = Manganese

Ag = Silver Sr = Strontium Vn = Vanadium

Zn = Zinc SC = Specific conductance 

Priority for further evaluation:

Low = No potentially impaired surface waters, or potentially impaired surface 

waters, but no ground water samples above SRA threshold for listed category 

and no need for further evaluation at this time.

Medium = Potentially impaired surface waters and corresponding ground 

water samples above SRA threshold for listed category; ground water 

seepage from unconfined aquifers as the only pathway; issue is a medium 

priority for further evaluation.

High = Potentially impaired surface waters and corresponding ground water 

samples above threshold for listed category; unconfined ground water 

seepage and springs discharge from confined aquifers identified as pathways; 

issue justifies further evaluation in this cycle.

Ground Water to Surface Water Pathways

The potential for constituents in ground water to affect surface water 

quality and ecological health adversely depends on the proximity and 

available pathway by which ground water to surface water discharge would 

occur. In the Upper East Coast Basin, canals and streams receive base 

flow from ground water, particularly during periods of low rainfall, and 

ground water discharges to the lagoon as well as to the Atlantic Ocean (via 

offshore springs as well as seepage). Although seepage occurs at a slow rate, 

this type of discharge can account for very significant volumes of water 

over time. Primarily, ground water from the surficial aquifer interacts with 

surface water. Under certain circumstances, however, water from the Floridan aquifer could be discharged to surface waters. An undefined amount 

of seepage from the Floridan aquifer may be occurring via upwelling, in 

addition to spring discharge from the Floridan aquifer to offshore segments 

of the basin. One other possible pathway for discharge from the Floridan 

aquifer is via pumpage. The Floridan (with treatment or blended with 

water from other sources) is a source of water used for public supply, and 

possibly industrial use and agriculture, and water pumped from the deeper 

aquifer could be released to surface water.

Data Evaluation and Priorities for Further Assessment

Data insufficiency ranks as a high concern for the evaluation of ground 

water to surface water influences in the basin. Using the available data, 

however, the potential for ground water to adversely affect surface water 

Table 4.5 (continued)

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 111
quality was evaluated for nutrients, bacteria, and metals. The ground 

water–surface water relationship for saline waters was also evaluated. SRA 

threshold criteria have not yet been developed to evaluate the potential 

adverse effects of organics that may be introduced via ground water.

Nutrients. Nutrients from ground water are a potential ground water 

to surface water influence and may be an issue based on their distribution 

in the basin. In every planning unit, nutrient concentrations in ground 

water were higher than the screening thresholds. The nutrient having the 

greatest number of samples above SRA threshold levels is phosphorus, 

which is present at above-threshold concentrations in ground water in all 

planning units. Phosphorus levels (measured as dissolved phosphorus and 

orthophosphate) were higher than the ground water–surface water screening threshold of 0.25 milligrams per liter (mg/L) in more than 13 percent 

of the unconfined aquifer wells and up to 80 percent of the confined aquifer wells. Nitrate concentrations were less significant, but still of potential 

concern. More than 10 percent of samples from unconfined aquifer wells 

were elevated in nitrate. Nutrients and/or nutrient-related DO have caused 

the potential impairment of 25 waterbodies/segments in the basin. As 

Figure 4.4 and Table 4.5 indicate, elevated nutrients in ground water and 

evidence of potential surface water impairment coincide in all four planning units.

Eleven surface waterbodies are potentially impaired due to low DO, 

based on DO concentrations that do not meet surface water standards but 

currently have no assigned causative pollutant (e.g., nitrogen or phosphorus). Nutrient-impaired waterbodies may exhibit low DO concentrations, 

but low DO is not always an indicator of impaired conditions. In surface 

waterbodies with a significant ground water contribution, such as excavated 

canals, DO concentrations may be naturally lower than Florida’s standard 

of 5 mg/L. According to the basinwide ground water quality evaluation, 

the median DO concentrations in unconfined and confined aquifers were 

1.4 and 0.3 mg/L, respectively, and most samples were lower than the 

SRA screening threshold of 4 mg/L. In the absence of significant nutrient 

concentrations, low DO concentrations in surface waters receiving significant ground water contributions could be related to ground water. Cases 

where low DO in surface waters is naturally occurring due to ground water 

discharge should be identified and documented.

Bacteria. Total or fecal coliform bacteria did not exceed SRA thresholds in either unconfined or confined aquifers, and thus ground water does 

not currently pose a concern to surface water. As shown in Table 4.5, however, surface waterbodies were identified as potentially impaired by bacteria 

in every one of the planning units.

Metals. SRA thresholds for many metals were exceeded in samples 

from both unconfined and confined aquifers. These metals included 

aluminum, barium, beryllium, cadmium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, 

mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc. Metals samples used in the 

evaluation were from Background Network monitoring wells, which 

are supposed to represent ambient conditions. For that reason, the concentrations of these metals are considered to be potentially attributed to 

112 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
Figure 4.4: Ground Water–Surface Water Relational Assessment for 

Nutrients

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 113
the soil and aquifer matrix material through which ground water flows. 

However, elevated metals concentrations may also be associated with well 

construction, sampling/analytical biases, or ground water contaminant 

sources. The incidence of metals exceeding SRA threshold criteria is summarized by the planning units listed in Table 4.5 and shown in aggregate 

in Figure 4.5. Figure 4.5 also shows surface waterbodies potentially 

impaired by metals.

Several surface waterbodies in each planning unit of the basin are identified as potentially impaired for metals; some of these metals also occur 

at elevated concentrations in confined and/or unconfined aquifers. The 

metals that occur at elevated levels in both surface water and ground water 

include cadmium, copper, iron, lead, selenium, and zinc. Three planning 

units have surface waters that are potentially impaired for iron and there are 

also elevated concentrations of iron in ground water.

Other metals also occur at elevated levels in ground water but were 

not identified in the Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) evaluation as 

potential parameters of concern for surface water. Metals originating from 

ground water may be important to consider in the future, as more monitoring of surface waters occurs in the next watershed management cycle. 

Saline Water

Specific conductance was used as an indicator of saline water influence 

because it is used in the IWR assessment of surface waters. Specific conductance levels above the SRA threshold were identified in several confined 

and unconfined aquifer wells in the basin. No surface waters in the basin, 

however, were identified as potentially impaired due to elevated specific 

conductance. The summary of wells having elevated specific conductance 

levels is shown in Table 4.5.

Like TDS, elevated specific conductance in the confined aquifer wells 

most likely reflects the well-known high-salinity conditions in the Floridan 

aquifer. High conductance in the unconfined aquifer wells could reflect 

saltwater intrusion from the coast. High salinity in shallow ground water 

usually corresponds with higher-salinity surface waters. However, elevated 

conductance in the surficial aquifer near coastal or estuarine waters is often 

natural.

Addressing Potential Ground Water Issues

Beginning in Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle, the Department will address the higher priority potential issues identified in the GRI 

and SRA screening evaluations. The following describes the high- and 

medium-priority issues identified in these evaluations and proposed actions 

to better understand and verify conditions. These are organized by GRI 

and SRA, respectively.

114 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
Figure 4.5: Ground Water–Surface Water Relational Assessment for 

Metals 

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 115
Ground Water Resource Priorities and Proposed Actions

• Issue: TDS that exceed primary ground water standards

Actions: High TDS levels in the basin’s ground water have been 

documented and have long been a problem that limits the development of ground water resources. The Floridan aquifer is known to 

have high TDS throughout much of the basin due to natural conditions. Also, in certain near-coastal areas, saltwater intrusion into the 

surficial aquifer is occurring and is being exacerbated by overpumping. The management of these conditions to mitigate adverse effects 

and provide potable water to residents of the basin is under the 

purview of SJRWMD. Their plan for addressing these conditions is 

documented in their District Water Management Plan. 

• Issue: Metals that exceed primary ground water standards (lead in 

11 wells; mercury, cadmium, and chromium in 1 well each)

Actions: Review and verify the actual presence of elevated metals 

concentrations in ground water; follow up by resampling critical 

wells. Identify wells with elevated concentrations that may be in 

service for potable supply and work with DOH/Department WSRP 

to minimize health risks. 

• Issue: Organic contaminant plumes

Actions: Continue coordination with DOH/Department WSRP 

on developing future ground water monitoring priorities as potential issues are identified. By Phase 2, this evaluation will begin to 

incorporate information on potential areas of concern identified in 

the Department’s Source Water Assessment and Protection Program 

assessment of the Upper East Coast Basin. Examine areas in the 

basin where the potential exists for organic contaminant plumes 

to affect potable water supplies, including a review of smaller-scale 

assessments conducted for the Department’s Division of Waste 

Management.

• Issue: Bacteria in wells

Action: Identify bacteria-contaminated wells included in the 

Department monitoring networks that may be in service for residential or other potable supply. Work with DOH to minimize human 

health risks. Well contamination by bacteria is usually localized.

Ground Water–Surface Water Interaction Priorities and 

Proposed Actions

• Issue: Nutrients exceeding screening threshold limits in the surficial 

aquifer in planning units where potential nutrient-related surface 

waterbody impairments have been identified

Actions: Refine the nutrient evaluation to identify where ground 

water contributions to these waterbodies are likely to be significant. 

Prioritize ground water–surface water relational assessments based 

on surface waterbody priority status and evidence of ground water 

interaction. Establish ground water nutrient levels relative to surface 

116 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
water, characterize base flow, and evaluate the potential for nutrients 

in ground water to contribute to surface water impairment.

• Issue: Ground water influence on surface waterbodies listed as 

potentially impaired, based on low DO

 Actions: Carry out further evaluations to characterize the contribution of ground water to the Planning List waterbodies having low 

DO, and document ground water influence. If low DO occurs, the 

documentation of ground water influence on low DO would be used 

to determine what further actions would be taken to identify causative pollutants in surface waters with low DO.

• Issue: Metals exceeding screening threshold limits in the surficial 

aquifer in planning units where potential metals-related surface 

waterbody impairments have been identified

 Actions: Ground water conveyance of metals to surface water may 

result in naturally occurring elevated metals concentrations in surface 

water. Anthropogenic sources may also contribute to metals in 

surface waters. Verify metals concentrations in ground water in the 

basin, establish ambient metals concentrations, evaluate potential 

sources, and better define metals transport and attenuation by surface 

water.

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 117

The Planning List

The Planning List (Table 5.1) includes all waterbody identification 

numbers (WBIDs) in the Upper East Coast Basin that are identified as 

potentially impaired. The table also indicates the parameters of concern.

Figure 5.1 shows waterbody segments on the Planning List. In this 

figure, the entire watersheds for listed waterbody segments are highlighted. 

Often, however, only the main waterbody in the assessment unit has been 

assessed. Other waters in the assessment unit may not be impaired, or data 

may not be available.

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) methodology used to 

develop the Planning List follows the tenet of “independent applicability,” 

which means that a waterbody will be listed if any of its designated uses are 

potentially impaired. Waterbody segments on the Planning List must meet 

specific thresholds and data sufficiency and data quality requirements in the 

IWR (Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Code). Appendix A describes 

the legislative and regulatory background for the development of the Planning and Verified Lists. The methodology in Appendix B describes the 

criteria and thresholds required for both lists under the IWR.

Relationship Between the Planning List and 

the 303(d) List

The state’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters for the Upper East 

Coast Basin is updated in two stages. The Planning List represents the first 

stage of this process (see sidebar for a discussion of the significance of the 

Planning List).

Potentially impaired waters identified in this report will be further 

assessed in Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle to verify their 

impairment. In addition to evaluating more thoroughly the data used to 

place these waters on the Planning List (including the verification of quality 

assurance and data sufficiency), the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (Department), working with local stakeholders, will identify 

other existing data and collect additional data as needed to complete the 

assessment.

Once the additional monitoring is completed, the data will be assessed 

and the Department will develop a Verified List of impaired waters. 

Appendix B describes the criteria for data evaluation used to verify 

impaired waterbodies and produce the Verified List. The Verified List will 

Chapter 5: The Planning List of Potentially 

Impaired Waters

Significance of the 

Planning List

Under the Florida Watershed Restoration Act, 

Planning Lists of potentially 

impaired waters are submitted to the EPA for informational purposes only and are 

not used in administering or 

implementing any regulatory 

programs. The Planning List 

is important, as it is used 

to guide monitoring in the 

basin and is the precursor to 

the Verified List of impaired 

waters. As such, stakeholders are encouraged to review 

the Planning List carefully, 

including the data used by 

the Department to produce 

the list. If reviewers identify 

and have access to pertinent 

data that were not used, they 

should enter the data into 

STORET or submit the data to 

the Department so that it can 

be used in evaluating waterbodies to be included on the 

Verified List. 

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 119
Table 5.1: Planning List of Potentially Impaired Waters in the Upper East Coast Basin

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type

Waterbody 

Classification

1998 303(d) 

Parameters of 

Concern

Parameters of Concern 

Identified under the IWR

Tolomato River Planning Unit

2320 Guana River Estuary IIIM Coliforms Fecal Coliforms

2320 Guana River Estuary IIIM Coliforms Total Coliforms

2363I* Matanzas River Estuary II Coliforms Total Coliforms

2442 Marshall Creek Stream IIIM — DO

8123 Tolomato River Ocean 1 Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

8123A Vilano Beach Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

8124 Tolomato River Ocean 2 Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

8125 Tolomato River Ocean 3 Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

8125A Mickler’s Landing Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

8125B Solana Rd Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

Matanzas River Planning Unit

2363G Matanzas River Estuary II — Copper

2363G Matanzas River Estuary II — Iron

2363G Matanzas River Estuary II — Nickel

2363G Matanzas River Estuary II — Total Coliforms

2363G Matanzas River Estuary II — Zinc

2363H Matanzas River Estuary II Nutrients Chlorophyll a

(Nutrients)

2491 San Sebastian River Stream IIIF — DO

2493 Moultrie Creek Stream II — Copper

2493 Moultrie Creek Stream II — Fecal Coliforms

2493 Moultrie Creek Stream II — Iron

2493 Moultrie Creek Stream II — Nickel

2493 Moultrie Creek Stream II — Nutrients (Historical)

2499 Oyster Creek Stream IIIF — DO

2535 Moses Creek Stream IIIF — DO

8122 Matanzas River Ocean Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

8122A Crescent Beach Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

8122B St. Augustine Bch Ocean Trace Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

8122C St. Augustine Bch A Street Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

8122D Anastasia State Park Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

120 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
Pellicer Creek Planning Unit

2363D Palm Coast Estuary IIIM Cadmium Cadmium

2363D Palm Coast Estuary IIIM Lead Lead

2363D Palm Coast Estuary IIIM Selenium Selenium

2363D Palm Coast Estuary IIIM Silver Silver

2363D Palm Coast Estuary IIIM Thallium Thallium

2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM — Arsenic

2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM — Cadmium

2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM — Copper

2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM — Iron

2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM — Lead

2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM — Nickel

2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM — Selenium

2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM — Zinc

2553 Cracker Branch (Pellicer Creek) Stream IIIF — Biology

2553 Cracker Branch (Pellicer Creek) Stream IIIF DO DO

2553 Cracker Branch (Pellicer Creek) Stream IIIF Coliforms Fecal Coliforms

2553 Cracker Branch (Pellicer Creek) Stream IIIF Coliforms Total Coliforms

2553 Cracker Branch (Pellicer Creek) Stream IIIF Iron Iron

2580B Pellicer Creek Stream IIIF DO DO

2580B Pellicer Creek Stream IIIF Coliforms Fecal Coliforms

2580B Pellicer Creek Stream IIIF Coliforms Total Coliforms

2580B Pellicer Creek Stream IIIF Iron Iron

2580B Pellicer Creek Stream IIIF Lead Lead

2580B Pellicer Creek Stream IIIF — Selenium

2580B Pellicer Creek Stream IIIF — Silver

8120 Pellicer Creek Ocean 1 Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

8120A Picknickers/Beverly Beach Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

8120B Varn Park/Beverly Beach Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

8121 Pellicer Creek Ocean 2 Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

8121A Washington Oaks Beach Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

8121B Marineland Beach Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

8121C Matanzas Inlet Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

Table 5.1 (continued)

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type

Waterbody 

Classification

1998 303(d) 

Parameters of 

Concern

Parameters of Concern 

Identified under the IWR

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 121
Halifax River Planning Unit

2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM Copper Copper

2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM Iron Iron

2620 Bulow Creek Stream IIIM — DO

2620 Bulow Creek Stream IIIM — Selenium

2634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF — Copper

2634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF DO DO

2634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF Coliforms Fecal Coliforms

2634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF Iron Iron

2634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF Lead Lead

2634A Tomoka River Estuary IIIM — Copper

2634A Tomoka River Estuary IIIM — DO

2634A Tomoka River Estuary IIIM Iron Iron

2634A Tomoka River Estuary IIIM Lead Lead

2635 Grover Branch Stream IIIF — Biology

2647 Holly Hill Ditch Stream IIIF — Biology

2666 Unnamed Ditch (B-19 Canal) Stream IIIF DO DO

2666 Unnamed Ditch (B-19 Canal) Stream IIIF Nutrients Chlorophyll a

(Nutrients)

2670 Halifax Canal Stream IIIF — DO

2672 Rose Bay Estuary IIIM Coliforms Fecal Coliforms

2674 Spruce Creek Stream IIIF DO DO

2674 Spruce Creek Stream IIIF Coliforms Fecal Coliforms

2674 Spruce Creek Stream IIIF Iron Iron

2674A Spruce Creek Estuary IIIM DO DO

2674A Spruce Creek Estuary IIIM — Fecal Coliforms

2674A Spruce Creek Estuary IIIM Iron Iron

2678 Turnbull Bay Estuary IIIM — DO

2678 Turnbull Bay Estuary IIIM — Chlorophyll a

(Nutrients)

8117 Halifax River Ocean 1 Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

8117A Toronita Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

8117B Dunlawton Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

8117C Hilton Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

8117D Silver Beach Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

8117E Main Street Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

8117F Seabreeze Blvd Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

8118 Halifax River Ocean 2 Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

Table 5.1 (continued)

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type

Waterbody 

Classification

1998 303(d) 

Parameters of 

Concern

Parameters of Concern 

Identified under the IWR

122 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
be adopted by Secretarial Order by October 2006 and then submitted to 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as an update to Florida’s 

current 303(d) list. Subsequently, the Department will develop total maximum daily loads for 303(d)-listed waterbodies.

Summary of Potential Impairments

The Upper East Coast Basin contains a total of 126 waterbody segments. Of these, 43 are on the Planning List as potentially impaired 

based on the IWR evaluation criteria and/or the 1998 303(d) list criteria. 

Table 5.2 summarizes the major parameters for which potential impairments were identified.

Table 5.2 shows that fish consumption advisories for mercury are the 

primary cause of impairment in the basin, mostly in coastal areas. The 

table also shows that dissolved oxygen (DO) levels exceeding criteria are 

a major potential cause of impairment in individual waterbody segments. 

As previously mentioned, low DO levels are often natural and not always 

attributable to pollutants. For this reason, additional work will be conducted to differentiate between pollutant-related and other causes of low 

DO before the Verified List for the basin is developed.

Other parameters indicating the potential impairment of waterbody 

segments in the basin include coliform bacteria and iron. At the completion of Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle, the data for these 

parameters will be reevaluated to verify the condition of the waterbody 

segments being monitored. Chapter 6 provides more information about the 

Phase 2 monitoring activities.

8118A Granda Blvd Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

8118B Bicentennial Park Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

8119 Halifax River Ocean 3 Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

8119A Gamble Rogers State Park Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

8119B Flagler Pier at Flagler Beach Estuary IIIM — Mercury in Fish

Notes:

1

The designation “stream” includes canals, rivers, and sloughs. The designation “lake” includes some marshes.

Mercury in Fish = Fish consumption advisory issued by the Florida Department of Health based on mercury.

*The 1998 303(d) list included WBIDs 2363I, 2363H, and 2205C as a combined listing. WBIDs 2363I and 2363H have been 

evaluated separately under the IWR, and WBID 2205C was assessed as part of the Lower St. Johns River Group 2 list.

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type

Waterbody 

Classification

1998 303(d) 

Parameters of 

Concern

Parameters of Concern 

Identified under the IWR

Table 5.1 (continued)

Halifax River Planning Unit, continued

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 123
Figure 5.1: Upper East Coast Basin Planning List for All Causes of 

Potential Impairment, with Overlay of 1998 303(d) List

124 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
Waters with Insufficient Data to Determine 

Impairment

Any waters that do not have sufficient data to be analyzed in accordance with the requirements of the IWR, but that were included on the 

1998 303(d) list, will remain on the 303(d) list maintained by the EPA. 

They will also be included on the Planning List until sufficient data are 

available to evaluate their condition. The Department intends to collect 

data on these waters in Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle to 

verify their condition.

Many waterbodies in the Upper East Coast Basin are not identified on 

the 1998 303(d) list and do not have sufficient (or any) data to be assessed 

under the IWR methodology. Because of resource limitations, it may not 

be possible for the Department to monitor all of these waterbodies during 

the first five-year watershed management cycle. The priority during 

Phase 2 of the cycle is to conduct monitoring and other data gathering to 

address potentially impaired waters identified on the Planning List.

While the Department plans to monitor waters without enough data 

to determine potential impairment during subsequent watershed cycles, 

available data gathered by others will also be used for this purpose. It is 

important that the Department and stakeholders in the basin coordinate 

their monitoring plans to collect data most efficiently for these waterbodies. 

Chapter 6 discusses monitoring and data evaluation priorities and objectives, database management issues, and the development of the Verified List.

Table 5.2: Parameters Causing Potential Impairments in the Upper East Coast Basin

Parameter

Potential Waterbody Segment Impairments

Included Only 

on the 1998 

303(d) List

Identified Only 

by the IWR 

Evaluation

Identified on 

Both the 1998 

303(d) List and 

by the IWR 

Evaluation

Total Potential 

Impairments

Fish Consumption Advisory–Mercury in Fish 0 31 31 31

Dissolved Oxygen 2 8 4 14

Coliforms (General, Total, Fecal) 4 3 6 13

Iron 2 3 5 10

Copper 0 5 1 6

Lead 2 1 2 5

Nutrients (General, Historical, Chlorophyll a, Other Data) 2 2 0 4

Selenium 1 3 0 4

Biology 0 3 0 3

Nickel 0 3 0 3

Cadmium 1 1 0 2

Silver 1 1 0 2

Zinc 0 2 0 2

Arsenic 0 1 0 1

Thallium 1 0 0 1

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 125

Strategic Monitoring and Data Acquisition 

Priorities

Waters on the Planning List must meet specific thresholds and data 

sufficiency and data quality requirements in the Impaired Surface Waters 

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

Planning List includes waterbody segments that were previously on the 

1998 303(d) list, but for which the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (Department) had insufficient data for assessment under the 

IWR. Additional data that are collected will be used to verify the status of 

waters listed as potentially impaired, assess those with insufficient data, and 

support modeling efforts to develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) 

for impaired waterbodies.

Due to resource limitations, the Department alone is not capable of 

addressing all of the strategic monitoring objectives within the first fiveyear cycle for the six Group 5 basins. The Department’s monitoring focus 

during the months prior to submitting the Verified List of impaired waters 

to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by October 2006 is to 

obtain data necessary to verify the status of potentially impaired waters.

Priority for data acquisition has been given to Planning List waterbody 

segments that are also on the 1998 303(d) list and the potentially impaired 

waterbodies that did not have sufficient data to verify their condition at the 

time the Planning List was generated. Data from other monitoring organizations will be included in the evaluation to help verify the condition of 

potentially impaired waterbodies and provide data by which other waterbodies can be evaluated.

Data Acquisition Objectives

Currently, 76 waterbody segments on the Planning List in the Upper 

East Coast Basin are targeted for additional monitoring. As discussed 

earlier, the Department’s focus prior to producing the Verified List is to 

collect and assemble sufficient data to evaluate waterbodies that are potentially impaired for parameters that do not have sufficient data to meet the 

Verified List evaluation criteria (Section 62-303.400, F.A.C.). The priority 

is to collect data for waterbodies on the 1998 303(d) list. An additional 

monitoring priority is to develop data that may be needed to identify pollutants causing dissolved oxygen exceedances or biological impairments. 

As mentioned in Chapter 3, these conditions are at times not attributable 

to pollutants, though most often they are attributed to nutrients and/or 

biological oxygen demand.

Chapter 6: Strategic Monitoring and Data 

Evaluation 

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 127
Phase 2 Assessment: Data Collection and 

Database Management Leading to the 

Development of the 303(d) List of Impaired 

Waters

The Department has been working to update the database that will be 

used in the Phase 2 assessment, collecting its own data as well as working 

with the other key data providers to obtain the most current and comprehensive water quality data. The data to be used in evaluating waterbodies 

to be included on the Verified List include the following:

• Existing data in the database that were not collected during the 

Planning List period of record,

• Existing data that had not been imported into the IWR Database at 

the time of the Planning List evaluation, and 

• Monitoring data that had not been collected or reported.

The database now includes monitoring data collected before and after 

the Planning List period of record that were not evaluated for the Planning 

List. The 10-year period of record for the data used to produce the Planning List for the Upper East Coast Basin extends from January 1, 1994, 

to December 31, 2003. The 7.5-year period of record for the Verified List 

evaluation, from January 1, 1999, to June 30, 2006, will capture more 

recent data.

The IWR Database contains data that were uploaded since the Planning List evaluation was conducted. Over the past year, the Department 

has provided support to organizations that are interested in uploading their 

water quality data to the national STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) 

Database. Data uploaded since the Planning List evaluation will be 

included in the database. Additional data from other providers may also be 

included in the next download from STORET.

Based on preliminary data reviewed for the production of this Status 

Report, the Department developed a plan to address potential data gaps. 

The Water Quality Section of the Department’s Northeast and Central 

Districts began a strategic monitoring program in 2005 to address TMDL 

Program data needs. The focus of this program is to collect additional data 

to verify conditions in many of the potentially impaired waterbody segments. Appendix G identifies the monitoring priorities in the Upper East 

Coast Basin for both the northeast and central Department district offices.

Verified List Development and Public 

Comment

The Verified List of impaired waters for the Upper East Coast Basin 

will be produced by the Department in summer 2006, and will be adopted 

by the Secretary of the Department and submitted to the EPA later in the 

year. The tentative submittal date to the EPA for the adopted Verified List 

is December 31, 2006.

128 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
Prior to the Secretary’s action, the Department will distribute the draft 

Verified List to the public. As part of the review process, public workshops 

will be advertised and held in each basin to help explain the process for 

developing the Verified List, exchange information, and encourage public 

involvement.

If additional information or data is provided during the public comment period or before, the Department will consider it before submitting 

the proposed list to the Secretary and EPA.

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 129
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 Investigations No. 32. U.S. Geological Survey and Florida 

Geological Survey. 

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 Newsjournal Online. November 11, 2004. Water district to 

help fund stormwater projects.

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. Identification of Impaired Waters Rule.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. February 1, 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.

Florida Water Resources Journal. December, 2004. Volume 56, 

Number 12.

Florida Watershed Restoration Act. 1999. Chapter 99-223, Laws of 

Florida.

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.

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. Florida 

Geological Survey, Special Publication No. 34.

Miller, J. D. 2003. Status and Trends of Water Quality in the Northern 

Coastal Basin (Draft). Technical Memorandum. St. Johns River 

Water Management District.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2003. 2003–2008 

National Estuarine Research Reserve System Strategic Plan.

Scott, Thomas M., J. M. Lloyd, and G. Maddox. 1991. Florida’s Ground 

Water Quality Monitoring Program, Hydrogeological Framework. 

Special Publication No. 32. Florida Geological Survey. 

130 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast
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. 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 Identified 

in the Conference Report on HB 1835. 

—. 2004a. The Guana Marsh Renovation Project Fact Sheet. SJRWMD 

Web site. Available: http://www.sjrwmd.com.

—. 2004b. Rose Bay Fact Sheet. SJRWMD Web site. Available: 

http://www.sjrwmd.com. 

—. 2003. Northern Coastal Basin Surface Water Improvement and 

Management Plan.

—. May, 2000. District Water Management Plan.

U.S. Census Bureau Web site. Accessed December 21, 2004. Available: 

http://www.census.gov. 

Water district to help fund stormwater projects. (November 11, 2004). 

Retrieved from Daytona Beach News-Journal Online).

Wayland, R. H., III. November 19, 2001. 2002 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Guidance. Memorandum to 

EPA Regional Water Management Directors; EPA Regional Science 

and Technology Directors; and State, Territory, and Authorized Tribe 

Water Quality Program Directors. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 131

Water Quality Status Report 2005

Upper East Coast Appendices 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Appendix A: Legislative and Regulatory Background on the Watershed 

Management Approach and the Implementation of Total Maximum 

Daily Loads................................................................................................................ 134

Federal and State Legislation on Surface Water Quality and Total Maximum Daily Loads....... 134

Determining Impairment Based on the State’s Impaired Surface Waters Rule............................ 136

Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads................................................................................... 137

Table A.1: Basin Groups for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle, by 

Department District Office ..................................................................................... 140

Table A.2: Basin Rotation Schedule for TMDL Development and Implementation ............. 140

Figure A.1: Five-Year Rotating Basin Cycle in the Department’s Six Districts................... 141

Table A.3: Potentially Affected Stakeholders and Actions To Achieve TMDLs.................... 142

Appendix B: Methodology for Determining Impairment Based on the 

Impaired Surface Waters Rule................................................................................. 145

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule.................................................................................................. 145

Attainment of Designated Use(s)..................................................................................................... 145

Table B.1: Designated Use Attainment Categories for Surface Waters in Florida.............. 146

Sources of Data ................................................................................................................................. 146

Table B.2: Data Used in Developing the Planning and Verified Lists, First Basin 

Rotation Cycle ......................................................................................................... 147

Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 147

Appendix C: Permitted Discharge Facilities, Superfund Sites, and Landfills 

in the Upper East Coast Basin, by Planning Unit.................................................... 153

Table C.1: Permitted Facilities with Discharges to Surface Water and Ground Water, 

by Planning Unit ..................................................................................................... 153

Table C.2: Superfund Sites, by Planning Unit......................................................................... 158

Table C.3: Permitted Landfill Facilities, by Planning Unit ................................................... 159

Appendix D: Water Quality Monitoring Stations, by Planning Unit..................... 162

Appendix E: Level 1 Land Use for the Upper East Coast Basin, by 

Planning Unit ............................................................................................................ 174

Appendix F: Statistical Summary Sheets for Ground Water Evaluations ........... 176

Appendix G: Monitoring Priorities in the Upper East Coast Basin....................... 188
134 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

Appendix A: Legislative and Regulatory Background on the

Watershed Management Approach and the Implementation of 

Total Maximum Daily Loads

Federal and State Legislation on Surface Water Quality and Total Maximum 

Daily Loads

Clean Water Act

Congress enacted the Clean Water Act in 1972 with the goal of restoring and 

maintaining the “chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters” (33 

U.S.C. § 1251[a]). The ultimate goal of the act is to eliminate the “discharge of [all]

pollutants into navigable waters” (33 U.S.C. § 1251[a][1]).

Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires states to report biennially to the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on their water quality. The 305(b) report

provides information on the physical, chemical, biological, and cultural features of each 

river basin in Florida. This initial assessment provides a common factual basis for

identifying information sources and major issues, and for determining the future changes,

strategies, and actions needed to preserve, protect, and/or restore water quality.

Understanding the physical framework of each basin allows the development of a

science-based methodology for assessing water quality and an accurate picture of the

waters that are most impaired or vulnerable to contamination.

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to submit to the EPA lists of

surface waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards and establish total

maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for each of these waters on a schedule. A pollution limit

is then allocated to each pollutant source in an individual river basin.

A TMDL represents the maximum amount of a given pollutant that a waterbody can

assimilate and meet all of its designated uses (see Noteworthy on Florida’s surface water

quality classifications for a listing of these classifications). A waterbody that does not

meet its designated use is defined as impaired.

NOTEWORTHY: FLORIDA’S SURFACE WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS

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

management, designates the “present and future most beneficial uses” of the waters of the state

(Subsection 403.061[10], F.S.). Water quality criteria, expressed as numeric or narrative limits for

specific parameters, describe the water quality necessary to maintain these uses for surface

water and ground water. Florida’s surface water is protected for five designated use

classifications, as follows:

Class I Potable water supplies

Class II Shellfish propagation or harvesting

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

population of fish and wildlife

Class IV Agricultural water supplies

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

this class)
Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 135

 

Florida Watershed Restoration Act 

In 1998, the EPA settled a lawsuit with the environmental group Earthjustice over 

Florida’s TMDL Program. The Consent Decree resulting from the lawsuit requires all 

TMDLs on the state’s 1998 Section 303(d) list of impaired waters to be developed in 

thirteen years. If the state fails to develop the TMDLs, the EPA is required to do so. 

In response to concerns about the TMDL lawsuit and in recognition of the important 

role that TMDLs play in restoring state waters, the 1999 Florida legislature enacted the 

Florida Watershed Restoration Act (Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida). The act clarified 

the Department’s statutory authority to establish TMDLs, required the Department to 

develop a methodology for identifying impaired waters, specified that the Department 

could develop TMDLs only for waters on a future state list of impaired waters developed 

using this new methodology, and directed the Department to establish an Allocation 

Technical Advisory Committee to address the allocation process for TMDLs. The act 

also declared Lake Okeechobee impaired and, as required under the TMDL Consent 

Decree, allowed the state to develop a TMDL for the lake (see Noteworthy for a 

description of the legislation’s major provisions). 

NOTEWORTHY: THE FLORIDA WATERSHED RESTORATION ACT 

The Florida Watershed Restoration Act contains the following major provisions: 

• Establishes that the 303(d) list submitted to the EPA in 1998 is for planning purposes only. 

• Requires the Department to adopt 303(d) listing criteria (that is, the methodology used to 

define impaired waters) by rule. 

• Requires the Department to verify impairment and then establish a Verified List for each 

basin. The Department must also evaluate whether proposed pollution control programs are 

sufficient to meet water quality standards, list the specific pollutant(s) and concentration(s) 

causing impairment, and adopt the basin-specific 303(d) list by Secretarial Order. 

• Requires the Department’s Secretary to adopt TMDL allocations by rule. The legislation 

requires the Department to establish “reasonable and equitable” allocations of TMDLs, but 

does not mandate how allocations will be made among individual sources. 

• Requires that TMDL allocations consider existing treatment levels and management 

practices; the differing impacts that pollutant sources may have; the availability of treatment 

technologies, best management practices (BMPs), or other pollutant reduction measures; the 

feasibility, costs, and benefits of achieving the allocation; reasonable time frames for 

implementation; the potential applicability of moderating provisions; and the extent that 

nonattainment is caused by pollutants from outside Florida, discharges that have ceased, or 

alteration to a waterbody. 

• Required a report to the legislature by February 2001 addressing the allocation process. 

• Authorizes the Department to develop basin plans to implement TMDLs, coordinating with the 

water management districts, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

(DACS), the Soil and Water Conservation Districts, regulated parties, and environmental 

groups in assessing waterbodies for impairment, collecting data for TMDLs, developing 

TMDLs, and conducting at least one public meeting in the watershed. Implementation is 

voluntary if not covered by regulatory programs. 
136 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

• Authorizes the Department and DACS to develop interim measures and BMPs to address 

nonpoint sources. While BMPs would be adopted by rule, they will be voluntary if not 

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

effectiveness, then implementation will provide a presumption of compliance with water 

quality standards. 

• Directs the Department to document the effectiveness of the combined regulatory/voluntary 

approach and report to the legislature by January 1, 2005. The report will include 

participation rates and recommendations for statutory changes. 

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

Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act and the Florida Watershed Restoration 

Act describe impaired waters as those waterbodies or waterbody segments that do not 

meet applicable water quality standards. “Impairment” is a broad term that includes 

designated uses, water quality criteria, the Florida antidegradation policy, and moderating 

provisions (see Noteworthy for explanations of these terms). 

The state’s Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule (Rule 62-303, Florida 

Administrative Code [F.A.C.]) was developed in cooperation with a Technical Advisory 

Committee and adopted by the Florida Environmental Regulation Commission on April 

26, 2001. It provides a science-based methodology for evaluating water quality data in 

order to identify impaired waters, and it establishes specific criteria for impairment based 

on chemical parameters, the interpretation of narrative nutrient criteria, biological 

impairment, fish consumption advisories, and ecological impairment. The complete text 

of the rule is available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/docs/AmendedIWR.pdf. 

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule also establishes thresholds for data sufficiency 

and data quality, including the minimum sample size required and the number of 

exceedances of the applicable water quality standard for a given sample size that identify 

a waterbody as impaired. The number of exceedances is based on a statistical approach 

designed to provide greater confidence that the outcome of the water quality assessment 

is correct. Waters that are identified as impaired through the Impaired Surface 

Waters Rule are prioritized for TMDL development and implementation. 

NOTEWORTHY: EXPLANATION OF TERMS 

• Designated uses, discussed in an earlier sidebar, comprise the five classifications applied to 

each of the state’s surface waterbodies.

• Water quality criteria comprise numeric or narrative limits of pollutants. 

• The Florida Antidegradation Policy (Sections 62-302.300 and 62-4.242, F.A.C.) recognizes 

that pollution that causes or contributes to new violations of water quality standards or to the 

continuation of existing violations is harmful to the waters of the state. Under this policy, the 

permitting of new or previously unpermitted existing discharges is prohibited where the 

discharge is expected to reduce the quality of a receiving water below the classification

established for it. Any lowering of water quality caused by a new or expanded discharge to 

surface waters must be in the public interest (that is, the benefits of the discharge to public 

health, safety, and welfare must outweigh any adverse impacts on fish and wildlife or 

recreation). Further, the permittee must demonstrate that other disposal alternatives (for 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 137

 

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, Florida Statutes [F.S.]) include mixing zones, zones of 

discharge, site-specific alternative criteria, exemptions, and variances. These provisions are 

intended to moderate the applicability of water quality standards where it has been 

determined that, under certain special circumstances, the social, economic, and 

environmental costs of such applicability outweigh the benefits. 

Determining impairment in individual waterbodies takes place in two phases. First, 

in each river basin the Department evaluates the existing water quality data, using the 

methodology prescribed in the Impaired Surface Waters Rule, to determine whether 

waters are potentially impaired. Waters found to be potentially impaired are included on 

a Planning List for further assessment under Subsections 403.067(2) and (3), F.S. As 

required by Subsection 403.067(2), F.S., the Planning List is not used to administer or 

implement any regulatory program. It is submitted to the EPA for informational purposes 

only. 

The second step is to assess waters on the Planning List under Subsection 

403.067(3), F.S., as part of the Department’s watershed management approach (described 

in the following section). The Department carries out additional data gathering and 

strategic monitoring, focusing on these potentially impaired waters, and determines—

using the methodology in Part III, Section 62-303.400, F.A.C.—if a waterbody is, in fact, 

impaired and if the impairment is caused by pollutant discharges. 

An Assessment Report is produced containing the results of this updated evaluation 

and a Verified List of impaired waters. The criteria for the Verified List are more 

stringent than those for the Planning List. The Department is required to develop 

TMDLs for waters on the Verified List under Subsection 403.067(4), F.S. A watershed 

management plan (called a Basin Management Action Plan) to reduce the amount of 

pollutants that cause impairments must also be produced and implemented. 

The Verified List is adopted by Secretarial Order in accordance with the Florida 

Watershed Restoration Act. Once adopted, the list is submitted to the EPA for approval 

as the state’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters for the basin. 

Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads 

The Watershed Management Approach 

The Department's statewide approach to water resource management, called the 

watershed management approach, is the framework for implementing TMDLs as required 

by the federal and state governments. The approach does not focus on individual causes 

of pollution. Instead, each basin is assessed as an entire functioning system, and aquatic 

resources are evaluated from a basinwide perspective that considers the cumulative 

effects of human activities. Water resources are managed on the basis of natural 

boundaries, such as river basins, rather than political or regulatory boundaries. Federal, 

state, regional, tribal, and local governments identify watersheds not meeting clean water 
138 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

or other natural resource goals and work cooperatively to focus resources and implement 

effective strategies to restore water quality. Extensive public participation in the 

decision-making process is crucial. 

The watershed management approach is not new, nor does it compete with or replace 

existing programs. Rather than relying on single solutions to water resource issues, it is 

intended to improve the health of surface water and ground water resources by 

strengthening coordination among such activities as monitoring, stormwater 

management, wastewater treatment, wetland restoration, land acquisition, and public 

involvement. 

By promoting the management of entire natural systems and addressing the 

cumulative effects of human activities on a watershed basis, this approach is intended to 

protect and enhance the ecological structure, function, and integrity of Florida’s 

watersheds. It provides a framework for setting priorities and focusing the Department’s 

resources on protecting and restoring water quality, and aims to increase cooperation 

among state, regional, local, and federal interests. By emphasizing public involvement, 

the approach encourages stewardship by all Floridians to preserve water resources for 

future generations. 

The watershed approach is intended to speed up projects by focusing funding and 

other resources on priority water quality problems, strengthening public support, 

establishing agreements, and funding multiagency projects. It avoids duplication by 

building on existing assessments and restoration activities and promotes cooperative 

monitoring programs. It encourages accountability for achieving water quality 

improvements through improved monitoring and the establishment of TMDLs. 

The Watershed Management Cycle 

As part of the Department’s watershed management approach, TMDLs will be 

developed, and the corresponding pollutant loadings allocated, as part of a watershed 

management cycle that rotates through the state’s fifty-two river basins over a nine-year 

period. The cycle’s five phases are as follows: 

• Phase 1: Preliminary Watershed Evaluation. For each river basin, a Basin Status 

Report is developed, containing a Planning List of potentially impaired waters that 

may require the establishment of TMDLs. The report characterizes each basin’s 

hydrologic, ecological, and socioeconomic setting as well as historical, current, and 

proposed watershed management issues and activities. It also contains a preliminary 

evaluation of major water quality parameters, water quality issues by planning unit, 

ecological resources, and basinwide pollutant loading trends related to land uses. At 

the end of Phase 1, a Strategic Monitoring Plan is developed. 

• Phase 2: Strategic Monitoring and Assessment. Additional data are collected 

through strategic monitoring and uploaded to STORET. The data are used to verify 

whether potentially impaired waters in each basin are impaired and to calibrate and 

verify models for TMDL development. At the end of Phase 2, an Assessment 

Report is produced for each basin that contains a Verified List of impaired waters. 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 139

 

The report also provides an updated and more thorough evaluation of water quality, 

associated biological resources, and current management plans. The Department 

will adopt the Verified List through a Secretarial Order and submit it to the EPA as 

the state’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. 

• Phase 3: Development and Adoption of TMDLs. TMDLs for priority impaired 

waters in the basin will be developed and adopted by rule. Because TMDLs cannot 

be developed for all listed waters during a single watershed management cycle due to 

fiscal and technical limitations, waterbodies will be prioritized using the criteria in 

the Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule (Rule 62-303, F.A.C.). 

• Phase 4: Development of a Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP). A BMAP 

will be developed for each basin to specify how pollutant loadings from point and 

nonpoint sources will be allocated and reduced in order to meet TMDL requirements. 

The plans will include regulatory and nonregulatory (i.e., voluntary) and structural 

and nonstructural strategies, and existing management plans will be used where 

feasible. The involvement and support of affected stakeholders in this phase will be 

especially critical. 

• Phase 5: Implementation of a Basin Management Action Plan. Implementation of 

the activities specified in the BMAP will begin. This includes carrying out rule 

development as needed, securing funding, informing stakeholders and the public, and 

monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the plan. 

To implement the watershed cycle, the state’s river basins have been divided into 

five groups within each of the Department’s six districts statewide, and each district will 

assess one basin each year. Table A.1 shows the basin groups for implementing the 

cycle in the Department’s districts, and Figure A.1 shows these groups and the rotating 

cycle in the districts. Table A.2, which lists the basin rotation schedule for TMDL 

development and implementation, shows that it will take nine years to complete one full 

cycle of the state. 

The watershed management cycle is an iterative, or repeated, process. One of its key 

components is that the effectiveness of management activities (TMDL implementation) 

will be monitored in successive cycles. Monitoring conducted in Phase 2 of subsequent 

cycles will be targeted at evaluating whether water quality objectives are being met and 

whether individual waters are no longer impaired. The Department also will track the 

implementation of scheduled restoration activities, whether required or voluntary, to 

ensure continued progress towards meeting the TMDLs. 
140 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

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 and 

St. Andrews 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 and 

Peace–Myakka 

Rivers 

Withlacoochee 

River Springs Coast 

South Everglades West 

Coast Charlotte Harbor Caloosahatchee River Fisheating Creek Florida Keys 

Southeast Lake Okeechobee 

St.Lucie–

Loxahatchee 

Rivers 

Lake Worth 

Lagoon/Palm 

Beach Coast 

Southeast Urban 

Coast Everglades 

Table A.2: Basin Rotation Schedule for TMDL Development and Implementation

Year 00 01 01 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 05 06 06 07 07 08 08 09 09 10 

Group 1 PHASE 

1 

PHASE 

2 

PHASE 

3 

PHASE 

4 

PHASE 

5 

PHASE 

1 

PHASE 

2 

PHASE 

3 

PHASE 

4 

PHASE 

5 

Group 2 PHASE 

1 

PHASE 

2 

PHASE 

3 

PHASE 

4 

PHASE 

5 

PHASE 

1 

PHASE 

2 

PHASE 

3 

PHASE 

4 

Group 3 PHASE 

1 

PHASE 

2 

PHASE 

3 

PHASE 

4 

PHASE 

5 

PHASE 

1 

PHASE 

2 

PHASE 

3 

Group 4 PHASE 

1 

PHASE 

2 

PHASE 

3 

PHASE 

4 

PHASE 

5 

PHASE 

1 

PHASE 

2 

Group 5 PHASE 

1 

PHASE 

2 

PHASE 

3 

PHASE 

4 

PHASE 

5 

PHASE 

1 

 1st Five-Year Cycle – High-Priority Waters 2nd Five-Year Cycle – Medium-Priority Waters 

Note: Projected years for Phases 3, 4, and 5 may change due to accelerated local activities, length of plan 

development, legal challenges, etc. 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper Eas

Figure A.1: Five-Year Rotating Basin Cycle in the Department’s Six Districts 
142 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

Pollutants can enter a waterbody through point source discharges (generally from a 

specific facility) or nonpoint discharges (e.g., stormwater runoff, septic tanks). 

Government agencies, businesses, organizations, and individuals who contribute to these 

discharges will be asked to share the responsibility of attaining TMDLs through load 

allocations (the amount of a specified pollutant allotted for discharge) that are based on 

an established TMDL. Table A.3 summarizes these potentially affected stakeholders and 

the actions they may be asked to take to help achieve a TMDL. 

Table A.3: Potentially Affected Stakeholders and Actions To Achieve TMDLs 

Potentially Affected Stakeholders Actions To Achieve TMDL 

Municipal stormwater/wastewater programs Reduce and treat urban stormwater runoff through 

stormwater retrofits, replacement of septic tanks 

Commercial developers, homebuilders, individual 

homeowners 

Improve development design and construction, 

enhance best management practices, 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 best management 

practices 

Federal, regional, state agencies; regional and 

local water quality coalitions Carry out waterbody restoration projects 

Permitting and Other Approaches 

NPDES PERMITS

All point sources that discharge to surface waterbodies require a NPDES permit. 

These permits can be classified into two types: domestic or industrial wastewater 

discharge permits, and stormwater permits. NPDES-permitted point sources may be 

affected by the development and implementation of a TMDL. All NPDES permits 

include “reopener clauses” that allow the Department to incorporate new discharge limits 

when a TMDL is established. These new limitations may be incorporated into a permit 

when a TMDL is implemented or at the next permit renewal, depending on the timing of 

the permit renewal and workload. For NPDES municipal stormwater permits, the 

Department intends to insert the following statement once a BMAP is completed: 

“The permittee shall undertake those activities specified in the (Name of Waterbody) 

Basin Management Action Plan in accordance with the approved schedule set forth in the 

BMAP.” 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 143

 

DOMESTIC AND INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER PERMITS

In addition to NPDES-permitted facilities, all of which discharge to surface waters, 

Florida also regulates domestic and industrial wastewater discharges to ground water via 

land application. Since ground water and surface water are so intimately linked in much 

of the state, reductions in loadings from these facilities may be needed to meet TMDL 

limitations for pollutants in surface waters. If such reductions are identified in the 

BMAP, they would be implemented through modifications of the existing state permits. 

FLORIDA STORMWATER/ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMITS

With the implementation of the state’s stormwater treatment rule in 1982, Florida 

became the first state to require the treatment of stormwater from all new development. 

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

new development projects receive an Environmental Resource Permit that combines 

stormwater flood protection, stormwater treatment, and wetland protection/mitigation 

into a single permit. These permits are designed to obtain 80 percent average annual load 

reduction of total suspended solids. This level of treatment may need to be increased, 

depending on the allocation of load reductions, especially for nutrients. For example, the 

St. Johns River Water Management District recently adopted basin-specific criteria for 

the Lake Apopka Basin that require the phosphorus loading from new development not to 

exceed predevelopment phosphorus loading. 

LOCAL LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES 

Since structural stormwater treatment practices can only achieve certain levels of 

load reductions, and because the hydrologic changes accompanying urban development 

often cause ecological impacts to aquatic systems, local land development codes that 

promote “low-impact development” are an important component of restoring impaired 

waters. Local codes may need to be reviewed to determine how to promote 

developments that minimize impervious surfaces (such as reduced street widths or the use 

of pervious pavements), promote the protection of vegetation, promote the protection and 

restoration of riparian buffers along streams and lakes, and adopt the principles of the 

Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program in local landscaping codes. 

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Typically, best management practices (BMPs) refer to a practice or combination of 

practices that, based on sound science and best professional judgment, are determined to 

be the most effective and practicable means of reducing nonpoint source pollutant 

discharges and improving water quality. Both economic and technological 

considerations are included in the evaluation of what is practicable. BMPs may include 

structural controls (such as retention areas or detention ponds) or nonstructural controls 

(such as street sweeping or public education). Many BMPs have been developed for 

urban stormwater to reduce pollutant loadings and peak flows. These BMPs 

accommodate site-specific conditions, including soil type, slope, depth to groundwater, 

and the designation of receiving waters. 
144 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

The passage of the Florida Watershed Restoration Act increased the emphasis on 

implementing BMPs to reduce nonpoint source pollutant discharges from agricultural 

operations. Recognizing that the development and adoption of BMPs might take several 

years, the legislature authorized the use of Interim Measures (IMs) during the BMP 

development process for agricultural operations. In essence, IMs are a set of logical 

conservation practices designed to reduce agricultural nonpoint pollutant discharges 

based on current knowledge and best professional judgment. These practices will evolve 

into more formal BMPs as better scientific data on their effectiveness is obtained. 

Once the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services adopts BMPs, 

the Department is charged with verifying their effectiveness in reducing agricultural 

nonpoint sources. Once verified, agricultural operations that have implemented BMPs 

will receive a waiver of liability and presumption of compliance similar to that granted a 

developer who obtains an Environmental Resource Permit. 

OTHER STRATEGIES

The success of implementing nonpoint source TMDL load allocations will require 

variety, creativity, stakeholder commitment to watershed management, and personal 

stewardship. In addition to BMPs, other possible strategies for meeting TMDLs, 

restoring water quality, and preventing the further degradation of Florida’s watersheds 

include cost sharing, waste minimization, pollution prevention, new approaches to land 

use design and development, and pollutant trading. The Department will assemble a 

Technical Advisory Committee to help develop a pollutant trading rule, which must be 

reviewed by the legislature prior to its adoption. The Department will also continue to 

work with local stakeholders on TMDL allocation issues and implementation plans. 

Sources of Information 

For additional information on the Department’s Watershed Management Program 

and TMDLs, please contact the following basin coordinators: 

• Southwest Florida and Lake Okeechobee, Pat Fricano (850) 245-8559 

• Southeast Florida and Ochlockonee–St. Marks Basins, Kevin O’Donnell 

(850) 245-7607 

• Northwest and Central Florida, Mary Paulic (850) 245-8560 

• Northeast Florida and Suwannee Basin, John Abendroth (850) 245-8557 

• West Central Florida and Tampa Bay Region, Tom Singleton (850) 245-8561 

For information on establishing and implementing TMDLs, contact Jan MandrupPoulsen at (850) 245-8448. Additional information is available on the Department’s Web 

site at www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/index.htm. 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 145

 

Appendix B: Methodology for Determining Impairment Based 

on the Impaired Surface Waters Rule 

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule 

To identify impaired waters in each of the state’s river basins, the Department 

evaluates water quality data using the science-based methodology in the Identification of 

Impaired Surface Waters Rule (Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]). The 

rule establishes specific criteria and thresholds for impairment, in addition to data 

sufficiency and data quality requirements. The methodology described in the rule is 

based on a statistical approach designed to provide greater confidence that the outcome of 

the water quality assessment is correct. The complete text of the Impaired Surface 

Waters Rule is available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/docs/AmendedIWR.pdf. 

As part of the watershed management approach, for each river basin in the state the 

Department will follow the methodology in Section 62-303.300, F.A.C., to develop a 

Planning List of potentially impaired waters to be assessed under Subsections 403.067(2) 

and (3), Florida Statutes (F.S.). The methodology for developing the Planning List 

includes an evaluation of aquatic life use support, primary contact and recreational use 

support, fish and shellfish consumption use support, drinking water use support, and 

protection of human health. Data older than 10 years cannot be used to evaluate water 

quality criteria exceedances for the Planning List. As required by Subsection 403.067(2), 

F.S., the Planning List will not be used to administer or implement any regulatory 

program, and is submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for 

informational purposes only. 

After further assessment, using the methodology in Part III, Section 62-303.400, 

F.A.C., the Department will determine if waters on the Planning List are, in fact, 

impaired and if the impairment is caused by pollutant discharges. These waters are 

placed on a Verified List. The criteria for the Verified List are more stringent than those 

for the Planning List. Data older than 7.5 years should not be used to verify impairment. 

The Verified List will be adopted by Secretarial Order and forwarded to the EPA for 

approval as Florida’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. The Department will 

develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for these waters under Subsection 

403.067(4), F.S. 

Attainment of Designated Use(s) 

While the designated uses of a given waterbody are established using the surface 

water quality classification system described previously, it is important to note that the 

EPA uses slightly different terminology in its description of designated uses. Because the 

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

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

when assessing waters for use attainment. The water quality evaluations and decision 

processes for listing impaired waters that are defined in Florida’s Impaired Surface 

Waters Rule are based on the following designated use attainment categories: 
146 Water Quality Status 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 B.1 summarizes the designated uses assigned to Florida’s various surface 

water classifications. 

Table B.1: 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 

Sources of Data 

The Department’s assessment of water quality for each basin statewide includes an 

analysis of quantitative data from a variety of sources, many of which are readily 

available to the public. These sources include the EPA’s Legacy and modernized 

STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) databases, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the 

Department, the Florida Department of Health (DOH), 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 Impaired Surface Waters Rule 

assessment. The Legacy STORET Database is a repository of data collected and 

uploaded by numerous organizations through 1999. The Legacy STORET Database can 

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

In 2000, the EPA created a modernized version of STORET that included new 

features designed to address data quality assurance/quality control concerns (see the new 

STORET Web site at http://www.epa.gov/storet/). However, because of software 

difficulties associated with batch uploading of data to the modernized STORET, the data 

being uploaded to the national repository decreased dramatically, and lingering problems 

have temporarily reduced STORET’s importance as a statewide data source. It houses 

only about 5 percent of the statewide Impaired Surface Waters Rule Database. 

Approximately 35 percent of the data used in the assessment under the Impaired 

Surface Waters Rule was provided by individual organizations that for various reasons, 

such as time constraints or resource limitations, were not able to enter their data into the 

national database. The organizations providing the largest datasets include the South 

Florida, Southwest Florida, and St. Johns River Water Management Districts; the USGS; 

and the University of Florida LakeWatch volunteer monitoring group. Several of these 

databases are readily available to the public via the Internet: the South Florida Water 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 147

 

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 Impaired Surface Waters Rule Database in 2002 to 

evaluate data simultaneously in accordance with the Impaired Surface Waters Rule 

methodology for every basin in the state, based on the appropriate data “window.” For 

the Verified List assessment, the window is 7.5 years (for the Impaired Surface Waters 

Rule Database), and the Planning List assessment window is 10 years. Table B.2 shows 

the periods of record for the Verified and Planning Lists for the five basin groups. 

The evaluation of water quality in the state’s basins also includes some qualitative 

information. These sources are described in the Basin Status Reports and Assessment 

Reports for each basin. 

Table B.2: Data Used in Developing the Planning and Verified Lists, First Basin Rotation Cycle 

Basin Group Reporting Period of Data Record Used in Impaired 

Surface Waters Rule Evaluation 

Group 1 Planning List January 1, 1989 – December 31, 1998 

 Verified List January 1, 1995 – June 30, 2002 

Group 2 Planning List January 1, 1991 – December 31, 2000 

 Verified List January 1, 1996 – June 30, 2003 

Group 3 Planning List January 1, 1992 – December 31, 2001 

 Verified List January 1, 1997 – June 30, 2004 

Group 4 Planning List January 1, 1993 – December 31, 2002 

 Verified List January 1, 1998 – June 30, 2005 

Group 5 Planning List January 1, 1994 – December 31, 2003 

 Verified List January 1, 1999 – June 30, 2006 

Note: Typically, a 10-year data record is used for the development of the Planning Lists, and a 7.5-year record is used for 

the Verified Lists. 

Methodology 

To determine the status of surface water quality in individual river basins in Florida, 

three categories of data—chemistry data, biological data, and fish consumption 

advisories—were evaluated to determine potential impairments for the four designated 

use attainment categories discussed earlier: aquatic life, primary contact and recreation, 

fish and shellfish consumption, and drinking water use and protection of human health. 

Aquatic Life Based Attainment 

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule follows the principle of independent applicability. 

A waterbody is listed for potential impairment of aquatic life use support based on 

exceedances of any one of four types of water quality indicators (numeric water quality 

criteria, nutrient thresholds, biological thresholds, and toxicity data). 
148 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

EXCEEDANCES OF NUMERIC WATER QUALITY CRITERIA

The chemistry data from STORET used in evaluating impairment were also used for 

preparing the state’s 2000 305(b) report. Only ambient surface water quality stations 

were included in the assessment of impairment. Water quality information from point 

sources or wells was excluded. Monitoring stations were classified as one of five 

waterbody types—spring, stream, lake, estuary, or blackwater—based on criteria 

described in the latest 305(b) report. The assessments included the following parameters: 

Metals Arsenic, aluminum, cadmium, chromium VI, chromium III, 

copper, iron, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and 

zinc 

Nutrients Chlorophyll a for streams and estuaries, and Trophic State Index 

(TSI) (chlorophyll a, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus) for lakes 

Conventionals Dissolved oxygen (DO), fecal coliforms, total coliforms, pH, 

unionized ammonia 

The requirements for placing waters on the Planning List included a minimum of 10 

temporally independent samples from the 10-year period of record shown in Table B.2,

unless there were 3 exceedances of water quality or 1 exceedance of an acute toxicity 

criterion in a 3-year period. The screening methodology for the Verified List requires at 

least 20 samples from the last 5 years preceding the Planning List assessment. For most 

parameters, an exceedance is recorded any time the measured value is higher than the 

applicable water quality criterion by any amount. However, for the DO criterion, which 

is expressed as a minimum numeric value, an "exceedance" is recorded whenever the 

measured value is lower than the applicable DO 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 Impaired Surface Waters Rule, with two exceptions. First, 

un-ionized ammonia data were not analyzed by the program, but rather with an Excel 

spreadsheet. Second, because the full complexity of the pH criterion could not be 

programmed, the incomplete listings for pH are not included. They will be further 

examined while additional data are collected during Phase 2 of the watershed 

management cycle. Data analysis and statistical summaries of segments with waterbody 

identification numbers (WBIDs), waterbody types, and parameters obtained from the 

STORET Database were conducted using Access, SAS statistical software, and ArcView 

GIS applications. 

The data for metals and conventional parameters were compared with the state 

surface water quality criteria in Section 62-302.530, F.A.C. (Identification of Impaired 

Surface Waters Rule). The rule contains a table of sample numbers versus exceedances. 

A waterbody was placed on the Planning List if there was at least 80 percent confidence 

that the actual criteria exceedance rate was greater than or equal to 10 percent. To be 

placed on the Verified List, at least a 90 percent confidence rate was required. 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 149

 

EXCEEDANCES OF NUTRIENT THRESHOLDS

The state currently has a narrative nutrient criterion instead of a numeric value for 

nutrient thresholds. The narrative criterion states, “In no case shall nutrient 

concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural 

populations of aquatic flora or fauna.” The Impaired Surface Waters Rule provides an 

interpretation of the narrative nutrient criterion. In general, the TSI and the annual mean 

chlorophyll a values are the primary means for assessing whether a waterbody should be 

assessed further for nutrient impairment. 

The rule also considers other information that might indicate an imbalance in flora or 

fauna due to nutrient enrichment, such as algal blooms, excessive macrophyte growth, a 

decrease in the distribution (either in density or aerial coverage) of seagrasses or other 

submerged aquatic vegetation, changes in algal species richness, and excessive diel 

oxygen swings. 

Potential nutrient impairment was evaluated by calculating annual mean chlorophyll 

a values for estuaries and streams and the TSI for lakes. For lakes, the TSI was 

calculated using chlorophyll a, total phosphorus, and total nitrogen measurements. Direct 

evidence of imbalances of flora and fauna in waterbodies was also considered in the 

evaluation of nutrient impairments. 

In estuarine areas, a water was considered nutrient enriched if the annual mean 

chlorophyll a values were greater than 11 micrograms per liter (μg/L) or if annual mean 

chlorophyll a values increased by more than 50 percent over historical values for at least 

two consecutive years. For streams, a water was considered nutrient enriched if the 

annual mean chlorophyll a values were greater than 20 μg/L or if the annual mean 

increased by more than 50 percent over historical values for at least two consecutive 

years. 

A lake with a mean color greater than 40 platinum cobalt units (PCUs) was 

considered nutrient enriched if the annual mean TSI exceeded 60. A lake with a mean 

color less than or equal to 40 PCUs was considered nutrient enriched if the annual mean 

TSI exceeded 40. In addition, a lake was considered nutrient enriched if there was an 

increase in TSI over the 1989 to 2000 period or if TSI measurements were 10 units higher 

than historical values. 

EXCEEDANCES OF BIOLOGICAL THRESHOLDS

Bioassessments were carried out for streams, lakes, canals, and rivers using the 

Impaired Surface Waters Rule as guidance and following the Department’s standard 

operating procedures, which provide definitions and specific methods for the generation 

and analysis of bioassessment data. These are referenced in the individual bioassessment 

data tables contained in the Basin Status Reports. The purpose behind using a 

bioassessment methodology in surface water characterizations is that biological 

components of the environment manifest long-term water quality conditions and thus 

provide a better indication of a waterbody’s true health than discrete chemical or physical 

measurements alone. Similar to water quality criteria, bioassessment methods involve 

the identification of a biological reference condition, based on data from unimpaired or 

least impacted waters in a given region. 
150 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

For the Planning and Verified List assessments, the reference condition data were 

used to establish expected scores, ranging from best to worst, for various measures of 

community structure and function, such as numbers or percentages of particular species 

or feeding groups. Data on community structure and function from waters of unknown 

quality in the same region as reference waters were compared with the expected scores of 

metrics to evaluate their biological integrity. 

Metrics (e.g., number of taxa, percent Diptera, percent filter feeders) were used 

independently and as an aggregated group called an index. Indices have advantages over 

individual metrics in that they can integrate several related metrics into one score that 

reflects a wider range of biological variables. A number of bioassessment metrics and 

indices exist for assessing populations of plant and animal life, including fish, diatoms 

(e.g., microscopic algae and unicellular plankton), and macroinvertebrates (e.g., insects, 

crayfish, snails, and mussels). 

Only macroinvertebrate data from ambient sites in state surface waters were used in 

the bioassessments analyzed for the Planning and Verified Lists. The data included sites 

designated as test and background sites for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) fifth-year inspections, but excluded data from effluent outfalls from 

discharging facilities or data from monitoring sites not clearly established to collect 

ambient water quality data. Because site-specific habitat and physicochemical 

assessment information (e.g., percent suitable macroinvertebrate habitat, water velocities, 

extent of sand or silt smothering, and riparian [Definition: Of, on, or relating to the 

banks of a natural course of water.]) buffer zone widths) was not available at the time of 

reporting, it was not included. However, this information is instrumental in pinpointing 

the causes for failed bioassessment metrics and will be included in future reporting. 

The data used to develop the Planning and Verified Lists were obtained from the 

Department’s Biological Database (SBIO) and the EPA’s STORET Water Quality 

Database, where it could be substantiated that the data were generated in compliance with 

the bioassessment standard operating procedures referenced in the Impaired Surface 

Waters Rule (Section 62-303.330, F.A.C.). 

The data from these databases are used without regard to the randomness of sample 

site selection. For the purposes of the Basin Status Reports, the seasons are defined as 

follows: winter (1/1–3/31), spring (4/1–6/30), summer (7/1–9/30), and fall (10/1–12/31). 

Wet seasons are generally spring and summer, and dry seasons are fall and winter, 

although conditions can vary in the state as a whole. 

LAKE CONDITION INDEX

The scoring of the individual metrics of the Lake Condition Index (LCI), except 

percent Diptera, was performed according to the following formula: 

100(B/A) where A = the 95 percentile of the reference population and B = observed 

value 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 151

 

For percent Diptera, the following formula was used: 

100 (100-B)/(100-A) where A = the 95 percentile of the reference population and B 

= observed value 

An average LCI score was calculated by averaging the scores of the 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 platinum cobalt units [PCUs]). 

As macroinvertebrate-based indices have not been shown to assess colored lakes in 

Florida accurately (> 20 PCUs), they have been excluded from bioassessments. A poor 

or very poor rating based on the average score constituted a failed bioassessment, based 

on the Impaired Surface Waters Rule. 

STREAM CONDITION INDEX

A total Stream Condition Index (SCI) score was calculated by adding the scores of 

the seven metrics in the method: total number of taxa; total number of taxa belonging to 

the orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT taxa); percent Chironomid 

taxa; percent dominant taxa; percent Diptera; percent filter feeders; and Florida Index. A 

poor or very poor rating based on the total score constituted a failed bioassessment, based 

on the Impaired Surface Waters Rule. The Basin Status Reports contain definitions and 

specific methods for the generation and analysis of bioassessment data. 

BIORECON

To establish an impairment rating based on BioRecon data, three metrics were used: 

the Florida Index score, total number of taxa, and total number of EPT taxa. If all three 

metrics failed to meet thresholds, the water was deemed “impaired” based on the 

Impaired Surface Waters Rule. 

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY STANDARD 

Quantitative data, generated through the use of Hester-Dendy artificial substrate 

samplers, were used to calculate Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index scores for paired 

background and test sites, as specified in the Biological Integrity Standard, Subsection 

62-302.530(11), F.A.C. One failure of the standard meant that a waterbody segment was 

listed as potentially impaired. 

EVALUATION OF TOXICITY DATA

Although the Impaired Surface Waters Rule describes the use of toxicity data for the 

assessment of aquatic life-based attainment, no ambient toxicity data are available for 

assessment and this metric was not used. 
152 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

Primary Contact and Recreation Attainment 

For Class I, II, or III waters, a waterbody was potentially impaired if the following 

criteria were met: 

• The waterbody segment did not meet the applicable water quality criteria for 

bacteriological quality, 

• The waterbody segment included a bathing area that was closed by a local health 

department or county government for more than 1 week or more than once during a 

calendar year based on bacteriological data, 

• The waterbody segment included a bathing area for which a local health department 

or county government issued closures, advisories, or warnings totaling 21 days or 

more during a calendar year based on bacteriological data, or 

• The waterbody segment included a bathing area that was closed or had advisories or 

warnings for more than 12 weeks during a calendar year based on previous 

bacteriological data or on derived relationships between bacteria levels and rainfall 

or flow. 

Fish and Shellfish Consumption Attainment 

For Class I, II, or III waters, a waterbody was potentially impaired if it did not meet 

the applicable Class II water quality criteria for bacteriological quality, or if a fish 

consumption advisory had been issued. Fish consumption advisories were based on the 

Florida Department of Health’s “limited consumption” or “no consumption” advisories 

for surface waters because of high levels of mercury in fish tissue. In addition, for Class 

II waters, waterbody segments that had been approved for shellfish harvesting but were 

downgraded to a more restrictive classification were listed as potentially impaired. 

Drinking Water Attainment and Protection of Human Health 

For Class I waters, a waterbody was potentially impaired if it did not meet the 

applicable Class I water quality criteria. 

.
Water Quality Status Report: Upper Eas

Appendix C: Permitted Discharge Facilities, Superfund Sites, and Landfills in t

Coast Basin, by Planning Unit 

Table C.1: Permitted Facilities with Discharges to Surface Water and Ground Water, by Planning Unit 

Facility ID Name Facility Type Status NP

Tolomato River Planning UnitFL0117897 SAWGRASS WWTF DW A FL0117951 PONTE VEDRA WWTF DW A FLA011765 NORTH BEACH UTILITIES WWTF DW A FLG110334 RINKER MATERIALS–NORTH ST AUGUSTINE FACILITY CBP A FLA011773 PONCE DE LEON WWTF DW A Matanzas River Planning Unit FLA011761 J C 'S CAR WASH IW A FLA016927 FDOT–ST AUGUSTINE MAINTENANCE IW A FLA011769 MOULTRIE WOODS WWTF DW A FL0043109 STATE ROAD 16 WWTF DW A FL0021938 ST AUGUSTINE WWTF NO 1 DW A FLA011783 SOUTH GATE CARWASH IW N FL0038831 ANASTASIA ISLAND WWTF DW A FLA011791 SPANISH TRAIL MOBILE HOME PARK WWTF DW A FLG110373 FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES–ST AUGUSTINE CBP A FLA011781 WAGON WHEEL MOBILE HOME PARK WWTF DW A FL0117471 STATE ROAD 207 WWTF DW A FLG110563 TARMAC–ST. AUGUSTINE FACILITY CBP A FLA011762 WILDWOOD/OAKRIDGE APARTMENTS WWTF DW C Pellicer Creek Planning Unit FL0039756 BEVERLY BEACH WWTF DW A FLA011602 DUNES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WWTF DW A FLA011611 FLAGLER-BY-THE-SEA WWTF DW A FLA011784 CHARLIE T'S TRUCKSTOP WWTF DW C FLA011797 DAIRY QUEEN RESTAURANT WWTF DW A 
154 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

Facility ID Name Facility Type Status NP

FLA011599 MATANZAS SHORES WWTF DW A FLA011593 MARITIME I ESTATES DW A FLA011612 MARINE PARK OF FLAGLER WWTF DW A FLA011604 MARITIME ESTATES II DW A FLRNEE181 ASCOM ENERGY SYSTEMS NEX A FLA011595 PALM COAST INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY WWTF DW A FLRNEE282 CITY OF PALM COAST WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT NEX A FLA175463 

GRAND HAVEN DISTRICT REUSE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY (CDD) DW A 

FL0116009 PALM COAST WWTF DW A Hallifax River Planning Unit FLA011164 OCEANAIRE CONDO (DW) DW A FLA011188 SEABRIDGE WWTF (DW) DW A FLA011176 VCUD/PELICAN DUNES (DW) DW A FLA011603 HOLIDAY TRAVEL PARK DW A FLA011601 BULOW VILLAGE WWTF DW A FLA011597 PLANTATION BAY WWTF DW A FL0043125 

VCUD/HIGHBRIDGE PARK REVERSE OSMOSIS WATER TREATMENT PLANT IW A 

FLA011131 VCUD/ HALIFAX PLANTATION WWTF DW A FLA011192 KINGSTON SHORES CONDOS (DW) DW A FL0026611 FLAGLER BEACH WWTF DW A FLA017453 VCUD/HALIFAX PLANTATION RO (IW) IW A FLA011185 MADEIRA VILLA CONDOS NORTH (DW) DW A FLA011151 WINDEMERE SHORES CONDO (DW) DW A FLA011252 ORMOND BEACH SURFSIDE CLUB NORTH WWTF DW A FLA011116 VCUD/SUNNY BEACH WWTF DW A FLA011156 VAN LEE CONDOMINIUMS (DW) DW A FLA011162 OCEAN HOUSE CONDO (DW) DW A FLA011167 SAND DUNES CONDO WWTF (DW) DW A FLA011170 ORMONDY CONDOMINIUM (DW) DW A 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper Eas

Facility ID Name Facility Type Status NP

FLA011178 OCEAN SHORE PLAZA WWTF DW A FLA011183 MADEIRA VILLA SOUTH (DW) DW A FLA011184 MADEIRA VILLA CENTRAL (DW) DW A FLA011206 ORMOND OCEANSIDE CONDO (DW) DW A FLA011253 ORMOND SURFSIDE CLUB SOUTH WWTF DW A FLA011259 REGENCY PLAZA CONDOMINIUM (DW) DW A FLA011117 VCUD/LEEWARD WIND WWTF DW A FLA111554 GEMINI CONDOMINIUMS (DW) DW A FLA017020 VCUD/OCEAN DUNES CONDO (DW) DW A FLA011174 OCEAN WATCH WWTF DW A FLA011122 VCUD/ATLANTIC 22 CONDO (DW) DW A FLA011150 MARINERS BAY CONDO (DW) DW A FLA011161 SEASCAPE CONDOMINIUM WWTF DW A FLA011160 INDIES HOUSE CONDO (DW) DW A FLA011171 SUNRISE CONDOMINIUM DW A FLA011213 TRADERS INN BEACH CLUB WWTF (DW) DW A FLA011120 VCUD/TIFFANY CONDOMINIUM WWTF DW A FLA011157 FAIRWIND SHORES (DW) DW A FLA011205 COMFORT INN /ORMOND BEACH (DW) DW A FLA011146 SCOTTISH INN (DW) DW A FLA011169 VILLAGES OF PINE RUN (DW) DW A FLA011226 SUPER 8 MOTEL/ORMOND BEACH WWTF DW A FLA011239 

ENCORE SUPERPARK AKA SUNSHINE HOLIDAY CAMPER RESORT (DW) DW A 

FLA011242 RAMADA INN(I-95) DW A FLA016726 ORMOND SEPTIC SYSTEMS RMF RES A FLA011152 OCEAN SHORE (DW) DW A FLA011196 VILLA SERENO CONDO (DW) DW A FLA011272 WINCHESTER MANOR (DW) DW A FLA011228 CAMINO REAL APARTMENTS WWTF DW A FLA011247 VCUD/SPANISH WATERS (DW) DW A 
156 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

Facility ID Name Facility Type Status NP

FLA011153 STARBOARD LIGHTS CONDOMINIUM WWTF DW A FLA011215 ORMOND BREAKERS CONDOMINIUM, STP DW A FLA011225 AQUARIUS CONDO (DW) DW A FLA011233 CORINTHIAN VILLAS (DW) DW A FLA011240 ORMOND BY THE SEA (DW) DW A FLA011236 EMERALD PALMS WWTF DW A FLRNEE153 AIRPORT NEX A FLA011193 TYMBER CREEK (DW) DW A FLG110216 RINKER MATERIALS/ORMOND BEACH CONCRETE BATCH PLANT CBP A FLG910598 BP STATION #24650 (IW) PET A FLRNEE154 SOUTHLAND NEX A FL0020532 ORMOND BEACH WWTF DW A FL0037877 VCDSWM/TOMOKA FARMS ROAD LANDFILL IWTP IW A FLA017086 FLORIDA N-VIRO/TOMOKA RMF (DW) RES A FLA016692 

RINGHAVER/TOMOKA FARM ROAD/ EQUIPMENT WASH RECYCLE SYSTEM IW A 

FLG110452 TARMAC/DAYTONA BEACH CBP A FLG110462 CEMEX/DAYTONA BEACH CB PLANT (IW) CBP A FLRNEE148 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FACILITY NEX A FLA011274 KONNY'S COIN LAUNDRY (IW) IW A FLA011125 

VCUD/NORTHEAST BARN/EQUIPMENT & TRUCK WASH RECYCLE SYSTEM IW A 

FLA016556 VCSB/DAYTONA BEACH BUS WASH FACILITY IW A FL0027677 CITY OF HOLLY HILL DW A FLRNEE285 AIRBORNE FEIGHT CORP. NEX A FLA111392 DAYTONA BEACH WESTSIDE REGIONALWWTF DW A FL0025984 DAYTONA BEACH/BETHUNE POINT WWTF DW A FLA112551 BATTELLE FLORIDA MATERIALS RESEARCH CENTER IW N FLA011201 MANSFIELD MOBILE HOME PARK, STP DW A FLA011224 COLONY IN THE WOODS (DW) DW A FLG110181 RINKER MATERIALS/SOUTH DAYTONA CONCRETE BATCH PLANT CBP A 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper Eas

Facility ID Name Facility Type Status NP

FL0020559 CITY OF PORT ORANGE WWTF DW A FLA011181 DOUBLE D MOBILE RANCH WWTF DW A FLA185086 VCUD/SPRUCE CREEK (IW) IW A FLA011113 VCSB SAMSULA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (DW) DW A FLA011173 SUGAR MILL RUINS TRAVEL PARK WWTF DW A FLA011256 SUGAR MILL COUNTRY CLUB (DW) DW A FLA011209 EL DORADO MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY (DW) DW A FLRNEE083 NEW SMYRNA BEACH–REDDY PLANT #343 NEX A FL0172090 NEW SMYRNA BEACH WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY (DW) DW A FLA011249 TROPICAL CHEVRON/NEW SMYRNA (DW) DW A FLA011243 SUGAR MILL MHP (DW) DW A 
158 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

Table C.2: Superfund Sites, by Planning Unit 

Planning 

Unit Site Name City County District Program Status Operation 

Matanzas 

River 000000000043 

Control 

Products 

Associated 

St. 

Augustine 

St 

Johns Northeast State Funded Delisted Pesticide/ Insecticide/ Herbicide 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper Eas

Table C.3: Permitted Landfill Facilities, by Planning Unit 

Facility Name Address City County Department District Status1 Facility T

Tolomato River Planning Unit 

Nine Mile Composting 

Facility Cof 

445 A International Golf 

Pkwy St. Augustine 55 Northeast J Solid Wa

Nine Mile Road 

Southland CDS 

445 A International Golf 

Pkwy St. Augustine 55 Northeast A Solid Wa

Nine Mile Rd Materials 

Recovery Facility 4454 Nine Mile Rd St. Augustine 55 Northeast J Solid Wa

Matanzas River Planning Unit 

Anastasia Island Off State Rd 3 & Fish Island Rd St. Augustine 55 Northeast K Solid Wa

St. Augustine Beach 

LF End of Pope Rd St. Augustine Beach 55 Northeast K Solid Wa

Ravenswood Dump Ravenswood Dr & Volusia St St. Augustine 55 Northeast K Solid Wa

Hicks Land Clearing & 

Fill Dirt CDS, LCD 3445 Old Moultrie Rd St. Augustine 55 Northeast A Solid Wa

St. Augustine Transfer 

Station (TS) Holmes Blvd St. Augustine 55 Northeast I Solid Wa

16th Street Collection 

Center WTC (Waste 

Tires) 

840 W 16th St St. Augustine 55 Northeast J Solid Wa

Ravenswood Recyling 

Collection Center WTC 

(Waste Tires) 

870 Pacific Blvd St. Augustine 55 Northeast J Solid Wa

Old City Materials 

Recovery Facility 

(MRF) 

3953 Deerpark Blvd Elkton 55 Northeast I Solid Wa

Saint Johns Pk 2 Miles E of St. Augustine Beach St. Augustine 18 Northeast J Solid Wa

Pellicer Creek Planning Unit 

LCD of Flagler Hwy US 1 Bunnell 18 Northeast A Solid Wa

William Paterson 

(C&D) CDS Old Kings Rd N Palm Coast 18 Northeast J Solid Wa
160 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

Facility Name Address City County Department District Status1 Facility T

Halifax River Planning Unit 

Flagler County Central 

Landfill LFC1 (Old 

Kings Rd) 

Old Kings Rd 1 Mile S 

State Rd 100 Bunnell 18 Northeast District K Solid Wa

Tomoka Farms Road 

Landfill 1990 Tomoka Farms Rd Daytona Beach 64 Central A Solid Wa

Flagler County Class III

LF 1.7 Miles S State Rd 100 Bunnell 18 Northeast District I Solid Wa

Ormond Beach Nova 

Road Landfill III 520 North Nova Rd Ormond Beach 64 Central District K Solid Wa

Port Orange Landfill Herbert St, East of Clyde Morris Blvd Port Orange 64 Central District J Solid Wa

Tomoka Farms Road 

Landfill 1990 Tomoka Farms Rd Daytona Beach 64 Central District A Solid Wa

Kirton C&D LF (East)—

Land Clearing Debris 

Only 

1630 Tomoka Farms Rd Daytona Beach 64 Central District A Solid Wa

Flagler County Ditch 

Cleaning @ C&D Fac 

(SW0) 

1700 S Old Kings Rd Flagler 18 Northeast District A Solid Wa

Daytona Beach 

International Airport 

General Aviation 

Develt 

700 Catalina Drive, Suite 

110 Daytona Beach 64 Central District P Solid Wa

New Smyrna Beach 

Airport Landfill 1800 Turnbull Bay Rd New Smyrna Beach 64 Central District K Solid Wa

Ormond Beach Nova 

Road Landfill III 520 North Nova Rd Ormond Beach 64 Central District K Solid Wa

Port Orange Landfill Herbert St, East of Clyde Morris Blvd Port Orange 64 Central District J Solid Wa

Flagler County C&D 

CDS 

1 Mile S State Rd 100 

Old Kings Rd Bunnell 18 Northeast District A Solid Wa

Kirton-Self C&D 

Landfill (West) 

West of Tomoka Farm 

Rd, 1/4 Miles South of I-4 Daytona Beach 64 Central District A Solid Wa

Klenk C&D 3555 Jackson St Port Orange 64 Central District A Solid Wa

Port Orange 

Incinerator 4625 Recreation Dr Port Orange 64 Central District I Solid Wa

Tomoka Farms Road 1990 Tomoka Farms Rd Daytona Beach 64 Central A Solid Wa
Water Quality Status Report: Upper Eas

Facility Name Address City County Department District Status1 Facility T

Landfill District 

Airport Used Auto 

Parts Salvage Yard 1295 Kenard St New Smyrna Beach 64 Central District P Solid Wa

Reti Co Inc. 1527 Pine St Holly Hill 64 Central District P Solid Wa

Tire City Waste Tire 

Processing 892 S Nova Rd Ormond Beach 64 Central District P Solid Wa

Ormond Beach 

Transfer Station 450 North Orchard St Ormond Beach 64 Central District A Solid Wa

Ormond Beach Nova 

Road Landfill III 520 North Nova Rd Ormond Beach 64 Central District K Solid Wa

Flagler County Waste 

Tire Collection Center 1700 Old Kings Rd Bunnell 18 Northeast District A Solid Wa

Flagler County Waste 

Tire Collection Center 1700 Old Kings Rd Bunnell 18 Northeast District A Solid Wa

1 Status: 

A–Active J–Closed, No Monitoring K–Closed, Monitored P–Permitted I–Inactive 

2 100 Class I Landfill 

 200 Class II Landfill  300 Class III Landfill  310 Land Clearing Debris  320 Yard Trash Composting with Disposal  500 Other Disposal Facility  520 Old Dump  540 Construction/Demolition Debris  610 Incineration  630 Other Treatment  710 Waste Tire Processing Facility  750 Transfer Station Processing Facility  751 Waste Tire Collection Center  810 Material Recovery  900 Other Volume Reduction/Resource Recovery Facility 
162 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

Appendix D: Water Quality Monitoring Stations, 

by Planning Unit 

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description Beginning Year 

Tolomato River Planning Unit 

2320 Guana River Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010168 Guana Lake at boat ramp 1995 2320 Guana River Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010169 Guana Lake 50 yards south of dam 1995 2320 Guana River Estuary IIIM 21FLSJWMGAR Guana River 100 yds. south of dam 1997 2320 Guana River Estuary IIIM 21FLVOL ICW110 Guana River Dam 1995 

2320A Lake Vedra Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010181 Lake Vedra at Corona Rd. 1996 2320A Lake Vedra Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010182 Ponte Vedra Lake at Sawgrass 1996 

2363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 20030446 ICWW @ Plantation Canal 1995 2363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010123 ICWW at powerlines 1994 2363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010124 ICWW at Wards Landing 1995 2363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010125 ICWW dk nr Quonset Hut DPC #5 1995 2363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010127 ICWW Red Channel Marker #2 1994 2363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010128 Creek 1/2 mile from bridge ICWW 1995 2363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010130 ICWW conf Tolomato R & Guano R 1994 2363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010145 ICWW St Johns #9 1995 2363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010146 ICWW 10 Marker 21 Tolomato River 1994 2363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010175 ICWW @ Unnamed Cr SE of Ximanies Cr 1995 2363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010177 ICWW @ ditch SE of airport 1995 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper Eas

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description Beginning Year 

2363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 92010SEAS W end of basin adjacent to St. Aug. Airport 1994 2363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 92015SEAS ICWW CM 48 1994 2363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 92021SEAS Northernmost marker Lease 1088 in Ximanies C. 1994 2363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 92065SEAS Creek mouth E shore north of ICWW CM 55 1994 2363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 92071SEAS W shore W of ICWW CM 55 1994 2363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 92081SEAS Mouth of Robinson Creek 1994 2363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 92091SEAS Mouth of Pancho Creek 1994 2363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLFMRIHAL200101 Halifax–Tolomato River 2001 2363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLFMRIHAL200102 Halifax–Tolomato River 2001 2363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLFMRIHAL200103 Halifax–Tolomato River 2001 2363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLSJWMJXTR17 Confluence of Tolomato and Guana Rivers–ICWW 1997 2363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLVOL ICW050 I.C.W. at Palm Valley Bridge 1995 

2400 Smith Creek Stream IIIF 21FLSJWMSMITHSCR Smith's Creek 1997 2406 Deep Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010165 Deep Creek at mouth 1995 2406 Deep Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010166 Deep Cr at Sweetwater Cr 1995 2406 Deep Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010190 Deep Creek at trail (wooden) bridge 2001 2442 Marshall Creek Stream IIIF 21FLA 27010183 Marshall Cr 3/4 Mile ab mouth 1999 2442 Marshall Creek Stream IIIF 21FLA 27010184 Marshall Cr at mouth 1999 2451 Stokes Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010170 Stokes Cr N Prong near West Bend 1995 2451 Stokes Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010171 Stokes Cr S Prong S Medicis Island 1995 2451 Stokes Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010172 Stokes Cr at mouth 1995 2451 Stokes Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010185 Stokes Cr 1/4 Mile ab mouth 1999 
164 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description Beginning Year 

2451 Stokes Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLSJWMSTOKESCR Stokes Creek 1997 2468 Casa Cola Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010173 Casa Cola Cr N Prong near West Bend 1995 2468 Casa Cola Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010174 Casa Cola Cr at mouth 1995 2468 Casa Cola Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLSJWMCCC Casa Cola Creek 1997 2483 Pancho Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLA 92095SEAS Up Pancho Creek as far s possible 1994 2487 Robinson Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010152 ICWW at Robinson Creek 1994 2487 Robinson Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010178 Robinson Cr N Prong NW of fork 1995 2487 Robinson Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010179 Robinson Cr S Prong SW of fork 1995 2487 Robinson Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLA 92085SEAS Up Robinson Creek as far as possible 1994 2487 Robinson Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLFMRIHAL200129 Halifax–Tolomato River 2001 

8123A Vilano Beach Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH ST JOHNS245 Vilano Beach 2000 8125A Mickler’s Landing Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH ST JOHNS246 Mickler’s Landing 2000 8125B Solana Rd Coastal IIIM 21FLA 27010180 Lake Vedra at Solana Rd 1996 8125B Solana Rd Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH ST JOHNS247 Solana Rd 2000 

Matanzas River Planning Unit 

2363G Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010155 ICWW at East Creek 1994 2363G Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010156 ICWW at Marker 43 1994 2363G Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010157 ICWW at CM 21 1994 2363G Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010158 ICWW at ASD WWTP POD 1994 2363G Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010159 ICWW at CM 18 1994 2363G Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010160 ICWW 50 feet north of SR 312 1994 2363G Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010161 ICWW at CM 12 1994 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper Eas

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description Beginning Year 

2363G Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLFMRIHAL200105 Halifax–Matanzas River 2001 2363G Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLSJWMJXTR21 

Matanzas River north of 

Crescent Beach @ SR206 

Bridge 

1997 

2363G Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLSJWMMR312 Matanzas River AT HWY 312 1994 2363G Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLVOL ICW150 I.C.W. St. Augustine N of SR312 1995 2363G Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLVOL ICW210 I.C.W. St. Augustine 1995 

2491 San Sebastian River Stream IIIF 21FLSJWMSSB San Sebastian River at US 1 IN St. Augustine 1997 2493 Moultrie Creek Stream II 21FLA 27010188 Moultrie Creek at CR 207 2000 2493 Moultrie Creek Stream II 21FLSJWMMCICW Moultrie Creek off ICWW 1997 2493 Moultrie Creek Stream II 21FLSJWMMTC Moultrie Creek at SR 207 1994 2499 Oyster Creek Stream IIIF 21FLVOL ICW130 Oyster Creek-St. Augustine 1995 2502 Salt Run Estuary II 21FLFMRIHAL200104 Halifax–Salt Run 2001 2502 Salt Run Estuary II 21FLVOL ICW170 Salt Run -Lighthouse Pier St. Augustine 1996 2520 Wildwood Creek Stream IIIF 21FLA 27010189 Wildwood Cr. @ Wildwood Rd. 2001 2535 Moses Creek Stream IIIF 21FLA 27010050 Moses Cr at US 1 2000 2535 Moses Creek Stream IIIF 21FLVOL HID010 Hidden cr. upstrm of confl with Moses Cr 1996 2535 Moses Creek Stream IIIF 21FLVOL ICW190 Moses Cr approx 0.5 mi upstrm of I.C.W. 1996 8122 Matanzas River Ocean Coastal IIIM 21FLA 88050SEAS South of Devils Elbow Fish Camp east shore 1994 

8122A Crescent Beach Coastal IIIM 21FLA 27010097 ICWW Marker 60 N Crescent Bch Br 1994 8122A Crescent Beach Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH ST JOHNS241 Crescent Beach 2000 8122B St. Augustine Bch Ocean Trace Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH ST JOHNS242 St. Augustine Bch Ocean Trace 2000 

8122C St. Augustine Bch A Street Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH ST JOHNS243 St. Augustine Bch A Street 2000 8122D Anastasia State Park Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH ST JOHNS244 Anastasia State Park 2000 

Pellicer Creek Planning Unit 

2363D Palm Coast Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010102 ICWW marker at ITT NP Palm Cst C 1994 
166 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description Beginning Year 

2363D Palm Coast Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010103 ICWW at St Joe Canal 1994 2363D Palm Coast Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010104 ICWW Marker 1 at Fox Cut 1995 2363D Palm Coast Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010150 ICWW Flagler Palm Coast Mid Cana 1994 2363D Palm Coast Estuary IIIM 21FLSJWMJXTR26 ICWW marker @ Fox Cut 1997 

2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010099 ICWW Marker 87 at Marineland 1994 2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010101 ICWW Marker 108 at Lung Cr conf 1995 2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010142 ICWW N of Marineland 1995 2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010143 ICWW S of Marineland 1995 2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010144 ICWW between CM 100 & 102 1995 2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010149 ICWW Flagler Palm Coast North Cn 1994 2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM 21FLSJWMMAT Matanzas River S of Washington Oaks @ CM #109 1994 2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM 21FLSJWMMRT Matanzas River at CM #89 1997 2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM 21FLSJWMTOL Tolomato River at Spanish Landing 1994 2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM 21FLVOL ICW220 I.C.W. Park-Flagler Co. 1995 2363F ICWW Estuary IIIM 21FLA 88010SEAS Mouth of creek southeast of CM 79 1994 2363F ICWW Estuary IIIM 21FLA 88011SEAS Across from Fort Matanzas at creek mouth 1994 2363F ICWW Estuary IIIM 21FLA 88012SEAS Up creek from station 11 1994 2363F ICWW Estuary IIIM 21FLA 88015SEAS Up creek from station 10 1994 2363F ICWW Estuary IIIM 21FLFMRIHAL200106 Halifax–ICWW 2001 

2550 Unnamed Drain Stream IIIF 21FLA 88017SEAS Up creek southwest of CM 78 1994 2553 Cracker Branch Blackwater IIIF 21FLA 27010060 Cracker Br. @ CR 204 1998 2577 Stevens Branch Stream IIIF 21FLA 27010070 Stevens Br. off CR 204 1998 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper Eas

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description Beginning Year 

2580B Pellicer Creek Stream IIIF 21FLA 27010016 Pellicer Cr at US 1 1998 2580B Pellicer Creek Stream IIIF 21FLSJWMPEL Pellicer Creek at US 1 1994 8120A Picknickers/Beverly Beach Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH FLAGLER318 Picknickers/Beverly Beach 2000 8120B Varn Park/Beverly Beach Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH FLAGLER104 Varn Park/Beverly Beach 2000 

8121 Pellicer Creek Ocean 2 Coastal IIIM 21FLA 88030SEAS Culvert south of boat ramp east of CM 72 1994 8121 Pellicer Creek Ocean 2 Coastal IIIM 21FLA 88031SEAS Mouth of creek east of CM 75 1994 8121 Pellicer Creek Ocean 2 Coastal IIIM 21FLA 88032SEAS Up creek from station 31 1994 8121 Pellicer Creek Ocean 2 Coastal IIIM 21FLA 88055SEAS Mouth of residential canal south of inlet 1995 8121 Pellicer Creek Ocean 2 Coastal IIIM 21FLA 88061SEAS East of Summer Haven at northwest turn 1994 8121 Pellicer Creek Ocean 2 Coastal IIIM 21FLA 88081SEAS Mouth of creek southwest of CM 85 1994 8121 Pellicer Creek Ocean 2 Coastal IIIM 21FLA 88091SEAS Tip of small island east of Rattlesnake Is 1994 

8121A Washington Oaks Beach Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH FLAGLER103 Washington Oaks Beach 2000 8121B Marineland Beach Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH FLAGLER102 Marineland Beach 2000 

8121C Matanzas Inlet Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH ST JOHNS240 Matanzas Inlet 2000 

Halifax River Planning Unit 

2363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010423 Halifax R Intracoast Wat Mark 59 1996 2363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010429 Halifax R. 50 yds. east of Port Orange Canal 1996 2363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010439 Halifax R. 50 yds. east of Reed Canal 1996 2363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010610 Halifax R. 100 yds. N. of Daytona Outfall 1996 2363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010611 Halifax R. 100 yds. S. of Daytona Outfall 1996 2363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLFMRIHAL200109 Halifax–Port Orange 2001 2363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLFMRIHAL200110 Halifax–Daggett Island 2001 2363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLFMRIHAL200111 Halifax–End of Inlet Harbor Road 2001 2363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLKWATVOL-HA-RIVER-1 Volusia-Halifax River-1-1 2001 
168 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description Beginning Year 

2363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLKWATVOL-HA-RIVER-2 Volusia-Halifax River-2-2 2001 2363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLKWATVOL-HA-RIVER-3 Volusia-Halifax River-3-3 2001 2363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL13 Halifax River at ICWW CM44 1994 2363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL14 Halifax River at ICWW CM47 1994 2363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL15 Halifax River at ICWW CM56 1994 2363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL16 Halifax River at ICWW CM57 1994 2363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL17 Halifax River at ICWW CM63 1994 2363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL18 Halifax River at ICWW CM 1 1994 2363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL19 Halifax River at ICWW CM7 1994 2363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-014 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 47 1999 2363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-015 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 56 1999 2363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-016 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 57 1999 2363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-017 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 63 1999 2363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-018 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 1 1999 2363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-019 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 7 1999 2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010037 Halifax R 100 Ft N Si Bch Mem Br 1994 2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010402 Halifax R 50 Y N Ormond Bch STP 1996 2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010404 Halifax R 50 Y S Ormond Bch STP 1996 2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010405 Halifax R 50 Y N Holly Hill STP 1996 2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010407 Halifax R 50 Y S Holly Hill STP 1996 2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010468 Halifax R. at ICWW CM 9 east side of channel 1996 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper Eas

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description Beginning Year 

2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010832 Halifax River at ICWW #22 1996 2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLFMRIHAL200107 Halifax–ICWW 2001 2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLFMRIHAL200108 Halifax–ICWW 2001 2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLSJWM27010037 Halifax River 100 ft N si Beach Memorial Bridge 1995 2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL04 Halifax River at ICWW CM 6 1994 2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL05 Halifax River at ICCW CM 11 1994 2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL06 Halifax River at ICCW CM 16 1994 2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL07 Halifax River at ICCW CM 21 1994 2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL08 Halifax River at ICWW CM 25 1994 2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL09 Halifax River at ICCW CM 30 1994 2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL10 Halifax River at ICWW CM 33 1994 2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL11 Halifax River 100 yds N. of Orange Ave Bridge 1994 2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL12 Halifax River at entrance to Halifax Harbor 1994 2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL20 Ponce Inlet – center channel 1994 2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-005 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 11 1999 2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-006 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 16 1999 2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-007 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 21 1999 2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-008 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 25 1999 2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-009 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 30 1999 2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-010 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 33 1999 2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-011 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 36, N of Orange Ave Brid 1999 
170 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description Beginning Year 

2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-012 Halifax River, at entrance to Halifax Harbor Marin 1999 

2363C Tomoka Basin Estuary IIIM 21FLKWATVOL-TO-TOMOKA-1 Volusia-Tomoka-1 2000 2363C Tomoka Basin Estuary IIIM 21FLKWATVOL-TO-TOMOKA-2 Volusia-Tomoka-2 2000 2363C Tomoka Basin Estuary IIIM 21FLKWATVOL-TO-TOMOKA-3 Volusia-Tomoka-3 2000 2363C Tomoka Basin Estuary IIIM 21FLKWATVOL-TO-TOMOKA-4 Volusia-Tomoka-4 2000 2363C Tomoka Basin Estuary IIIM 21FLKWATVOL-TO-TOMOKA-5 Volusia-Tomoka-5 2000 2363C Tomoka Basin Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL03 Halifax River center of Tomoka Basin 1994 2363C Tomoka Basin Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-003 Halifax River, center of Tomoka Basin 1999 

2363J Palm Coast Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010020 Halifax River north at ICWW Channel Marker 26 1994 2363J Palm Coast Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010106 ICWW Marker 19 at Flagler Beach 1995 2363J Palm Coast Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL01 Halifax River near Highbridge Rd 1994 2363J Palm Coast Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL02 Halifax River at ICWW CM 29 1994 

2620 Bulow Creek Stream IIIF 21FLFMRIHAL200130 Halifax–Tolomato River 2001 2620 Bulow Creek Stream IIIF 21FLSJWMBUL Bulow Creek at low bridge 1994 2634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF 21FLA 27010579 Tomoka River at 11th Street Bridge 1994 2634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF 21FLCEN 27010579 Tomoka River at 11th Street Bridge 2000 2634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF 21FLCEN 27010596 Tomoka River at U.S. Highway 92 2000 2634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF 21FLGW 3516 27010579 1998 2634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF 21FLSJWM27010579 Tomoka River at 11th Street Bridge 1995 2634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF 21FLSJWMTR11 Tomoka River@ 11th Street Bridge 1994 2634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF 21FLVEMDTR03 Tomoka River upstream of S.R. 40 Bridge 1994 2634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF 21FLVEMDTR04 Tomoka River upstream of 11th Street Bridge 1994 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper Eas

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description Beginning Year 

2634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF 21FLVEMDTR05 Tomoka River upstream of U.S. 92 Bridge 1994 2634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF 21FLVEMDVC-077 Tomoka River, from upstream side of S.R. 40 1999 2634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF 21FLVEMDVC-078 Tomoka River, from upstream side of LPGA Blvd. 1999 2634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF 21FLVEMDVC-079 Tomoka River, from upstream side of U.S. 92 1999 2634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF 21FLWPB 20010739 Tomoka River@ 11th Street 2003 2634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF 21FLWPB 20010740 Tomoka River@ State Highway 40 2003 

2634A Tomoka River Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010024 Tomoka R Old Dixie Hwy Br 1994 2634A Tomoka River Estuary IIIM 21FLCEN 27010023 Tomoka River at US Highway 1 2000 2634A Tomoka River Estuary IIIM 21FLCEN 27010024 Tomoka River at Old Dixie Highway 2000 2634A Tomoka River Estuary IIIM 21FLSJWM27010024 Tomoka River at Old Dixie Hwy Bridge 1995 2634A Tomoka River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDTR01 Tomoka River at Old Dixie Highway 1994 2634A Tomoka River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDTR02 Tomoka River downstream of U.S. 1 Bridge 1994 2634A Tomoka River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-075 Tomoka River, from upstream side of CR4011, by Tom 1999 2634A Tomoka River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-076 Tomoka River, from downstream side of U.S. 1 1999 

2635 Grover Branch Stream IIIF 21FLCEN 27010580 Grover Branch at Airport Road Bridge 2000 2641 Unnamed Branch Stream IIIF 21FLA 27010469 North Ormond Airport Ditch at Airport Road (aka B 1996 2645 Mizners Branch Stream IIIF 21FLCEN 27010595 Mizners Branch at S.R. 40 2000 2646 Little Tomoka River Stream IIIF 21FLCEN 27010583 Little Tomoka River at Breakaway Trail 2000 2647 Holly Hill Ditch Stream IIIF 21FLA 27010479 Holly Hill Canal at 11th St and U.S. Hwy 1 1996 2654 Drainage Canals Stream IIIF 112WRD 02247480 Tiger Bay Canal nr Daytona Bch, Fl 1997 2664 Reed Canal Stream IIIF 21FLA 27010483 Reed Canal at US HWY 1 Daytona Beach 1996 

2666A Sweetwater Creek Stream IIIF 21FLA 27010536 Sweetwater Creek at C.R. 421 1998 2666A Sweetwater Creek Stream IIIF 21FLCEN 27010536 Sweetwater Creek at C.R. 421 1999 
172 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description Beginning Year 

2670 Halifax Canal Stream IIIF 21FLVEMDVC-070 Rose Bay, from S. side of Main Street bridge in Ha 1999 2672 Rose Bay Estuary IIIM 21FLKWATVOL-RO-SEBAY-1 Volusia-Rose Bay-1 2001 2672 Rose Bay Estuary IIIM 21FLKWATVOL-RO-SEBAY-2 Volusia-Rose Bay-2 2001 2672 Rose Bay Estuary IIIM 21FLKWATVOL-RO-SEBAY-3 Volusia-Rose Bay-3 2001 2672 Rose Bay Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDRB01 Rose Bay west of Hwy U.S. 1 Bridge 1994 2672 Rose Bay Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDRB02 Rose Bay south of Nova Rd. Bridge 1994 2673 Unnamed Drain Stream IIIF 21FLA 27010537 Unnamed drain of Spruce Creek at C.R. 421 1998 2673 Unnamed Drain Stream IIIF 21FLCEN 27010537 Unnamed drain of Spruce Creek at C.R. 421 1999 2674 Spruce Creek Stream IIIF 21FLA 27010332 Spruce Creek at Spruce Creek Blvd. 1998 2674 Spruce Creek Stream IIIF 21FLA 27010539 Spruce Creek at C.R. 4118 2674 Spruce Creek Stream IIIF 21FLCEN 27010539 Spruce Creek at C.R. 4118 1999 2674 Spruce Creek Stream IIIF 21FLKWATVOL-SP-CREEK-1 Volusia-Spruce Creek-1-1 1995 2674 Spruce Creek Stream IIIF 21FLKWATVOL-SP-CREEK-2 Volusia-Spruce Creek-2-2 1995 2674 Spruce Creek Stream IIIF 21FLKWATVOL-SP-CREEK-3 Volusia-Spruce Creek-3-3 1995 2674 Spruce Creek Stream IIIF 21FLSJWM02248000 Spruce Creek near Samsula 1995 

2674A Spruce Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDSC01 Spruce Creek center bridge on U.S. Hwy 1 1994 2674A Spruce Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDSC02 Spruce Creek west of SSC Railroad 1994 2674A Spruce Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDSC04 Spruce Creek west of Airport Rd 1994 2674A Spruce Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDSC05 Spruce Creek at dock at Gamble Place 1994 2674A Spruce Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-072 Spruce Creek, from dock at Riverwood, W. of SCL Ra 1999 2674A Spruce Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-073 Spruce Creek, from W. side of Moody Bridge on Airp 1999 2674A Spruce Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-074 Spruce Creek, from dock at Gamble Place 1999 2674A Spruce Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLWPB 20010737 Spruce Creek @ Cypress Head Development 2003 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper Eas

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type Class STORET Station ID Station Description Beginning Year 

2674A Spruce Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLWPB 20010738 Spruce Creek @ Airport Road 2003 2674B Strickland Bay at US # Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010835 Strickland Bay at US #1 1998 

2675 Sand Creek Stream IIIF 21FLCEN 27010538 Sand Creek at C.R. 415 1999 2678 Turnbull Bay Estuary IIIM 21FLCEN 27010542 Turnbull Creek at S.R. 44 1999 2678 Turnbull Bay Estuary IIIM 21FLWPB 20010735 Turnbull Creek @ Jungle Road 2003 2678 Turnbull Bay Estuary IIIM 21FLWPB 20010736 Turnbull Creek @ Pioneer Trail 2003 2679 Unnamed Drain Stream IIIF 21FLCEN 27010540 Unnamed drain into Spruce Creek at Martin Dairy Ro 1999 2681 Glencoe Ditches Stream IIIF 21FLCEN 27010541 Glencoe Ditch at Turnbull Bay Road 1999 

8117A Toronita Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH VOLUSIA288 Toronita 2000 8117B Dunlawton Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH VOLUSIA287 Dunlawton 2000 

8117D Silver Beach Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH VOLUSIA338 Silver Beach 2000 

8117E Main Street Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH VOLUSIA285 Main Street 2000 8117F Seabreeze Blvd Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH VOLUSIA284 Seabreeze Blvd 2000 8118A Granda Blvd Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH VOLUSIA283 Granda Blvd 2000 8118B Bicentennial Park Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH VOLUSIA282 Bicentennial Park 2000 8119A Gamble Rogers State Park Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH FLAGLER106 Gamble Rogers State Park 2000 8119B Flagler Pier at Flagler Beach Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH FLAGLER105 South Flagler Pier @ Flagler Beach 2000 8119B Flagler Pier at Flagler Beach Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH FLAGLER349 North Flagler Pier 2002 
174 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

Appendix E: Level 1 Land Use for the Upper East Coast Basin, 

by Planning Unit 

Tolomato River Planning Unit 

Level 1 Description Acres Square 

Miles Percentage of Unit 

1000 Urban and BuiltUp 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 

Level 1 Description Acres Square 

Miles Percentage of Unit 

1000 Urban and BuiltUp 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 

Level 1 Description Acres Square 

Miles Percentage of Unit 

1000 Urban and BuiltUp 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 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 175

 

Halifax River Planning Unit 

Level 1 Description Acres Square 

Miles Percentage of Unit 

1000 Urban and BuiltUp 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 
176 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

Appendix F: Statistical Summary Sheets for 

Ground Water Evaluations 

(Note: Water Supply Restoration Program data not included)

All Networks—UPPER EAST COAST—UNCONFINED AQUIFER—NUTRIENTS 

Parameter Name Nitrate+Nitrite, 

Dissolved (as N) 

Orthophosphate, 

Dissolved (as P) 

Phosphorus, 

Dissolved (as P) 

Parameter Code 631 671 666 

Units mg/L mg/L mg/L 

Total Wells 17 16 17 

Number BDLs 8 0 0 

Number MCL/GCL 

Exceedances - - - 

Percent MCL/GCL 

Exceedances - - - 

Minimum 0.002 0.009 0.012 

1st Quartile 0.01 0.06 0.06 

Median 0.037 0.124 0.1 

3rd Quartile 0.06 0.238 0.3 

Maximum 2.4 0.92 0.88 

Interquartile Range 0.05 0.178 0.24 

Mean 0.23 0.21 0.21 

Standard Deviation 0.59 0.25 0.24 

Relative Standard 

Deviation 257.10% 118.40% 111.60% 

Standard Error 0.14 0.06 0.06 

Variance 0.35 0.06 0.06 

Coefficient of Skewness 1104.422 2046.522 2266.488 

Number Risk Indicators 0 - - 

Percent Risk Indicators 0.00% - - 

Number SRA Indicators 2 15 16 

Percent SRA Indicators 11.76% 93.75% 94.12% 

BDL – Median is below detection limit for this analyte. 

MCL – Maximum contaminant level. 

GCL – Guidance concentration level. 

- – Not applicable. 

SRA – Ground Water–Surface Water Relational Assessment. 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 177

 

All Networks—UPPER EAST COAST—CONFINED AQUIFER—NUTRIENTS 

Parameter Name Nitrate+Nitrite, 

Dissolved (as N) 

Orthophosphate, 

Dissolved (as P) 

Phosphorus, 

Dissolved (as P) 

Parameter Code 631 671 666 

Units mg/L mg/L mg/L 

Total Wells 22 21 20 

Number BDLs 12 1 0 

Number MCL/GCL 

Exceedances - - - 

Percent MCL/GCL 

Exceedances - - - 

Minimum 0.002 0.003 0.007 

1st Quartile 0.013 0.019 0.03 

Median 0.035 0.084 0.069 

3rd Quartile 0.103 0.23 0.19 

Maximum 1.05 0.64 0.51 

Interquartile Range 0.09 0.211 0.16 

Mean 0.15 0.16 0.13 

Standard Deviation 0.28 0.19 0.14 

Relative Standard 

Deviation 190.60% 117.20% 106.10% 

Standard Error 0.06 0.04 0.03 

Variance 0.08 0.03 0.02 

Coefficient of Skewness 1450.875 2109.839 2329.404 

Number Risk Indicators 0 - - 

Percent Risk Indicators 0.00% - - 

Number SRA Indicators 3 14 16 

Percent SRA Indicators 13.64% 66.67% 80.00% 

BDL – Median is below detection limit for this analyte. 

MCL – Maximum contaminant level. 

GCL – Guidance concentration level. 

- – Not applicable. 

SRA – Ground Water–Surface Water Relational Assessment. 
178 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

All Networks—UPPER EAST COAST—UNCONFINED AQUIFER—BIOLOGICALS 

Parameter Name Coliform, Fecal (MF) Coliform, Total (MF) 

Parameter Code 31616 31501 

Units #/100mL #/100mL 

Total Wells 14 9 

Number BDLs 14 9 

Number MCL/GCL 

Exceedances - 0 

Percent MCL/GCL 

Exceedances - 0.00% 

Minimum 0 0 

1st Quartile 0 0 

Median 0 0 

3rd Quartile 0 0 

Maximum 0 0 

Interquartile Range 0 0 

Mean 0 0 

Standard Deviation 0 0 

Relative Standard 

Deviation 0.00% 0.00% 

Standard Error 0 0 

Variance 0 0 

Number Risk Indicators 0 - 

Percent Risk Indicators 0.00% - 

Number SRA Indicators 0 0 

Percent SRA Indicators 0.00% 0.00% 

BDL – Median is below detection limit for this analyte. 

MCL – Maximum contaminant level. 

GCL – Guidance concentration level. 

- – Not applicable. 

SRA – Ground Water–Surface Water Relational Assessment. 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 179

 

All Networks—UPPER EAST COAST—CONFINED AQUIFER—BIOLOGICALS 

Parameter Name Coliform, Fecal (MF) Coliform, Total (MF) 

Parameter Code 31616 31501 

Units #/100mL #/100mL 

Total Wells 23 22 

Number BDLs 23 19 

Number MCL/GCL 

Exceedances - 2 

Percent MCL/GCL 

Exceedances - 9.09% 

Minimum 0 0 

1st Quartile 0 0 

Median 0 0 

3rd Quartile 0 0 

Maximum 6 82 

Interquartile Range 0 0 

Mean 0.35 4.18 

Standard Deviation 1.3 17.47 

Relative Standard 

Deviation 373.90% 417.70% 

Standard Error 0.27 3.72 

Variance 1.69 305.11 

Coefficient of Skewness 802.272 718.223 

Number Risk Indicators 1 - 

Percent Risk Indicators 4.35% - 

Number SRA Indicators 0 0 

Percent SRA Indicators 0.00% 0.00% 

BDL – Median is below detection limit for this analyte. 

MCL – Maximum contaminant level. 

GCL – Guidance concentration level. 

- – Not applicable. 

SRA – Ground Water–Surface Water Relational Assessment. 
180 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

All Networks—UPPER EAST COAST—UNCONFINED AQUIFER—METALS 

Parameter Name 

Antimony

, Total 

Arsenic, 

Total 

Barium, 

Total 

Beryllium, 

Total 

Cadmium, 

Total 

Chromium, 

Total 

Lead, 

Total 

Mercury, 

Total 

Nickel, 

Total 

Parameter Code 1097 1002 1007 1012 1027 1034 1051 71900 1067 Units ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L Total Wells 5 12 14 5 14 14 13 14 11 Number BDLs 4 7 0 5 2 2 0 9 8 Number MCL/GCL Exceedances

0 0 1 0 0 1 8 1 0 

Percent MCL/GCL Exceedances

0.00% 0.00% 7.14% 0.00% 0.00% 7.14% 61.54% 7.14% 0.00% 

Minimum 0.1 0.5 8.2 0.05 0.04 1 1.1 0.05 2 1st Quartile 0.2 0.5 22.5 0.25 0.34 7 7 0.05 3.5 Median 0.2 0.5 36.5 0.25 0.9 15 27.7 0.075 5 3rd Quartile 0.2 1.55 129 0.25 1.9 22.5 60 0.175 5 Maximum 0.5 5 2,520.00 0.25 3.6 204 900 52 40 Interquartile Range 0 1.05 106.5 0 1.56 15.5 53 0.125 1.5 Mean 0.24 1.43 332.87 0.21 1.23 28.39 100.6 3.81 7.82 Standard Deviation 0.15 1.53 717.32 0.09 1.09 51.48 242.36 13.87 10.91 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper Eas

All Networks—UPPER EAST COAST—UNCONFINED AQUIFER—METALS 

Parameter Name 

Antimony

, Total 

Arsenic, 

Total 

Barium, 

Total 

Beryllium, 

Total 

Cadmium, 

Total 

Chromium, 

Total 

Lead, 

Total 

Mercury, 

Total 

Nickel, 

Total 

Parameter Code 1097 1002 1007 1012 1027 1034 1051 71900 1067 Units ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L Relative Standard Deviation 

63.20% 106.70% 215.50% 42.60% 88.50% 181.30% 240.90% 364.00% 139.50% 

Standard Error 0.07 0.44 191.71 0.04 0.29 13.76 67.22 3.71 3.29 Variance 0.02 2.34 514549.52 0.01 1.18 2650.08 58738.4 192.38 118.96 Coefficient ofSkewness 3428.778 2483.816 1341.26 4248.529 2564.144 1363.248 1130.962 818.826 1691.984 Number RiskIndicators - 0 - - - - - - - Percent Risk Indicators - 0.00% - - - - - - - Number SRAIndicators 0 0 2 0 8 2 13 5 2 Percent SRAIndicators 0.00% 0.00% 14.29% 0.00% 57.14% 14.29% 100.00% 35.71% 18.18% 

BDL – Median is below detection limit for this analyte. MCL – Maximum contaminant level. GCL – Guidance concentration level. - – Not applicable. SRA – Ground Water–Surface Water Relational Assessment. 
182 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

All Networks—UPPER EAST COAST—CONFINED AQUIFER—METALS 

Parameter Name 

Antimony

, Total 

Arsenic, 

Total 

Barium, 

Total 

Beryllium, 

Total 

Cadmium, 

Total 

Chromium, 

Total 

Lead, 

Total 

Mercury, 

Total 

Nickel, 

Total 

Parameter Code 1097 1002 1007 1012 1027 1034 1051 71900 1067 Units ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L Total Wells 12 20 23 12 23 23 23 23 20 Number BDLs 11 14 0 12 8 1 6 17 18 Number MCL/GCL Exceedances

0 0 0 0 1 1 11 1 0 

Percent MCL/GCL Exceedances

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.35% 4.35% 47.83% 4.35% 0.00% 

Minimum 0.1 0.5 14 0.05 0.01 2.5 0.5 0.05 0.5 1st Quartile 0.2 0.5 30 0.25 0.2 8.5 5 0.05 2 Median 0.2 0.5 48.1 0.25 0.5 11 11 0.05 2 3rd Quartile 0.75 1.25 105 0.25 1.385 17.4 28 0.175 5 Maximum 1.5 20 1,032.00 0.5 30 780 280 4.7 5 Interquartile Range 0.55 0.75 75 0 1.185 8.9 23 0.125 3 Mean 0.53 1.89 123.4 0.25 2.13 46.04 34.41 0.35 2.9 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper Eas

All Networks—UPPER EAST COAST—CONFINED AQUIFER—METALS 

Parameter Name 

Antimony

, Total 

Arsenic, 

Total 

Barium, 

Total 

Beryllium, 

Total 

Cadmium, 

Total 

Chromium, 

Total 

Lead, 

Total 

Mercury, 

Total 

Nickel, 

Total 

Parameter Code 1097 1002 1007 1012 1027 1034 1051 71900 1067 Units ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L Standard Deviation 0.59 4.34 218.43 0.1 6.13 160.16 63.01 0.98 1.67 Relative Standard Deviation 

110.90% 229.60% 177.00% 37.90% 288.00% 347.80% 183.10% 283.40% 57.80% 

Standard Error 0.17 0.97 45.54 0.03 1.28 33.4 13.14 0.2 0.37 Variance 0.35 18.84 47709.94 0.01 37.59 25650.51 3969.95 0.96 2.81 Coefficient ofSkewness 2367.457 1191.208 1474.701 5314.594 960.01 793.783 1463.939 1007.677 4000.258 Number RiskIndicators - 1 - - - - - - - Percent Risk Indicators - 5.00% - - - - - - - Number SRAIndicators 0 0 1 0 12 3 17 6 0 Percent SRAIndicators 0.00% 0.00% 4.35% 0.00% 52.17% 13.04% 73.91% 26.09% 0.00% 

BDL – Median is below detection limit for this analyte. MCL – Maximum contaminant level. GCL – Guidance concentration level. - – Not applicable. SRA – Ground Water–Surface Water Relational Assessment. 
184 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

All Networks—UPPER EAST COAST—UNCONFINED AQUIFER—METALS 

Parameter 

Name 

Aluminum

, Total 

Copper, 

Total 

Iron, 

Total 

Manganese, 

Total 

Silver, 

Total 

Strontium, 

Total 

Vanadium, 

Total 

Zinc, 

Total 

Parameter 

Code 1105 1042 1045 1055 1077 1082 1087 1092 

Units ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L 

Total Wells 11 14 14 14 14 14 5 14 

Number 

BDLs 1 1 0 0 5 2 1 0 

Number 

MCL/GCL 

Exceedances

6 0 14 7 0 1 0 0 

Percent 

MCL/GCL 

Exceedances

54.55% 0.00% 100.00% 50.00% 0.00% 7.14% 0.00% 0.00% 

Minimum 10 1 630 1.8 0.02 25 1 18 

1st Quartile 80 6.25 1,325.00 20 0.3 137.5 2.9 59 

Median 850 20.5 5,905.00 52.5 0.5 484 3.1 129.5 

3rd Quartile 2,845.00 68 9,800.00 130.5 1 692.5 3.3 332 

Maximum 15,000.00 342 56,210.00 517 77 6,620.00 6 1,130.00 

Interquartile 

Range 2,765.00 61.75 8,475.00 110.5 0.7 555 0.4 273 

Mean 2,839.09 53.29 9,000.00 117.34 6.57 986.93 3.26 337.64 

Standard 

Deviation 4573.15 88.8 14241.98 153.17 20.39 1722.68 1.79 424.37 

Relative 

Standard 

Deviation 

161.10% 166.60% 158.20% 130.50% 310.50% 174.50% 54.80% 125.70% 

Standard 

Error 1378.86 23.73 3806.33 40.94 5.45 460.4 0.8 113.42 

Variance 20913689 7885.11 202834092 23460.41 415.84 2967617.2 3.19 180086.25

Coefficient of

Skewness 1676.585 1569.612 1481.184 1955.557 941.818 1437.754 3738.325 2081.762 

Number Risk

Indicators - - - - - - - - 

Percent Risk 

Indicators - - - - - - - - 

Number SRA

Indicators 5 10 14 6 9 - - 12 

Percent SRA

Indicators 45.45% 71.43% 100.00% 42.86% 64.29% - - 85.71% 

BDL – Median is below detection limit for this analyte. MCL – Maximum contaminant level. 

GCL – Guidance concentration level. – Not applicable. 

SRA – Ground Water–Surface Water Relational Assessment. 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 185

 

All Networks—UPPER EAST COAST—CONFINED AQUIFER—METALS 

Parameter 

Name 

Aluminum

, Total 

Copper, 

Total 

Iron, 

Total 

Manganese, 

Total 

Silver, 

Total 

Strontium, 

Total 

Vanadium, 

Total 

Zinc, 

Total 

Parameter 

Code 1105 1042 1045 1055 1077 1082 1087 1092 

Units ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L 

Total Wells 18 23 23 23 23 23 12 21 

Number 

BDLs 3 3 0 1 4 1 11 2 

Number 

MCL/GCL 

Exceedances

2 0 17 9 1 3 0 0 

Percent 

MCL/GCL 

Exceedances

11.11% 0.00% 73.91% 39.13% 4.35% 13.04% 0.00% 0.00% 

Minimum 10 0.5 12 0.5 0.2 25 0.25 5 

1st Quartile 37.75 2 316.5 7.5 0.55 520.5 1 34 

Median 57 10 887 20 1 950 1 86 

3rd Quartile 119.75 51 7,717.00 75.6 1.75 2,650.00 1 150 

Maximum 3,160.00 204 18,000.00 360 158 11,070.00 5 2,480.00 

Interquartile 

Range 82 49 7,400.50 68.1 1.2 2,129.50 0 116 

Mean 265.67 33.26 3,789.74 54.59 8.19 2,241.48 1.25 224.52 

Standard 

Deviation 735.1 47.58 4716.39 80.09 32.69 2972.14 1.23 531.96 

Relative 

Standard 

Deviation 

276.70% 143.00% 124.50% 146.70% 399.00% 132.60% 98.40% 236.90% 

Standard 

Error 173.26 9.92 983.43 16.7 6.82 619.73 0.35 116.08 

Variance 540369.41 2263.7 22244313 6414.2 1068.46 8833594.2 1.51 282979.06

Coefficient of

Skewness 1006.668 1887.048 2222.51 1795.184 721.195 1942.857 2236.908 1104.545 

Number Risk

Indicators - - - - - - - - 

Percent Risk

Indicators - - - - - - - - 

Number SRA

Indicators 1 15 17 3 19 - - 15 

Percent SRA

Indicators 5.56% 65.22% 73.91% 13.04% 82.61% - - 71.43% 

BDL – Median is below detection limit for this analyte. 

MCL – Maximum contaminant level. GCL – Guidance concentration level. 

- – Not applicable. SRA – Ground Water–Surface Water Relational Assessment. 
186 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

All Networks—UPPER EAST COAST—UNCONFINED AQUIFER—SALTWATER 

Parameter Name Chloride, 

Total 

Sodium, 

Total 

Specific 

Conductance, Field 

Total Dissolved Solids 

(TDS measured) 

Parameter Code 940 929 94 70300 

Units mg/L mg/L uS/cm mg/L 

Total Wells 9 9 19 15 

Number BDLs 0 0 0 0 

Number MCL/GCL 

Exceedances 4 3 - 6 

Percent MCL/GCL 

Exceedances 44.44% 33.33% - 40.00% 

Minimum 27 14 178 103 

1st Quartile 33 19 362.5 250.5 

Median 76 45 522 439 

3rd Quartile 741 257 991.5 961.5 

Maximum 1,790.00 868 4,600.00 3,821.00 

Interquartile Range 708 238 629 711 

Mean 564.33 198 1,001.16 928.53 

Standard Deviation 732.63 287.92 1117.22 1148.57 

Relative Standard 

Deviation 129.80% 145.40% 111.60% 123.70% 

Standard Error 244.21 95.97 256.31 296.56 

Variance 536741.5 82895.25 1248174.03 1319217.7 

Coefficient of 

Skewness 2207.128 1906.81 2221.12 2043.059 

Number Risk 

Indicators - - - - 

Percent Risk 

Indicators - - - - 

Number SRA 

Indicators 4 - - - 

Percent SRA 

Indicators 44.44% - - - 

BDL – Median is below detection limit for this analyte. 

MCL – Maximum contaminant level. GCL – Guidance concentration level. 

- – Not applicable. SRA – Ground Water–Surface Water Relational Assessment. 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast 187

 

All Networks—UPPER EAST COAST—CONFINED AQUIFER—SALTWATER 

Parameter Name Chloride, 

Total 

Sodium, 

Total 

Specific 

Conductance, 

Field 

Total Dissolved 

Solids (TDS 

measured) 

Parameter Code 940 929 94 70300 

Units mg/L mg/L uS/cm mg/L 

Total Wells 22 22 24 23 

Number BDLs 0 0 0 0 

Number MCL/GCL 

Exceedances 5 5 - 12 

Percent MCL/GCL 

Exceedances 22.73% 22.73% - 52.17% 

Minimum 12 8 550 317 

1st Quartile 42 24.75 683 404.5 

Median 81.5 43 874 504 

3rd Quartile 233.75 79 2,287.50 1,368.00 

Maximum 16,270.00 7,043.00 34,800.00 25,000.00 

Interquartile Range 191.75 54.25 1,604.50 963.5 

Mean 1,018.36 456.45 3,216.71 2,066.83 

Standard Deviation 3445.56 1494.43 7039.28 5124.51 

Relative Standard 

Deviation 338.30% 327.40% 218.80% 247.90% 

Standard Error 734.6 318.61 1436.89 1068.53 

Variance 11871892.05 2233328 49551436 26260599.97 

Coefficient of 

Skewness 863.021 887.537 1246.737 1111.614 

Number Risk 

Indicators - - - - 

Percent Risk 

Indicators - - - - 

Number SRA 

Indicators 5 - - - 

Percent SRA 

Indicators 22.73% - - - 

BDL – Median is below detection limit for this analyte. 

MCL – Maximum contaminant level. 

GCL – Guidance concentration level. 

- – Not applicable. 

SRA – Ground Water–Surface Water Relational Assessment. 
188 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

Appendix G: Monitoring Priorities in the Upper East Coast Basin 

Planning

Unit WBID 

Water 

Segment 

Name 

Water 

Type Priority

Projected 

Year of 

TMDL 

Development

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using The 

Impaired 

Waters Rule 

(IWR) 

Planning 

List Status

Planning 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Planning 

List: Num. of

Exceedances

/ Num. of 

Samples 

Verified 

List Status

Verified 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified List:

Num. of 

Exceedances

/ Num. of 

Samples 

Num

o

Sam

for 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2363A Halifax River Estuary Chlorophyll Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 1

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2363A Halifax River Estuary Nutrients Chlorophyll Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 1

nutri

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2363B Halifax River Estuary Low 2011 Copper Copper Planning list 3C pp = 13 / 19 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2363B Halifax River Estuary Low 2011 Iron Iron Planning list 3C pp = 18 / 22 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2363B Halifax River Estuary Aluminum Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 2 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2363B Halifax River Estuary Arsenic Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 2 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2363B Halifax River Estuary Cadmium Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2620 Bulow Creek Stream Conductance Planning list 3C pp = 21 / 31 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2620 Bulow Creek Stream Dissolved Oxygen Planning list 3C pp = 15 / 31 Insufficient data 3B vp = 1 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2620 Bulow Creek Stream Selenium Planning list 3C pp = 8 / 11 2
Water Quality Status Report: Upper Eas

Planning

Unit WBID 

Water 

Segment 

Name 

Water 

Type Priority

Projected 

Year of 

TMDL 

Development

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using The 

Impaired 

Waters Rule 

(IWR) 

Planning 

List Status

Planning 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Planning 

List: Num. of

Exceedances

/ Num. of 

Samples 

Verified 

List Status

Verified 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified List:

Num. of 

Exceedances

/ Num. of 

Samples 

Num

o

Sam

for 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2620 Bulow Creek Stream Silver Insufficient data 3B pp = 2 / 2 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2634 Tomoka River Stream Copper Planning list 3C pp = 7 / 41 Insufficient data 3B vp = 1 / 12 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2634 Tomoka River Stream Low 2011 Fecal Coliform Fecal Coliform Planning list 3C pp = 41 / 264 Verified list 3D vp = 16 / 108 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2634 Tomoka River Stream Alkalinity Planning list 3C pp = 7 / 40 Insufficient data 3B vp = 1 / 3 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2634 Tomoka River Stream Nutrients Historic Chlorophyll Planning list 3C Not impaired 2 1

nutri

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2634 Tomoka River Stream Low 2011 Lead Lead Planning list 3C pp = 7 / 26 Insufficient data 3B vp = 1 / 2 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2634 Tomoka River Stream Historic Chlorophyll Planning list 3C Not impaired 2 12 c

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2634 Tomoka River Stream Low 2011 Iron Iron Planning list 3C pp = 13 / 31 Insufficient data 3B vp = 1 / 2 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2634 Tomoka River Stream Low 2011 Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen Planning list 3C pp = 169 / 287 Verified list 3D vp = 80 / 127 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2634 Tomoka River Stream Nickel Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 7 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2634 Tomoka River Stream Chlorine Insufficient data 3B pp = 1 / 1 Insufficient data 3B vp = 1 / 1 2
190 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

Planning

Unit WBID 

Water 

Segment 

Name 

Water 

Type Priority

Projected 

Year of 

TMDL 

Development

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using The 

Impaired 

Waters Rule 

(IWR) 

Planning 

List Status

Planning 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Planning 

List: Num. of

Exceedances

/ Num. of 

Samples 

Verified 

List Status

Verified 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified List:

Num. of 

Exceedances

/ Num. of 

Samples 

Num

o

Sam

for 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2634 Tomoka River Stream Cadmium Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 8 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2634 Tomoka River Stream Silver Insufficient data 3B pp = 2 / 2 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2634 Tomoka River Stream Chromium3 Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 3 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2634A Tomoka River Estuary Copper Planning list 3C pp = 10 / 14 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2634A Tomoka River Estuary Dissolved Oxygen Planning list 3C pp = 52 / 193 Verified list 3D vp = 16 / 51 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2634A Tomoka River Estuary Low 2011 Iron Iron Planning list 3C pp = 18 / 24 Insufficient data 3B vp = 1 / 2 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2634A Tomoka River Estuary Historic Chlorophyll Planning list 3C Not impaired 2 0 

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2634A Tomoka River Estuary Nutrients Historic Chlorophyll Planning list 3C Not impaired 2 0 

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2634A Tomoka River Estuary Low 2011 Lead Lead Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 7 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 2 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2634A Tomoka River Estuary Arsenic Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 2 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2634A Tomoka River Estuary Nickel Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 2
Water Quality Status Report: Upper Eas

Planning

Unit WBID 

Water 

Segment 

Name 

Water 

Type Priority

Projected 

Year of 

TMDL 

Development

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using The 

Impaired 

Waters Rule 

(IWR) 

Planning 

List Status

Planning 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Planning 

List: Num. of

Exceedances

/ Num. of 

Samples 

Verified 

List Status

Verified 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified List:

Num. of 

Exceedances

/ Num. of 

Samples 

Num

o

Sam

for 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2634A Tomoka River Estuary Aluminum Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 2 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2635 Grover Branch Stream Biology Planning list 3C 

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2635 Grover Branch Stream Alkalinity Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2635 Grover Branch Stream Iron Insufficient data 3B pp = 1 / 1 Insufficient data 3B vp = 1 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2635 Grover Branch Stream Lead Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2635 Grover Branch Stream Turbidity Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2635 Grover Branch Stream pH Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2641 Unnamed Branch Stream Dissolved Oxygen Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2641 Unnamed Branch Stream pH Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2641 Unnamed Branch Stream Unionized Ammonia Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2641 Unnamed Branch Stream Fecal Coliform Insufficient data 3B pp = 1 / 1 2
192 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

Planning

Unit WBID 

Water 

Segment 

Name 

Water 

Type Priority

Projected 

Year of 

TMDL 

Development

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using The 

Impaired 

Waters Rule 

(IWR) 

Planning 

List Status

Planning 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Planning 

List: Num. of

Exceedances

/ Num. of 

Samples 

Verified 

List Status

Verified 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified List:

Num. of 

Exceedances

/ Num. of 

Samples 

Num

o

Sam

for 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2641 Unnamed Branch Stream Conductance Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2641 Unnamed Branch Stream Alkalinity Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2641 Unnamed Branch Stream Turbidity Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2645 Mizners Branch Stream Alkalinity Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2645 Mizners Branch Stream Iron Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2645 Mizners Branch Stream Lead Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2645 Mizners Branch Stream Turbidity Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2645 Mizners Branch Stream pH Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2646 

Little 

Tomoka 

River 

Stream pH Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2646 

Little 

Tomoka 

River 

Stream Turbidity Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2646 

Little 

Tomoka 

River 

Stream Alkalinity Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2
Water Quality Status Report: Upper Eas

Planning

Unit WBID 

Water 

Segment 

Name 

Water 

Type Priority

Projected 

Year of 

TMDL 

Development

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using The 

Impaired 

Waters Rule 

(IWR) 

Planning 

List Status

Planning 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Planning 

List: Num. of

Exceedances

/ Num. of 

Samples 

Verified 

List Status

Verified 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified List:

Num. of 

Exceedances

/ Num. of 

Samples 

Num

o

Sam

for 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2646 

Little 

Tomoka 

River 

Stream Lead Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2647 Holly Hill Ditch Stream Biology Planning list 3C 

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2647 Holly Hill Ditch Stream Conductance Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2647 Holly Hill Ditch Stream Dissolved Oxygen Insufficient data 3B pp = 1 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2647 Holly Hill Ditch Stream Fecal Coliform Insufficient data 3B pp = 1 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2647 Holly Hill Ditch Stream Turbidity Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2647 Holly Hill Ditch Stream Unionized Ammonia Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2647 Holly Hill Ditch Stream pH Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2647 Holly Hill Ditch Stream Alkalinity Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2664 Reed Canal Stream Conductance Insufficient data 3B pp = 1 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2664 Reed Canal Stream pH Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 2
194 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

Planning

Unit WBID 

Water 

Segment 

Name 

Water 

Type Priority

Projected 

Year of 

TMDL 

Development

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using The 

Impaired 

Waters Rule 

(IWR) 

Planning 

List Status

Planning 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Planning 

List: Num. of

Exceedances

/ Num. of 

Samples 

Verified 

List Status

Verified 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified List:

Num. of 

Exceedances

/ Num. of 

Samples 

Num

o

Sam

for 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2664 Reed Canal Stream Unionized Ammonia Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2664 Reed Canal Stream Turbidity Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2664 Reed Canal Stream Dissolved Oxygen Insufficient data 3B pp = 1 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2664 Reed Canal Stream Alkalinity Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2664 Reed Canal Stream Fecal Coliform Insufficient data 3B pp = 1 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2666A Sweetwater Creek Stream pH Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 2 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2666A Sweetwater Creek Stream Unionized Ammonia Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2666A Sweetwater Creek Stream Alkalinity Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 2 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2666A Sweetwater Creek Stream Chlorophyll Insufficient data 3B No data 3A 1

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2666A Sweetwater Creek Stream Conductance Insufficient data 3B pp = 1 / 2 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2666A Sweetwater Creek Stream Turbidity Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 2 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2
Water Quality Status Report: Upper Eas

Planning

Unit WBID 

Water 

Segment 

Name 

Water 

Type Priority

Projected 

Year of 

TMDL 

Development

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using The 

Impaired 

Waters Rule 

(IWR) 

Planning 

List Status

Planning 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Planning 

List: Num. of

Exceedances

/ Num. of 

Samples 

Verified 

List Status

Verified 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified List:

Num. of 

Exceedances

/ Num. of 

Samples 

Num

o

Sam

for 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2666A Sweetwater Creek Stream Dissolved Oxygen Insufficient data 3B pp = 2 / 2 Insufficient data 3B vp = 1 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2670 Halifax Canal Stream Fecal Coliform Planning list 3C pp = 14 / 26 Verified list 3D vp = 14 / 27 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2670 Halifax Canal Stream Dissolved Oxygen Planning list 3C pp = 7 / 25 Verified list 3D vp = 7 / 27 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2670 Halifax Canal Stream Conductance Planning list 3C pp = 25 / 25 Verified list 3D vp = 27 / 27 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2672 Rose Bay Estuary Low 2011 Fecal Coliform Fecal Coliform Planning list 3C pp = 20 / 108 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2672 Rose Bay Estuary Nutrients Chlorophyll Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 1

nutri

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2672 Rose Bay Estuary Chlorophyll Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 12 c

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2673 Unnamed Drain Stream pH Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 2 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2673 Unnamed Drain Stream Conductance Insufficient data 3B pp = 1 / 2 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2673 Unnamed Drain Stream Turbidity Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 2 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2673 Unnamed Drain Stream Dissolved Oxygen Insufficient data 3B pp = 2 / 2 Insufficient data 3B vp = 1 / 1 2
196 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

Planning

Unit WBID 

Water 

Segment 

Name 

Water 

Type Priority

Projected 

Year of 

TMDL 

Development

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using The 

Impaired 

Waters Rule 

(IWR) 

Planning 

List Status

Planning 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Planning 

List: Num. of

Exceedances

/ Num. of 

Samples 

Verified 

List Status

Verified 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified List:

Num. of 

Exceedances

/ Num. of 

Samples 

Num

o

Sam

for 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2673 Unnamed Drain Stream Alkalinity Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 2 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2673 Unnamed Drain Stream Chlorophyll Insufficient data 3B No data 3A 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2673 Unnamed Drain Stream Unionized Ammonia Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2674 Spruce Creek Stream pH Planning list 3C pp = 5 / 24 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2674 Spruce Creek Stream Alkalinity Planning list 3C pp = 6 / 25 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2674 Spruce Creek Stream Chlorophyll Planning list 3C Not impaired 2 0 

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2674 Spruce Creek Stream Nutrients Chlorophyll Planning list 3C Not impaired 2 0 

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2674 Spruce Creek Stream High 2006 Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen Planning list 3C pp = 5 / 24 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2674 Spruce Creek Stream High 2006 Fecal Coliform Fecal Coliform Planning list 3C pp = 8 / 20 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2674 Spruce Creek Stream High 2006 Iron Iron Planning list 3C pp = 20 / 23 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2674 Spruce Creek Stream Nickel Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 2 2
Water Quality Status Report: Upper Eas

Planning

Unit WBID 

Water 

Segment 

Name 

Water 

Type Priority

Projected 

Year of 

TMDL 

Development

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using The 

Impaired 

Waters Rule 

(IWR) 

Planning 

List Status

Planning 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Planning 

List: Num. of

Exceedances

/ Num. of 

Samples 

Verified 

List Status

Verified 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified List:

Num. of 

Exceedances

/ Num. of 

Samples 

Num

o

Sam

for 2

Halifax

River 

Unit 

2674 Spruce Creek Stream Cadmium Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 2 2

Halifax

River 

Unit 

2674A Spruce Creek Estuary Nutrients Chlorophyll Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 1

nutri

Halifax

River 

Unit 

2674A Spruce Creek Estuary Copper Planning list 3C pp = 6 / 12 Insufficient data 3B vp = 6 / 12 2

Halifax

River 

Unit 

2674A Spruce Creek Estuary High 2006 Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen Planning list 3C pp = 90 / 285 Verified list 3D vp = 32 / 88 2

Halifax

River 

Unit 

2674A Spruce Creek Estuary Fecal Coliform Planning list 3C pp = 69 / 284 Verified list 3D vp = 24 / 75 2

Halifax

River 

Unit 

2674A Spruce Creek Estuary Chlorophyll Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 12 c

Halifax

River 

Unit 

2674B Strickland Bay at US # Estuary pH Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax

River 

Unit 

2674B Strickland Bay at US # Estuary Total Coliform Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax

River 

Unit 

2674B Strickland Bay at US # Estuary Dissolved Oxygen Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax

River 

Unit 

2674B Strickland Bay at US # Estuary Fecal Coliform Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax

River 

Unit 

2674B Strickland Bay at US # Estuary Turbidity Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 2
198 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

Planning

Unit WBID 

Water 

Segment 

Name 

Water 

Type Priority

Projected 

Year of 

TMDL 

Development

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using The 

Impaired 

Waters Rule 

(IWR) 

Planning 

List Status

Planning 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Planning 

List: Num. of

Exceedances

/ Num. of 

Samples 

Verified 

List Status

Verified 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified List:

Num. of 

Exceedances

/ Num. of 

Samples 

Num

o

Sam

for 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2675 Sand Creek Stream pH Insufficient data 3B pp = 1 / 1 Insufficient data 3B vp = 1 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2675 Sand Creek Stream Turbidity Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2675 Sand Creek Stream Dissolved Oxygen Insufficient data 3B pp = 1 / 1 Insufficient data 3B vp = 1 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2675 Sand Creek Stream Conductance Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2675 Sand Creek Stream Alkalinity Insufficient data 3B pp = 1 / 1 Insufficient data 3B vp = 1 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2678 Turnbull Bay Estuary Biology Planning list 3C ??

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2678 Turnbull Bay Estuary Chlorophyll Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 1

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2678 Turnbull Bay Estuary Dissolved Oxygen Planning list 3C pp = 7 / 13 Insufficient data 3B vp = 7 / 13 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2679 Unnamed Ditch Stream pH Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2679 Unnamed Ditch Stream Dissolved Oxygen Insufficient data 3B pp = 1 / 1 Insufficient data 3B vp = 1 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2679 Unnamed Ditch Stream Turbidity Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2
Water Quality Status Report: Upper Eas

Planning

Unit WBID 

Water 

Segment 

Name 

Water 

Type Priority

Projected 

Year of 

TMDL 

Development

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using The 

Impaired 

Waters Rule 

(IWR) 

Planning 

List Status

Planning 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Planning 

List: Num. of

Exceedances

/ Num. of 

Samples 

Verified 

List Status

Verified 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified List:

Num. of 

Exceedances

/ Num. of 

Samples 

Num

o

Sam

for 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2679 Unnamed Ditch Stream Conductance Insufficient data 3B pp = 1 / 1 Insufficient data 3B vp = 1 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2679 Unnamed Ditch Stream Alkalinity Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2681 Glencoe Ditches Stream Alkalinity Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2681 Glencoe Ditches Stream Conductance Insufficient data 3B pp = 1 / 1 Insufficient data 3B vp = 1 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2681 Glencoe Ditches Stream Dissolved Oxygen Insufficient data 3B pp = 1 / 1 Insufficient data 3B vp = 1 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2681 Glencoe Ditches Stream Turbidity Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

2681 Glencoe Ditches Stream pH Insufficient data 3B pp = 0 / 1 Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

8117 

Halifax 

River 

Ocean 1 

Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

8117A Toronita Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

8117B Dunlawton Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

8117C Hilton Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 
200 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

Planning

Unit WBID 

Water 

Segment 

Name 

Water 

Type Priority

Projected 

Year of 

TMDL 

Development

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using The 

Impaired 

Waters Rule 

(IWR) 

Planning 

List Status

Planning 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Planning 

List: Num. of

Exceedances

/ Num. of 

Samples 

Verified 

List Status

Verified 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified List:

Num. of 

Exceedances

/ Num. of 

Samples 

Num

o

Sam

for 2

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

8117D Silver Beach Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

8117E Main Street Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

8117F Seabreeze Blvd Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

8118 

Halifax 

River 

Ocean 2 

Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

8118A Granda Blvd Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

8118B Bicentennial Park Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

8119 

Halifax 

River 

Ocean 3 

Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

8119A

Gamble 

Rogers 

State Park 

Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Halifax 

River 

Unit 

8119B

Flagler Pier

at Flager 

Beach 

Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper Eas

REV DRAFT SMP, Upper East Coast—Northeast District Sampling 2005 

Planning

Unit WBID Water Segment Name Water Type Priority

Projected 

Year of 

TMDL 

Development

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

Impaired 

Waters Rule 

(IWR) 

Planning 

List 

Status 

Planning 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified 

List 

Status 

Verified 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified 

Period = 

Exceedances

divided by 

total num. of

Samples 

N

S

N

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2363G Matanzas River Estuary Iron Planning list 3C 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2363G Matanzas River Estuary Zinc Planning list 3C 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2363G Matanzas River Estuary Total Coliform Planning list 3C 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2363G Matanzas River Estuary Nickel Planning list 3C 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2363G Matanzas River Estuary Copper Planning list 3C 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2363G Matanzas River Estuary Chlorophyll Planning list 3C Not impaired 2 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2363G Matanzas River Estuary Arsenic Planning list 3C 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2363G Matanzas River Estuary Fecal Coliform Planning list 3C Not impaired 2 vp = 8 / 87 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2363G Matanzas River Estuary Manganese Insufficient data 3B 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2363G Matanzas River Estuary Selenium Insufficient data 3B 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2363G Matanzas River Estuary Cadmium Insufficient data 3B 
202 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

Planning

Unit WBID Water Segment Name Water Type Priority

Projected 

Year of 

TMDL 

Development

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

Impaired 

Waters Rule 

(IWR) 

Planning 

List 

Status 

Planning 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified 

List 

Status 

Verified 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified 

Period = 

Exceedances

divided by 

total num. of

Samples 

N

S

N

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2363G Matanzas River Estuary Aluminum Insufficient data 3B 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2491 San Sebastian River Stream Dissolved Oxygen Planning list 3C Verified list 3D vp = 21 / 51 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2491 San Sebastian River Stream Conductance Planning list 3C Verified list 3D vp = 51 / 51 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2493 Moultrie Creek Stream Historic Chlorophyll Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2493 Moultrie Creek Stream Nickel Planning list 3C 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2493 Moultrie Creek Stream Copper Planning list 3C 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2493 Moultrie Creek Stream Fecal Coliform Planning list 3C Verified list 3D vp = 12 / 45 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2493 Moultrie Creek Stream Iron Planning list 3C 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2493 Moultrie Creek Stream Lead Insufficient data 3B 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2493 Moultrie Creek Stream Total Coliform Insufficient data 3B Insufficient data 3B vp = 1 / 1 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2493 Moultrie Creek Stream Arsenic Insufficient data 3B 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper Eas

Planning

Unit WBID Water Segment Name Water Type Priority

Projected 

Year of 

TMDL 

Development

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

Impaired 

Waters Rule 

(IWR) 

Planning 

List 

Status 

Planning 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified 

List 

Status 

Verified 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified 

Period = 

Exceedances

divided by 

total num. of

Samples 

N

S

N

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2493 Moultrie Creek Stream Cadmium Insufficient data 3B 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2493 Moultrie Creek Stream Selenium Insufficient data 3B 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2499 Oyster Creek Stream Dissolved Oxygen Planning list 3C 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2502 Salt Run Estuary Dissolved Oxygen Insufficient data 3B Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 5 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2502 Salt Run Estuary Turbidity Insufficient data 3B Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 5 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2502 Salt Run Estuary pH Insufficient data 3B Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 5 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2502 Salt Run Estuary Chlorophyll No data 3A Insufficient data 3B 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2520 Wildwood Creek Stream Conductance Insufficient data 3B Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2520 Wildwood Creek Stream pH Insufficient data 3B Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2520 Wildwood Creek Stream Turbidity Insufficient data 3B Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2520 Wildwood Creek Stream Total Coliform Insufficient data 3B Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 
204 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

Planning

Unit WBID Water Segment Name Water Type Priority

Projected 

Year of 

TMDL 

Development

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

Impaired 

Waters Rule 

(IWR) 

Planning 

List 

Status 

Planning 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified 

List 

Status 

Verified 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified 

Period = 

Exceedances

divided by 

total num. of

Samples 

N

S

N

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2520 Wildwood Creek Stream Dissolved Oxygen Insufficient data 3B Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2520 Wildwood Creek Stream Fecal Coliform Insufficient data 3B Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2535 Moses Creek Stream Dissolved Oxygen Planning list 3C Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 3 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2535 Moses Creek Stream Turbidity Insufficient data 3B Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 3 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2535 Moses Creek Stream Fecal Coliform Insufficient data 3B Insufficient data 3B vp = 2 / 3 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2535 Moses Creek Stream Total Coliform Insufficient data 3B Insufficient data 3B vp = 0 / 1 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

2535 Moses Creek Stream Chlorophyll No data 3A Insufficient data 3B 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

8122 Matanzas River Ocean Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

8122A Crescent Beach Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

8122B St. Augustine Beach Ocean Trace Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

8122C St. Augustine Beach A Street Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper Eas

Planning

Unit WBID Water Segment Name Water Type Priority

Projected 

Year of 

TMDL 

Development

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

Impaired 

Waters Rule 

(IWR) 

Planning 

List 

Status 

Planning 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified 

List 

Status 

Verified 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified 

Period = 

Exceedances

divided by 

total num. of

Samples 

N

S

N

Matanzas

River 

Unit 

8122D Anastasia State Park Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2363E Intercoastal Waterway Estuary Cadmium Planning list 3C 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2363E Intercoastal Waterway Estuary Zinc Planning list 3C 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2363E Intercoastal Waterway Estuary Nickel Planning list 3C 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2363E Intercoastal Waterway Estuary Selenium Planning list 3C 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2363E Intercoastal Waterway Estuary Lead Planning list 3C 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2363E Intercoastal Waterway Estuary Arsenic Planning list 3C 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2363E Intercoastal Waterway Estuary Copper Planning list 3C 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2363E Intercoastal Waterway Estuary Historic Chlorophyll Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2363E Intercoastal Waterway Estuary Iron Planning list 3C 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2363F Intercoastal Waterway Estuary Chlorophyll No data 3A Insufficient data 3B 
206 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

Planning

Unit WBID Water Segment Name Water Type Priority

Projected 

Year of 

TMDL 

Development

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

Impaired 

Waters Rule 

(IWR) 

Planning 

List 

Status 

Planning 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified 

List 

Status 

Verified 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified 

Period = 

Exceedances

divided by 

total num. of

Samples 

N

S

N

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2553 Cracker Branch Blackwater Biology Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2553 Cracker Branch Blackwater Low 2011 Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen Insufficient data 3B 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2553 Cracker Branch Blackwater Copper Insufficient data 3B 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2553 Cracker Branch Blackwater Chromium3 Insufficient data 3B 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2553 Cracker Branch Blackwater Conductance Insufficient data 3B 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2553 Cracker Branch Blackwater Low 2011 Iron Iron Insufficient data 3B 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2553 Cracker Branch Blackwater pH Insufficient data 3B 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2553 Cracker Branch Blackwater Nickel Insufficient data 3B 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2553 Cracker Branch Blackwater Low 2011 Fecal Coliform Fecal Coliform Insufficient data 3B 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2553 Cracker Branch Blackwater Total Coliform Insufficient data 3B 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2553 Cracker Branch Blackwater Turbidity Insufficient data 3B 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper Eas

Planning

Unit WBID Water Segment Name Water Type Priority

Projected 

Year of 

TMDL 

Development

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

Impaired 

Waters Rule 

(IWR) 

Planning 

List 

Status 

Planning 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified 

List 

Status 

Verified 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified 

Period = 

Exceedances

divided by 

total num. of

Samples 

N

S

N

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2553 Cracker Branch Blackwater Zinc Insufficient data 3B 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2553 Cracker Branch Blackwater Cadmium Insufficient data 3B 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2577 Stevens Branch Stream Iron Insufficient data 3B 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2577 Stevens Branch Stream pH Insufficient data 3B 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2577 Stevens Branch Stream Zinc Insufficient data 3B 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2577 Stevens Branch Stream Turbidity Insufficient data 3B 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2577 Stevens Branch Stream Nickel Insufficient data 3B 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2577 Stevens Branch Stream Fecal Coliform Insufficient data 3B 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2577 Stevens Branch Stream Dissolved Oxygen Insufficient data 3B 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2577 Stevens Branch Stream Copper Insufficient data 3B 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2577 Stevens Branch Stream Chromium3 Insufficient data 3B 
208 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

Planning

Unit WBID Water Segment Name Water Type Priority

Projected 

Year of 

TMDL 

Development

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

Impaired 

Waters Rule 

(IWR) 

Planning 

List 

Status 

Planning 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified 

List 

Status 

Verified 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified 

Period = 

Exceedances

divided by 

total num. of

Samples 

N

S

N

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2577 Stevens Branch Stream Conductance Insufficient data 3B 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2577 Stevens Branch Stream Cadmium Insufficient data 3B 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2577 Stevens Branch Stream Total Coliform Insufficient data 3B 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2580B Pellicer Creek Stream Low 2011 Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen Planning list 3C Insufficient data 3B vp = 3 / 5 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2580B Pellicer Creek Stream Silver Planning list 3C 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2580B Pellicer Creek Stream Selenium Planning list 3C 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2580B Pellicer Creek Stream Low 2011 Lead Lead Planning list 3C 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2580B Pellicer Creek Stream Conductance Planning list 3C Insufficient data 3B vp = 3 / 5 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2580B Pellicer Creek Stream Low 2011 Iron Iron Planning list 3C 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2580B Pellicer Creek Stream Total Coliform Insufficient data 3B 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2580B Pellicer Creek Stream Chromium3 Insufficient data 3B 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper Eas

Planning

Unit WBID Water Segment Name Water Type Priority

Projected 

Year of 

TMDL 

Development

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

Impaired 

Waters Rule 

(IWR) 

Planning 

List 

Status 

Planning 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified 

List 

Status 

Verified 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified 

Period = 

Exceedances

divided by 

total num. of

Samples 

N

S

N

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

2580B Pellicer Creek Stream Low 2011 Fecal Coliform Fecal Coliform Insufficient data 3B Insufficient data 3B vp = 2 / 5 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

8120 Pellicer Creek Ocean 1 Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

8120A Picknickers/Berverly Beach Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

8120B Varn Park/Beverly Beach Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

8121 Pellicer Creek Ocean 2 Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

8121A Washington Oaks Beach Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

8121B Marineland Beach Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Pellicer 

Creek 

Unit 

8121C Matanzas Inlet Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Tolomato

River 

Unit 

2320 Guana River Estuary Historic Chlorophyll Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Tolomato

River 

Unit 

2320 Guana River Estuary Chlorophyll Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Tolomato

River 

Unit 

2320 Guana River Estuary Total Coliform Insufficient data 3B 
210 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

Planning

Unit WBID Water Segment Name Water Type Priority

Projected 

Year of 

TMDL 

Development

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

Impaired 

Waters Rule 

(IWR) 

Planning 

List 

Status 

Planning 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified 

List 

Status 

Verified 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified 

Period = 

Exceedances

divided by 

total num. of

Samples 

N

S

N

Tolomato

River 

Unit 

2320A LAKE VEDRA Estuary Turbidity Insufficient data 3B 

Tolomato

River 

Unit 

2320A LAKE VEDRA Estuary pH Insufficient data 3B 

Tolomato

River 

Unit 

2320A LAKE VEDRA Estuary Zinc Insufficient data 3B 

Tolomato

River 

Unit 

2320A LAKE VEDRA Estuary Fecal Coliform Insufficient data 3B 

Tolomato

River 

Unit 

2320A LAKE VEDRA Estuary Total Coliform Insufficient data 3B 

Tolomato

River 

Unit 

2320A LAKE VEDRA Estuary Dissolved Oxygen Insufficient data 3B 

Tolomato

River 

Unit 

2363I Matanzas River Estuary Chlorophyll Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Tolomato

River 

Unit 

2363I Matanzas River Estuary Nutrients Chlorophyll Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Tolomato

River 

Unit 

2363I Matanzas River Estuary Total Coliform Planning list 3C 

Tolomato

River 

Unit 

2400 Smith Creek Stream Chlorophyll Planning list 3C Not impaired 2 

Tolomato

River 

Unit 

2400 Smith Creek Stream Conductance Planning list 3C Verified list 3D vp = 51 / 51 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper Eas

Planning

Unit WBID Water Segment Name Water Type Priority

Projected 

Year of 

TMDL 

Development

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

Impaired 

Waters Rule 

(IWR) 

Planning 

List 

Status 

Planning 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified 

List 

Status 

Verified 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified 

Period = 

Exceedances

divided by 

total num. of

Samples 

N

S

N

Tolomato

River 

Unit 

2400 Smith Creek Stream Dissolved Oxygen Planning list 3C Verified list 3D vp = 23 / 49 

Tolomato

River 

Unit 

2406 Deep Creek Estuary Chlorophyll Insufficient data 3B Insufficient data 3B 

Tolomato

River 

Unit 

2435 Capo Creek Estuary Chlorophyll No data 3A Insufficient data 3B 

Tolomato

River 

Unit 

2442 Marshall Creek Stream Conductance Planning list 3C Verified list 3D vp = 59 / 59 

Tolomato

River 

Unit 

2442 Marshall Creek Stream Dissolved Oxygen Planning list 3C Verified list 3D vp = 17 / 54 

Tolomato

River 

Unit 

2442 Marshall Creek Stream Chlorophyll Insufficient data 3B Insufficient data 3B 

Tolomato

River 

Unit 

2468 Casa Cola Creek Estuary Historic Chlorophyll Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Tolomato

River 

Unit 

2468 Casa Cola Creek Estuary Chlorophyll Planning list 3C Not impaired 2 

Tolomato

River 

Unit 

2468 Casa Cola Creek Estuary Total Coliform Insufficient data 3B 

Tolomato

River 

Unit 

2470 Sombrero Creek Estuary Chlorophyll No data 3A Insufficient data 3B 

Tolomato

River 

Unit 

2477 Ximanies Creek Estuary Chlorophyll No data 3A Insufficient data 3B 
212 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

Planning

Unit WBID Water Segment Name Water Type Priority

Projected 

Year of 

TMDL 

Development

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

Impaired 

Waters Rule 

(IWR) 

Planning 

List 

Status 

Planning 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified 

List 

Status 

Verified 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified 

Period = 

Exceedances

divided by 

total num. of

Samples 

N

S

N

Tolomato 

River 

Unit 

2483 Pancho Creek Estuary Chlorophyll No data 3A Insufficient data 3B 

Tolomato 

River 

Unit 

2487 Robinson Creek Estuary Chlorophyll No data 3A Insufficient data 3B 

Tolomato 

River 

Unit 

8123 Tolomato River Ocean 1 Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Tolomato 

River 

Unit 

8123A Vilano Beach Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Tolomato 

River 

Unit 

8124 Tolomato River Ocean 2 Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Tolomato 

River 

Unit 

8125 Tolomato River Ocean 3 Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Tolomato 

River 

Unit 

8125A Mickler's Landing Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Tolomato 

River 

Unit 

8125B Solana Rd Coastal Mercury - Fish Planning list 3C Verified list 3D 

Tolomato 

River 

Unit 

8125B Solana Rd Coastal Turbidity Insufficient data 3B 

Tolomato 

River 

Unit 

8125B Solana Rd Coastal Total Coliform Insufficient data 3B 

Tolomato 

River 

Unit 

8125B Solana Rd Coastal Dissolved Oxygen Insufficient data 3B 
Water Quality Status Report: Upper Eas

Planning

Unit WBID Water Segment Name Water Type Priority

Projected 

Year of 

TMDL 

Development

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

Impaired 

Waters Rule 

(IWR) 

Planning 

List 

Status 

Planning 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified 

List 

Status 

Verified 

List 

Integrated

Report 

Category 

Verified 

Period = 

Exceedances

divided by 

total num. of

Samples 

N

S

N

Tolomato

River 

Unit 

8125B Solana Rd Coastal pH Insufficient data 3B 

Total 

Samples to 

be Collected 


Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Division of Water Resource Management 

Bureau of Watershed Management 

2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3565 

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 

(850) 245-8561 

www.dep.state.fl.us/water