# 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 Environmen

tal 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 

# 5 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

## 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.ht m

Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/docs/AmendedIWR.pd f

STORET Program http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/storet/index.ht m

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

tion, 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 meth

odology, rainfall and stream flow, types of natural communities, STORET stations, water quality statistics, land use, and permitted facilities. 

# 7 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

# 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 restor

ing and protecting water resources and addressing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program requirements. A TMDL represents the maxi

mum 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 character

izes 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 agen

cies and organizations are making progress towards identifying problems and improving water quality. Through its watershed management activi

ties, 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. 

# 9 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

## Not only do stakeholders in the basin share responsibilities in achiev

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

tion 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 activi

ties 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 reduc

tions in the discharge of pollutants and achieve the established TMDLs for impaired waterbodies. The information in this report is being used to identify waterbod

ies 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 iden

tifying 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 

# 11 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

## 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 sur

face 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 phospho

rus 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 thresh

olds 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 fur

ther. 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 uncon

fined aquifer well were identified in the ambient monitoring program data at concentrations above the lead and TDS GRI thresholds. As noted 

# 13 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

## previously, elevated TDS are often naturally occurring. DOH monitor

ing 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 thresh

old 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 evalu

ated 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. Phos

phorus 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—includ

ing cadmium, copper, iron, selenium, and zinc—were detected at concen

trations 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 concen

trations 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 screen

ing 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 poten

tially nutrient-impaired surface waterbodies identified by the IWR evalua

tion. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 Purposes and Content of the Status Report

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 Explanation of the Planning List

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 Explanation of the Verified List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 

### Stakeholder Involvement

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 The Watershed Management Cycle in the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Northeast District

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1

Chapter 2: Basin Overview

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 Basin Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 Surface Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8 Surface Water Quality Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8 Special Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0 

### Outstanding Florida Waters

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0 Surface Water Improvement and Management Priority Waters

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 Ground Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 Aquifers

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 Ground Water Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 Ground Water–Surface Water Interactions

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 Ground Water Quality Issues

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 Priority Water Resource Caution Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 

### Watershed Management Activities and Processes

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 Major Programs and Projects

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6 

### Northern Coastal Basin Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6 St. Johns River Water Management District Stormwater Management Cost-Share Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7 Guana Marsh Renovation Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7 Rose Bay Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 8 Guana–Tolomato–Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 8 St. Johns County Model Fertilizer Ordinance

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 9 Agricultural Best Management Practices

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 9

Chapter 3: Preliminary Surface Water Quality Assessment . . . . . . . 4 3 Scope of the Preliminary Assessment

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 Sources of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 Attainment of Designated Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 Integrated Report Categories and Assessment Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 Planning Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8 Assessment by Planning Unit

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 Tolomato River and Matanzas River Planning Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 

### General Description

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 Permitted Discharges and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 Pellicer Creek Planning Unit

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9 

### General Description

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0 Permitted Discharges and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0 Halifax River Planning Unit

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9 

### General Description

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9 Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 0 Permitted Discharges and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 0 

# 15 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

### Chapter 4: Ground Water Quality Assessment

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7 Scope of the Ground Water Assessment

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7 Ground Water Resource Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8 Ground Water–Surface Water Interaction Priorities

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8 

### Ground Water Data Sources and Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9 Ground Water Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 0 Basinwide Screening Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 0 Ground Water as a Resource: Issues Related to the Ground Water Resource Index

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2 

### Use of Affected Aquifers

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4 Data Evaluation and Priorities for Further Assessment

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4 Ground Water–Surface Water Interaction: Issues Related to the Ground Water–Surface Water Relational Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9 

### Ground Water to Surface Water Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1 Data Evaluation and Priorities for Further Assessment

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1 Addressing Potential Ground Water Issues

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4 Ground Water Resource Priorities and Proposed Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6 Ground Water–Surface Water Interaction Priorities and Proposed Actions . . . . . . . 11 6



### Chapter 5: The Planning List of Potentially Impaired Waters . . . . . . 11 9 The Planning List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9 Relationship Between the Planning List and the 303(d) List

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9 Summary of Potential Impairments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3 Waters with Insufficient Data to Determine Impairment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5

Chapter 6: Strategic Monitoring and Data Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7 Strategic Monitoring and Data Acquisition Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7 Data Acquisition Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7 Phase 2 Assessment: Data Collection and Database Management Leading to the Development of the 303(d) List of Impaired Waters

. . . . . . . 12 8 Verified List Development and Public Comment

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8

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

Appendices

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

Tables

Table 1.1: Stakeholder Involvement in the TMDL Program

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 Table 2.1: Outstanding Florida Waters in the Upper East Coast Basin

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 Table 3.1: Summary of Data Providers in the Upper East Coast Basin (January 1, 1994–December 31 2003), Based on IW R

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 Table 3.2: Designated Use Attainment Categories for Surface Waters in Florida

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 Table 3.3: Categories for Waterbodies or Waterbody Segments in the 2002 Integrated Report . . . . 4 7 Table 3.4: Planning Units in the Upper East Coast Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9 Table 3.5: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Tolomato River Planning Unit . . . 5 5 Table 3.6: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Matanzas River Planning Unit . . . 6 1 Table 3.7: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Pellicer Creek Planning Unit . . . . 7 2 Table 3.8: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Halifax River Planning Unit . . . . . 8 2 Table 4.1: Summary of Ground Water Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9 Table 4.2: Ground Water Assessment Categories an d Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 0 Table 4.3: Screening Thresholds and Basinwide Summary of Ground Water Quality

. . . . . . . . . . . 10 1 Table 4.4: Evaluation Summary: Ground Water Quality and Potential Impacts to Potable Supply . . 10 3 

# 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 Figure 2.1: Geopolitical Map of the Upper East Coast Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 Figure 2.2: Surface Water Resources of the Upper East Coast Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9 Figure 2.3: Ground Water Usage and Known Contaminated Areas

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 Figure 3.1: Sources of Data for the Upper East Coast Basin

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 Figure 3.2: Locations and Boundaries of Planning Units in the Upper East Coast Basin

. . . . . . . . . . . 5 0 Figure 3.3: Composite Map of the Tolomato River Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List and Planning List Waters

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 Figure 3.4: Composite Map of the Matanzas River Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List and Planning List Waters

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 Figure 3.5: Composite Map of the Pellicer Creek Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List and Planning List Waters

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1 Figure 3.6: Composite Map of the Halifax River Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List and Planning List Waters

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1 Figure 4.1: Ground Water Resource Index Assessment for Primary Metals

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6 Figure 4.2: Ground Water Resource Index Assessment for Organics

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7 Figure 4.3: Ground Water Resource Index Assessment for Saline Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8 Figure 4.4: Ground Water–Surface Water Relational Assessment for Nutrients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3 Figure 4.5: Ground Water–Surface Water Relational Assessment for Metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5 Figure 5.1: Upper East Coast Basin Planning List for All Causes of Potential Impairment, with Overlay of 1998 303(d) List

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4 Table 4.5: Evaluation Summary: Ground Water Influence on Surface Water Quality

. . . . . . . . . . . . 11 0 Table 5.1: Planning List of Potentially Impaired Waters in the Upper East Coast Basin . . . . . . . . . . 12 0 Table 5.2: Parameters Causing Potential Impairments in the Upper East Coast Basin . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5 

# 17 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

# Chapter 1: Introduction

Total Maximum Daily Load

The maximum amount of a given pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate and remain healthy, such that all of its designated uses are
met. 

## Purposes and Content of the 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, recre

ation, and shellfish harvesting) and are thus defined as impaired

. TMDLs will be developed, and the corresponding reductions in pollut

ant 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 mon

itoring 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, includ

ing decision makers in federal, state, regional, tribal, and local govern

ments; 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.ht m

. 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 

# 19 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

## Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) (Rule 62-303, Florida Administra

tive 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, interpre

tation of narrative nutrient criteria, biological impairment, fish consump

tion advisories, and ecological impairment. The complete text of the IWR is available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/index.ht m. Addi

tionally, 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 moni

toring 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 Assess

ment 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 Sec

tion 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 Sec

tion 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 stakehold

ers 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. Stake

holder 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.pd f

. The Department will work cooperatively with a number of key stake

holders 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 Dis

trict basin groups will be evaluated under the watershed management cycle. These groups are identified according to a U.S. Geological Survey classifica

tion 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 activi

ties, identify management objectives and issues of concern, develop a Strate

gic 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 col

lect additional data; enter data into STORET (the EPA’s national water quality
STO rage and RET rieval database); complete the water quality assessment; pro

duce a final Assessment Report that includes a Verified List of impaired waters for Secretarial adoption; and provide an opportunity for stakeholders to docu

ment 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), incor

porating 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 

# 21 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

### Figure 1.1: Schedule for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle in the Department’s Northeast District, Basin Groups 1 through 5 

# 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 involve

ment, 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 activi

ties and processes.

• Chapter 3: Preliminary Surface Water Quality Assess

ment discusses the scope of the assessment, summarizes data-gathering activities and sources of data, describes the U.S. Environmental Protec

tion Agency’s terminology for designated use attainment and its integrated report catego

ries, 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 princi

pal ground water monitor

ing 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 waterbod

ies. The chapter also describes the relationship between the Planning and Verified Lists, and summarizes water quality findings for the basin.

• Chapter 6: Strategic Moni

toring and Data Evaluation summarizes strategic moni

toring 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. 

# 23 Noteworthy 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 estua

rine 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 prin

cipal 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, agri

culture, 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 devel

oped, 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 deposi

tion, 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 **25** Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

## of the population) in 1995 (SJRWMD, 2000). Total on-site sewage treat

ment 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 identi

fied 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 popu

lation 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 informa

tion 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 Manage

ment 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 

# 27 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

## 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 combina

tion 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 shal

low coastal lagoons, toward the Atlantic Ocean. Tidal exchange is accom

plished 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 chan

nels 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 

# 29 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

## 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 connect

ing 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 restric

tive 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 condi

tionally 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 ecologi

cal 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). Precipita

tion 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 

# 31 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

## 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 Haw

thorn 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, Wil

liston 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 potentio

metric surface is between 5 and 35 feet above MSL (Scott et al., 1991). Wells completed in the Floridan aquifer are artesian, and there are flow

ing 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 Environ

mental 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 

# 33 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

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

time, the water also evaporates directly, transpires through plants, or evapo

rates 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 set

ting 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 associ

ated 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 contami

nant 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 moni

toring, 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 Coun

ties, 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 histori

cal, 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 

# 35 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

## quality improvements is attributable to coordinated local, state, and regional efforts. Many plans share common goals, and their implementa

tion is based on various groups playing critical roles in planning, funding, managing, and executing projects. The Department continues to coordi

nate 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 sig

nificant 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 neces

sary, 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 storm

water 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 construc

tion, 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 compli

ance information from existing permitted stormwater quality treat

ment systems. The results may be used to increase the effectiveness of compliance measures.

• Resource assessment, protection, and restoration: This ini

tiative 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 Coopera

tive 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 Storm

water 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 exfiltra

tion 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 salin

ity 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, 

# 37 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

## including alleviating the frequency and duration of flooding, maintain

ing 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 water

shed education program through the Florida Yards, Neighborhoods and Ponds Program; continuing water quality monitoring activities; and work

ing 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, storm

water runoff, leaking septic systems, and restricted water flow have threat

ened the bay’s productivity and health. The SJRWMD has worked with local citizens, the city of Port Orange, and Volusia County to form a coali

tion 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 Engi

neers. 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 ordi

nance in Florida to require licensing, certification, and continuing educa

tion 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 agricul

tural BMPs is provided in legislation on nitrates and ground water (Sec

tion 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 regu

latory programs. If they are adopted by rule and the Department verifies their effectiveness, then implementation provides a presumption of compli

ance 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 

# 39 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

## 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 equip

ment maintenance, cow/calf operations, aquaculture, citrus, and landscap

ing. Many of these manuals can be downloaded at http://www.dep.state .fl.us/ wate r or http://www.floridaagwaterpolicy.co m. 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 cultiva

tion 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 Con

tainer Nursery Interim Measures adopted under 576.045, F.S.

• BMPs for Agrichemical Handling and Farm Equipment Mainte

nance: Recently revised and available on the DACS Office of Agri

cultural 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 Protec

tion 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 certi

fied 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. Begin

ning in 2000, the BMP manual and guidance booklets were pub

lished using EPA Section 319 and industry funds. 

# 41 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

## 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 list

ing 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 Depart

ment 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 qual

ity 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 impair

ment 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 methodol

ogy 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.pd f

.



## 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 **43** Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

## U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Legacy and “new”
STO rage and RET rieval (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 Depart

ment, water management districts, local governments, and volunteer moni

toring 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 Decem

ber 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 pro

vide 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. **1 9**  **9 0**  **1 9**  **9 1**  **1 9**  **9 2**  **1 9**  **9 3**  **1 9**  **9 4**  **1 9**  **9 5**  **1 9**  **9 6**  **1 9**  **9 7**  **1 9**  **9 8**  **1 9**  **9 9**  **2 0**  **0 0**  **2 0**  **0 1**  **U**

**. S** 

**. G**  **e o**  **l o**  **g i**  **c a**  **l S**  **u r**  **v e**  **y**
**F l**  **o r**  **i d**  **a D**  **e p**  **a r**  **t m**  **e n**  **t o**  **f H**  **e a**  **l t**  **h**

**F l**  **o r**  **i d**  **a L**  **a k**  **e W**  **a t**  **c h** 

**2 1**  **F L**  **V O**  **L**

**D e**  **p a**  **r t**  **m e**  **n t**  **' s**  **N o**  **r t**  **h e**  **a s**  **t D**  **i s**  **t r**  **i c**  **t**

**F l**  **o r**  **i d**  **a M**  **a r**  **i n**  **e R**  **e s**  **e a**  **r c**  **h I**  **n s**  **t i**  **t u**  **t e** 
**S t** 

**. J**  **o h**  **n s**  **R i**  **v e**  **r W**  **a t**  **e r**  **M a**  **n a**  **g e**  **m e**  **n t**  **D i**  **s t**  **r i**  **c t** 

**D e**  **p a**  **r t**  **m e**  **n t**  **' s**  **S o**  **u t**  **h e**  **a s**  **t D**  **i s**  **t r**  **i c**  **t**

**D e**  **p a**  **r t**  **m e**  **n t**  **' s**  **C e**  **n t**  **r a**  **l D**  **i s**  **t r**  **i c**  **t**

**F l**  **o r**  **i d**  **a D**  **e p**  **a r**  **t m**  **e n**  **t o**  **f E**  **n v**  **i r**  **o n**  **m e**  **n t**  **a l**  **P r**  **o t**  **e c**  **t i**  **o n** 
**V**

**o l**  **u s**  **i a**  **C o**  **u n**  **t y**  **E n**  **v i**  **r o**  **n m**  **e n**  **t a**  **l H**  **e a**  **l t**  **h L**  **a b**  

### 3 **5**

**, 0**  **0 0** 

**3 0** 

**, 0**  **0 0** 

**2 5** 

**, 0**  **0 0** 

**2 0** 

**, 0**  **0 0** 

**1 5** 

**, 0**  **0 0** 

**1 0** 

**, 0**  **0 0** 

**5**

**, 0**  **0 0** 

**0**

**2 0**  **0 2**  **2 0**  **0 3**  **2 0**  **0 4** **N u** **m b** **e r** **s o** **f O** **b s** **e r** **v a** **t i** **o n** **s**



### Y **e a**  **r**

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 

# 45 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

## Integrated Report Categories and Assessment Overview

The EPA has requested that the states merge their reporting require

ments under the Clean Water Act for Section 305(b) surface water quality reports and Section 303(d) lists of impaired waters into an Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (Wayland, 2001). Following the publication of the Status Report and further data evaluation, the Depart

ment 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 waterbod

ies 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 qual

ity, 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 con

sumption 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 (attain

ing some uses but with insufficient data to assess completely) than Cat

egory 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 water

bodies 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 pollut

ant a waterbody can receive and still meet its designated uses).

Waterbodies that are veri

fied impaired due to speci

fied pollutants, and therefore require a TMDL, are listed under Category 5 in the Inte

grated Assessment Report; waterbodies with water qual

ity impairments due to other causes, or unknown causes, are listed under Category 4b. Although TMDLs are not established for Category 4b waterbodies, these waterbod

ies still may be addressed through a watershed man

agement 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 deter

mine 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 attain

ment 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 Veri

fied 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 desig

nated 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 Manage

ment Action Plan to reduce pollutant loading toward attain

ment of designated use(s).

4b Impaired for one or more desig

nated uses but does not require TMDL development because the water will attain water quality stan

dards 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 desig

nated 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 previ

ously 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. 

# 47 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

## creating an imbalance in flora or fauna, must be documented for a water

body 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 attribut

able 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 promi

nent watershed characteristics. Water quality assessments were conducted for waterbody segments within planning units. Each of these smaller, hydrologically-based drain

age areas within a planning unit is assigned a unique waterbody identi

fication 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 poly

gon 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: Tolo

mato 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 estu

aries 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 con

sumption, 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 infor

mation, 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 por

tions of Flagler and Volusia Counties along the northeast Florida coast, encompasses nearly 211,897 acres. 

# 49 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

### 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 plan

ning 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 poten

tially 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 poten

tially impaired. In 1995, extensive shellfish harvesting areas were reclassified from “conditionally approved” to “conditionally restricted” for shellfish harvest

ing 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 plan

ning units. The system as a whole has high average total suspended solids and somewhat elevated turbidity, which likely reflect tributary loading and 

# 51 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

### 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 

# 53 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

## 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 Plan

ning 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 Treat

ment 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 signifi

cant of the active facilities are the St. Augustine Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) No. 1, with a design capacity of 5 mgd; the Anastasia Island WWTF, with a design capacity of 4.0 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 inac

tive, and six closed landfills in the planning unit. Figures 3.3 and 3.4 , respectively, show permitted wastewater treat

ment 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 facili

ties, 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**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d) Parameters**  **of Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6** 

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 sea

sons (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.

2363I 7 Matanzas River Estuary II

— DO Not Impaired 2 3c

— — Planning period: 43/ 871; verified period: 15/204.

2363I 7 Matanzas River Estuary II Coliforms Fecal Coliforms Not Impaired 2

— — — Planning period: 111/1166; verified period: 5/276. Pro

pose to delist unless further data/informa

tion are obtained. 

# 55 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast2363I 7 Matanzas River Estuary II Coliforms Total Coliforms Planning List 3c

— Low 2011 Planning period: 20/ 88; verified period: No Data.

2363I 7 Matanzas River Estuary II Nutrients Chloro

phyll 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.

2363I 7 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

— Chloro

phyll 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**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d)**  **Param**

  ** eters of** **Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6**  

# 56 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast2435 Capo Creek Estuary IIIM

— Chloro

phyll 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 veri

fied 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

— Chloro

phyll 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

— Chloro

phyll 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**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d)**  **Param**

  ** eters of** **Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6**  

# 57 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast2451 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 Som

brero Creek Estuary IIIM

— Chloro

phyll 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 Som

brero Creek Estuary IIIM

— DO Insufficient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: No Data; verified period: 1/4.

2470 Som

brero Creek Estuary IIIM

— Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: No Data; verified period: 0/4.

2470 Som

brero Creek Estuary IIIM

— Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: No Data; verified period: 1/4.

2477 Ximanies Creek Estuary IIIM

— Chloro

phyll 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**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d)**  **Param**

  ** eters of** **Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6**  

# 58 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast2483 Pancho Creek Estuary IIIM

— DO Not Impaired 2 2

— — Planning period: 4/ 85; verified period: 1/22.

2483 Pancho Creek Estuary IIIM

— Chloro

phyll 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

— Chloro

phyll 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**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d)**  **Param**

  ** eters of** **Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6**  

# 59 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast8125A 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 insuffi cient 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 L ow). 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**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d)**  **Param**

  ** eters of** **Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6**  

# 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**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d) Parameters**  **of Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6** 

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

— Chloro

phyll (His

torical) 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

— Chloro

phyll 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. 

# 61 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast2363G 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 Chloro

phyll 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 Plan

ning List until identified. 

### Table 3.6 (continued)

**WBID Waterbody**  **Segment Waterbody**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d) Parameters**  **of Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6**  

# 62 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast2491 San Sebastian River Stream IIIF

— Chloro

phyll (His

torical) Not Impaired 2

— — — Planning period: Annual Aver

ages: 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 Aver

ages = 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

— Chloro

phyll 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); veri

fied 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**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d) Parameters**  **of Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6**  

# 63 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast2493 Moultrie Creek Stream II

— Iron Planning List 3c

— — — Planning period: 26/28 Values exceed criterion; verified period: No Data.

2493 Moultrie Creek Stream II

— Manga

nese 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

— Chloro

phyll 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 (Histori

cal) 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 veri

fied unless further data or informa

tion 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**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d) Parameters**  **of Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6**  

# 64 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast2493 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

— Chloro

phyll 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**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d) Parameters**  **of Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6**  

# 65 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast2529 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” Bio

Recon in 1995, “Healthy” BioRe

con in 1996, “Sus

pect” BioRecon in 2000; two “Excel

lent” 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 Matan

zas River Ocean Estuary IIIM

— DO Not Impaired 2 3c

— — Planning period: 2/88; verified period: 1/16.

8122 Matan

zas River Ocean Estuary IIIM

— Fecal Coliforms Not Impaired 2

— — — Planning period: 2/127; verified period: 0/21.

8122 Matan

zas River Ocean Estuary IIIM

— Mercury in Fish Planning List 3c

— — — Verify data are within the last 7.5

years.

8122 Matan

zas 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**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d)**  **Param**

  ** eters of** **Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6**  

### Table 3.6 (continued) 

# 66 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast8122A 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. Augus

tine Bch Ocean Trace Estuary IIIM

— Fecal Coliforms Not Impaired 2 3c

— — Planning period: 1/124; verified period: 1/156.

8122B St. Augus

tine Bch Ocean Trace Estuary IIIM

— Mercury in Fish Planning List 3c

— — — Verify data are within the last 7.5

years.

8122C St. Augus

tine Bch A Street Estuary IIIM

— Fecal Coliforms Not Impaired 2 3c

— — Planning period: 0/126; verified period: 0/158.

8122C St. Augus

tine 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 insuffi cient 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 L ower 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**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d) Parameters**  **of Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6**  

# 67 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

## Information on Point Sources in Planning Units

Point sources discharging pol

lutants to surface water or ground water originate from discrete, well-defined areas such as a facil

ity discharge from the end of a pipe, a disposal well, or a waste

water sprayfield. Point sources generally fall into two major types: domestic wastewater sources (which consist of sewage from homes, businesses, and institu

tions) and industrial wastewater sources (which include waste

water, runoff, and leachate from industrial or commercial storage, handling, or processing facili

ties). Landfills, hazardous waste sites, dry cleaning solvent cleanup program (DSCP) sites, and petro

leum 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 water

body impairment is an important part of assessing water quality and developing TMDLs. As part of this report, information is pre

sented 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 pollut

ants 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 unveg

etated lands. The pollutants in runoff often include fertilizers, bacteria, metals, sediments, and petroleum compounds. 

## Nonpoint Sources and Land Uses 

# Noteworthy 

# 68 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 transpor

tation, communication, and utilities (1.3 percent) and barren land (0.2 per

cent), 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, coun

ties, drainage districts, colleges, military bases, or prisons, to name a few examples. As implemented under Rule 62-624, F.A.C., Phase 1 addresses dis

charges 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 pro

gram 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 contami

nation of stormwater runoff and prohibit illicit discharges to the MS4. MS4s in the Tolomato and Matanzas Planning Units that will be cov

ered 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. Con

nections 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 devel

opment, 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.” 

# 69 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

## 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 previ

ously 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 summa

rizes 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 continu

ous 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 com

prise about 74 percent of the planning unit’s area. Approximately 19 per

cent of the area is urbanized, and about 5 percent is in use as agricultural land or rangeland. Other land uses include transportation, communica

tion, 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 

# 71 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

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

**WBID Waterbody**  **Segment Waterbody**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d) Parameters**  **of Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6** 

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 lan

guage in IWR.

2363D Palm Coast Estuary IIIM Nutrients Chloro

phyll 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 Coast2363D 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 lan

guage 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 lan

guage 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 lan

guage 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 crite

rion; verified period: No Data.

2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM

— Cadmium Planning List 3c

— — — Planning period: 10/36 Values exceed crite

rion; verified period: No Data.

2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM

— Copper Planning List 3c

— — — Planning period: 32/42 Values exceed crite

rion; 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 cri

terion; verified period: No Data. 

### Table 3.7 (continued)

**WBID Waterbody**  **Segment Waterbody**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d) Parameters**  **of Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6**  

# 73 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM

— Lead Planning List 3c

— — — Planning period: 9/32 Values exceed crite

rion; verified period: No Data.

2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM

— Nickel Planning List 3c

— — — Planning period: 35/ 40 Values exceed cri

terion; verified period: No Data.

2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM

— Chloro

phyll a (Nutrients) Not Impaired 2

— — — Planning period: Median TN = 0.52 μg/L (N = 286); planning period: Median TP = 0.07 μg/L; veri

fied period: Median TN = 0.52 μg/L (N = 157); verified period: Median TP = 0.07 μg/L (N = 159).

2363E ICWW Estuary IIIM

— Chloro

phyll (His

torical) 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 crite

rion; 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 crite

rion; 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**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d) Parameters**  **of Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6**  

# 74 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast**WBID Waterbody**  **Segment Waterbody**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d) Parameters**  **of Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6** 

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 Insuffi

cient 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 Insuffi

cient 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 Insuffi

cient 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 Insuffi

cient Data 3c

— Low 2011 Blackwater. Planning period: 0/1 Values exceed criterion; veri

fied 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 Insuffi

cient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 0/1; verified period: No Data.

2577 Stevens Branch Stream IIIF

— Cadmium Insuffi

cient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 0/1; verified period: No Data.

2577 Stevens Branch Stream IIIF

— Chromium 3 Insuffi

cient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 0/1; verified period: No Data. 

### Table 3.7 (continued) 

# 75 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast2577 Stevens Branch Stream IIIF

— Copper Insuffi

cient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 0/1; verified period: No Data.

2577 Stevens Branch Stream IIIF

— DO Insuffi

cient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 1/1; verified period: No Data.

2577 Stevens Branch Stream IIIF

— Fecal Coliforms Insuffi

cient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 1/1; verified period: No Data.

2577 Stevens Branch Stream IIIF

— Iron Insuffi

cient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 0/1; verified period: No Data.

2577 Stevens Branch Stream IIIF

— Nickel Insuffi

cient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 0/1; verified period: No Data.

2577 Stevens Branch Stream IIIF

— Total Coliforms Insuffi

cient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 1/1; verified period: No Data.

2577 Stevens Branch Stream IIIF

— Turbidity Insuffi

cient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 0/1; verified period: No Data.

2577 Stevens Branch Stream IIIF

— Zinc Insuffi

cient 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 Insuffi

cient 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 Insuffi

cient Data 3c

— Low 2011 Planning period: 1/1 Values exceed crite

rion; verified period: 3/5 Values exceed criterion. Placed on Planning List due to language in IWR.

2580B Pellicer Creek Stream IIIF Coliforms Total Coliforms Insuffi

cient Data 3c

— Low 2011 Planning period: 1/1 Values exceed crite

rion; verified period: No Data. 

### Table 3.7 (continued)

**WBID Waterbody**  **Segment Waterbody**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d) Parameters**  **of Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6**  

# 76 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast2580B Pellicer Creek Stream IIIF Iron Iron Planning List 3c

— Low 2011 Planning period: 8/31 Values exceed crite

rion; verified period: No Data.

2580B Pellicer Creek Stream IIIF Lead Lead Planning List 3c

— Low 2011 Planning period: 6/27 Values exceed crite

rion; 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 Chloro

phyll 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; plan

ning period: Median TN = 0.86 mg/L (N = 31); planning period: Median TP = 0.09 mg/L (N = 31); veri

fied 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

— Chloro

phyll (His

torical) 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 crite

rion; verified period: 0/0 Values exceed criterion.

2580B Pellicer Creek Stream IIIF

— Silver Planning List 3c

— — — Planning period: 3/3 Values exceed crite

rion; 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**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d) Parameters**  **of Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6**  

# 77 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast2580C Pellicer Creek Stream IIIF

— — No Data 3a 3a

— — —

2588 School

house 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 Washing

ton Oaks Beach Estuary IIIM

— Fecal Coliforms Not Impaired 2 3c

— — Planning period: 0/124; verified period: 0/159.

8121A Washing

ton Oaks Beach Estuary IIIM

— Mercury in Fish Planning List 3c

— — — Verify data are within the last 7.5 years.

8121B Marine

land 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**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d) Parameters**  **of Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6**  

# 78 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast8121B Marine

land 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 insuffi cient 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 L ow). 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**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d) Parameters**  **of Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6**  

# 79 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

## 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 previ

ously identified as impaired on the 1998 303(d) list. These comprise 2 sec

tions 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 Plan

ning 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 facil

ities, 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 

# 81 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

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

**WBID Waterbody**  **Segment Waterbody**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d) Parameters**  **of Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6** 

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

— Chloro

phyll (His

torical) Not Impaired 2

— — — Planning period: Average of Annual Averages: 6.44 μg/L; verified period: Average of Annual Aver

ages: 7.01 μg/L.

2363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM Nutrients Chloro

phyll a (Nutri

ents) Not Impaired 2

— — — Propose to delist unless further data are obtained. Planning period: Chloro

phyll Median is 5.47 μg/L; verified period: Chlo

rophyll 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 Insuf

ficient Data 3b 3c

— — Planning period: 0/2; verified period: 0/0.

2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM

— Cadmium Insuf

ficient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 0/1; verified period: 0/0.

2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM Nutrients Chloro

phyll a (Nutri

ents) Not Impaired 2

— — — For the Planning period: 160 TP samples from 1999–2001 are cur

rently 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 Poten

tially Impaired 3c

— Low 2011 Planning period: 13/19 Values exceed criterion; verified period: 0/0. 

# 82 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast2363B 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 Poten

tially 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

— Chloro

phyll (His

torical) 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. Plan

ning 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

— Chloro

phyll a (Nutri

ents) 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

— Chloro

phyll (His

torical) 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. Plan

ning period: Average of Annual Averages: 5.30 μg/L; verified period: Average of Annual Aver

ages: 4.80 μg/L. 

### Table 3.8 (continued)

**WBID Waterbody**  **Segment Waterbody**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d) Parameters**  **of Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6**  

# 83 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast**WBID Waterbody**  **Segment Waterbody**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d) Parameters**  **of Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6** 

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

— Chloro

phyll a (Nutri

ents) 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

— Chloro

phyll (His

torical) 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. Plan

ning period: Average of Annual Averages: 5.24 μg/L; no data from veri

fied 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

— Chloro

phyll (His

torical) 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. Plan

ning period: Average of Annual Averages: 10.08 μg/L; no data from veri

fied period to calculate.

2620 Bulow Creek Stream IIIM

— Chloro

phyll a (Nutri

ents) 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 Poten

tially 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 Coast2620 Bulow Creek Stream IIIM

— Selenium Planning List 3c

— — — Planning period: 8/11; verified period: No Data.

2620 Bulow Creek Stream IIIM

— Silver Insuf

ficient 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 Chloro

phyll a (Nutri

ents) Not Impaired 2

— — — Propose to delist unless more data are obtained. Planning period: Chlo

rophyll Median = 1.00 μg/L; Mean = 2.70 μg/L; Min. = 1.00 μg/L; Max. = 36.58 μg/L; N = 290; verified period: Chlo

rophyll 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

— Chloro

phyll (His

torical) 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 Insuf

ficient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 1/1; verified period: 1/1.

2634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF

— Chromium 3 Insuf

ficient 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**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d) Parameters**  **of Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6**  

# 85 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast2634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF DO DO Verified List 3c

— Low 2011 DO met verification threshold of IWR, but need to identify caus

ative 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 Insuf

ficient 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 Insuf

ficient Data 3b 3c

— — Planning period: 0/2; verified period: 0/0.

2634A Tomoka River Estuary IIIM Nutrients Chloro

phyll a (Nutri

ents) Not Impaired 2

— — — Propose to delist unless further data are obtained. Planning period: Chlo

rophyll Median is 3.99 μg/L; Mean is 5.65 μg/L; verified period: Chloro

phyll Median is 4.18 μg/L; Mean is 4.85 μg/L.

2634A Tomoka River Estuary IIIM

— Chromium 3 Insuf

ficient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 0/1; verified period: 0/0. 

### Table 3.8 (continued)

**WBID Waterbody**  **Segment Waterbody**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d) Parameters**  **of Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6**  

# 86 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast2634A 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 caus

ative pollutant. Planning period: 52/193 values below DO criterion; veri

fied 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 Insuf

ficient 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 Insuf

ficient Data 3b 3c

— — Planning period: 0/1; verified period: 0/1.

2635 Grover Branch Stream IIIF

— Iron Insuf

ficient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 1/1; verified period: 1/1.

2635 Grover Branch Stream IIIF

— Turbidity Insuf

ficient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 0/1; verified period: 0/1.

2635 Grover Branch Stream IIIF

— Biology Planning List 3c

— — — “Healthy” BioRecon in 1997; “Impaired” BioRe

con 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 Insuf

ficient Data 3b 3b

— — Planning period: 0/1; verified period: 0/0.

2641 Unnamed Branch Stream IIIF

— Fecal Coliforms Insuf

ficient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 1/1; verified period: 0/0. 

### Table 3.8 (continued)

**WBID Waterbody**  **Segment Waterbody**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d) Parameters**  **of Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6**  

# 87 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast2641 Unnamed Branch Stream IIIF

— Turbidity Insuf

ficient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 0/1; verified period: 0/0.

2641 Unnamed Branch Stream IIIF

— Unionized Ammonia Insuf

ficient 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 Insuf

ficient Data 3b 2

— — Planning period: 0/1; verified period: 0/1.

2645 Mizners Branch Stream IIIF

— Lead Insuf

ficient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 0/1; verified period: 0/1.

2645 Mizners Branch Stream IIIF

— Turbidity Insuf

ficient 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 Insuf

ficient Data 3b 3b

— — Planning period: 0/1; verified period: 0/1.

2646 Little Tomoka River Stream IIIF

— Turbidity Insuf

ficient 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 Insuf

ficient Data 3b 3c

— — Planning period: 1/1; verified period: 0/0.

2647 Holly Hill Ditch Stream IIIF

— Fecal Coliforms Insuf

ficient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 1/1; verified period: 0/0.

2647 Holly Hill Ditch Stream IIIF

— Turbidity Insuf

ficient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 0/1; verified period: 0/0.

2647 Holly Hill Ditch Stream IIIF

— Unionized Ammonia Insuf

ficient 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**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d) Parameters**  **of Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6**  

# 88 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast2654 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 Speed

way Ditch Stream IIIF

— — No Data 3a 3a

— — —

2664 Reed Canal Stream IIIF

— DO Insuf

ficient Data 3b 3b

— — Planning period: 1/1; verified period: 0/0.

2664 Reed Canal Stream IIIF

— Fecal Coliforms Insuf

ficient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 1/1; verified period: 0/0.

2664 Reed Canal Stream IIIF

— Turbidity Insuf

ficient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 0/1; verified period: 0/0.

2664 Reed Canal Stream IIIF

— Unionized Ammonia Insuf

ficient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 0/1; verified period: 0/0.

2665 Unnamed Ditch Stream IIIF

— — No Data 3a 3a

— — —

2666 UnnamedDitch (B19 Canal) Stream IIIF DO DO No Data 3c 3c Low 2011 Delist. No DO data in planning or verified peri

ods. Thought to be a flaw in the original analysis.

2666 UnnamedDitch (B19 Canal) Stream IIIF Nutrients Chloro

phyll a (Nutri

ents) No Data 3c

— Low 2011 Planning period: No data to calculate values; veri

fied period: No data to calculate values.

2666A Sweetwater Creek Stream IIIF

— Chloro

phyll a (Nutri

ents) Insuf

ficient Data 3b 2

— — —

2666A Sweetwater Creek Stream IIIF

— DO Insuf

ficient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 2/2; verified period: 1/1.

2666A Sweetwater Creek Stream IIIF

— Turbidity Insuf

ficient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 0/2; verified period: 0/1.

2666A Sweetwater Creek Stream IIIF

— Unionized Ammonia Insuf

ficient 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**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d) Parameters**  **of Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6**  

# 89 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast2670 Halifax Canal Stream IIIF

— DO Verified List 3c 3c

— — DO met verification threshold of IWR, but need to identify caus

ative pollutant. Planning period: 7/25 values below DO criterion; veri

fied 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

— Chloro

phyll a (Nutri

ents) Not Impaired 2

— — — Planning period: Median TN = 0.83 μg/L; plan

ning period: Median TP = 0.20 μg/L; veri

fied period: Median TN = 0.83 μg/L; verified period: Median TP = 0.20 μg/L.

2670 Halifax Canal Stream IIIF

— Chloro

phyll (His

torical) 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 Aver

ages: 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 crite

rion, 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**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d) Parameters**  **of Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6**  

# 90 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast2672 Rose Bay Estuary IIIM Nutrients Chloro

phyll a (Nutri

ents) 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 (nitro

gen 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

— Chloro

phyll (His

torical) 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. Plan

ning period: Average of Annual Averages: 10.38 μg/L; verified period: Average of Annual Aver

ages: 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

— Chloro

phyll a (Nutri

ents) Insuf

ficient Data 3b 3b

— — —

2673 Unnamed Drain Stream IIIF

— DO Insuf

ficient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 2/2; verified period: 0/1.

2673 Unnamed Drain Stream IIIF

— Turbidity Insuf

ficient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 0/2; verified period: 0/1.

2673 Unnamed Drain Stream IIIF

— Unionized Ammonia Insuf

ficient 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” BioRe

con in 1997; “Suspect” BioRecon in 1999.

2674 Spruce Creek Stream IIIF Nutrients Chloro

phyll a (Nutri

ents) 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**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d) Parameters**  **of Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6**  

# 91 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast2674 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 crite

rion; 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 Insuf

ficient 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 Insuf

ficient 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**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d) Parameters**  **of Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6**  

# 92 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast2674A 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 Chloro

phyll a (Nutri

ents) Verified List 2 High 2006 Portions classified as an OFW. Planning period: Median TN/TP Ratio = 5.43 (Mostly nitrogenlimited, with some colimitation based on 339 values. Planning period: Median TN = 0.88 mg/L (N = 339); plan

ning period: Median TP = 0.15 mg/L (N = 346); verified period: Median TN/TP Ratio = 5.35 (Mostly nitrogen limited, with some co-limita

tion 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

— Chloro

phyll (His

torical) 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. Plan

ning 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 Insuf

ficient Data 3b 3b

— — Planning period: 0/1; verified period: 0/0.

2674B Strickland Bay Estuary IIIM

— Fecal Coliforms Insuf

ficient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 0/1; verified period: 0/0.

2674B Strickland Bay Estuary IIIM

— Total Coliforms Insuf

ficient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 0/1; verified period: 0/0.

2674B Strickland Bay Estuary IIIM

— Turbidity Insuf

ficient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 0/1; verified period: 0/0. 

### Table 3.8 (continued)

**WBID Waterbody**  **Segment Waterbody**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d) Parameters**  **of Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6**  

# 93 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

### Table 3.8 (continued)

**WBID Waterbody**  **Segment Waterbody**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d) Parameters**  **of Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6** 

2674B Strickland Bay Estuary IIIM

— Unionized Ammonia Insuf

ficient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 0/1; verified period: 0/0.

2675 Sand Creek Stream IIIF

— DO Insuf

ficient Data 3b 2

— — Planning period: 1/1; verified period: 1/1.

2675 Sand Creek Stream IIIF

— Turbidity Insuf

ficient 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

— Chloro

phyll a (Nutri

ents) 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 (nitro

gen 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 Insuf

ficient Data 3b 3b

— — Planning period: 1/1; verified period: 1/1.

2679 Unnamed Drain Stream IIIF

— Turbidity Insuf

ficient Data 3b

— — — Planning period: 0/1; verified period: 0/1.

2681 Glencoe Ditches Stream IIIF

— DO Insuf

ficient Data 3b 3b

— — Planning period: 1/1; verified period: 1/1.

2681 Glencoe Ditches Stream IIIF

— Turbidity Insuf

ficient 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 Coast8117B Dunlawton Estuary IIIM

— Fecal Coliforms Not Impaired 2 3c

— — Planning period: 0/117; verified period: 0/160.

8117B Dunlawton Estuary 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 Sea

breeze Blvd Estuary IIIM

— Fecal Coliforms Not Impaired 2 3c

— — Planning period: 0/121; verified period: 0/160.

8117F Sea

breeze 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 Bicenten

nial Park Estuary IIIM

— Fecal Coliforms Not Impaired 2 3c

— — Planning period: 0/106; verified period: 0/157.

8118B Bicenten

nial Park Estuary 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**  **Type 1**  **Waterbody Classifica** 

**** **tion 2**  **1998 303(d) Parameters**  **of Concern Parameters**  **Assessed Using the**  **IWR Proposed**  **Status Integrated**  **Report Category**  **3 Overall**  **Category Call**  **4 Priority**  **for TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Projected Year for**  **TMDL Develop** 

**** **ment 5**  **Comments 6**  

# 95 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast3 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 insuffi cient 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—shellfi sh 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 L ow). 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 com

prise about 61 percent of the planning unit’s area. Approximately 26 per

cent of the area is urbanized, and about 9 percent is in use as agricultural land or rangeland. Other land uses include transportation, communica

tion, 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 qual

ity, 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 Rela

tional Assessment (SRA) includes an evaluation of ground water quality in planning units where potentially impaired surface waters were identi

fied, 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 **97** Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

## While these preliminary results on the quality and availability of ground water do not have regulatory significance, they can assist in identi

fying priority ground water resource and surface water quality issues that should be further evaluated to protect human health and/or the ecologi

cal 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 contrib

ute to an understanding of the freshwater/saltwater balance in estuarine waters, to provide documentation for calculating TMDLs, and to deter

mine 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 basin

wide 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 aver

age, each well was sampled once every 3 years for an exten

sive 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 data

base. 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. 

# 99 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

### 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, Beryl

lium, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Selenium, Thallium) Secondary Metals (Aluminum, Copper, Iron, Man

ganese, 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 eval

uation incorporates a spatial analysis of the data. For reporting the data, this chapter uses planning units consistent with the surface water assess

ment. 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 phos

phorus 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 Back

ground 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 evalu

ation 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** 

**GRI 1**  

### SRA **2** 

### Number of
**Wells Median** 
**Concentration Number of** 
**Wells Median** 
**Concentration Nutrients (mg/L)** 
Nitrate + Nitrite (dissolved as N) 10 0.45 17 0.037 22 0.035
Phosphorus (dissolved as P) — 0.025 17 0.1 2 

### 20 0.069 2


### Orthophosphate (dissolved as P) — 0.025 16 0.124 2 

### 21 0.084 2


### 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 0.9 2 

### 23 0.5 2



### Chromium 100 27.7 14 15 23 11

Lead 15 0.54 13 27.7 1,2 

### 23 11 2


### Mercury 2 0.012 14 0.075 2 

### 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 11 850 1 

### 18 57
Copper 1,000 2.85 14 20.5 2 

### 23 10 2



### Iron 300 300 14 5,905 1,2 

### 23 887 1,2


### 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 14 129.5 2 

### 21 86 2


### Organics **3** 

### (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 

# 101 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

### Parameter **Screening Thresholds Unconfined Aquifer**  **Confined Aquifers**

**GRI 1**  

### SRA **2** 

### Number of
**Wells Median** 
**Concentration Number of** 
**Wells Median** 
**Concentration Saline Water Influence** 
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 maxi

mum 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 thresh

old, 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 evalua

tion 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 evalua

tion 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

### Parameter **Screening Thresholds Unconfined Aquifer**  **Confined Aquifers**

**GRI 1**  

### SRA **2** 

### Number of
**Wells Median** 
**Concentration Number of** 
**Wells Median** 
**Concentration Saline Water Influence**  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 orFloridan aquifersUnconfined surficial aquiferConfined intermediate orFloridan aquifersUnconfined surficial aquiferConfined intermediate orFloridan aquifersAquifer not differentiatedUnconfined surficial aquiferConfined intermediate orFloridan aquifers

Tolomato River — — — — — Pb-1 Dichlorometh

ane-1 — TDS-1 Potable or potential potable supply High (volatile organics, lead, TDS)

Matanzas River — — — — — Pb-1 1,2,4-Trimeth

ylbenzene-1, 1,3,5-Trimeth

ylbenzene-1, Benzene-1, Ethylbenzene-1 TDS-1 TDS-1 Potable or potential potable supply High (volatile organics, lead, TDS)

Pellicer Creek — — — — — Pb-3 Trichloroethylene-1 TDS-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-1 TDS-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 signifi cant 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. 

# 103 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

### 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 sec

tion, 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 wide

spread 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 coli

form 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 construc

tion 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 anthro

pogenic 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, mer

cury, 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 con

centrations 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 monitor

ing and investigation. Metals in ground water samples may be naturally occurring, they may be associated with the materials used in well construc

tion 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 Water

way 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. 

# 105 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

### 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 

# 107 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

### 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 con

centrations 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 pol

lutants 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 spec

ified 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 param

eter 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 sur

face 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. 

# 109 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East CoastTable 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.)PlanningUnit**Data Evaluation**Ground Waterto SurfaceWater PathwaysPriorityfor FurtherEvaluation**Nutrients (ground water samples exceeding SRA threshold for** **nitrate and/or phosphorus; plan********ning 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; plan********ning unit includes sur********face 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 exceed** ******ing 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)TolomatoRiverP-2—WBIDs 2442——WBIDs2320,2363IAg-2, Al-2,Cu-1, Fe-2,Hg-2, Mn-1,Ni-1, Pb-2,Zn-2Fe-1, Zn-1,Cd-1, Ag-1,Pb-1, Hg-1,Cr-1————Seepage fromsurficial aquifer,possible upwelling or pumpagefrom FloridanaquiferHigh(Nutrients)MatanzasRiverP-2P-1WBIDs 2363H,2491, 2493,2499, 2535——WBIDs2363G,2493Ag-1, Cd-1,Cu-1, Fe-2,Hg-1, Pb-2,Zn-1Cu-1, Fe-1,Zn-1, Cd-1,Ag-1, Pb-1,Hg-1, Cr-1WBIDs 2493 (Cu,Fe, N), 2363G (Cu,Fe, Ni, Zn)—SC-1—Seepage fromsurficial aquifer,possible upwelling or pumpagefrom FloridanaquiferHigh(Nutrients,Cu, Fe, Zn)PellicerCreekNO3-1,P-6P-4WBIDs 2553,2580B——WBIDs2553,2580BAg-4, Ba-1,Cd-4, Cu-4,Cr-1, Fe-5,Hg-2, Mn-3,Pb-4, Zn-5Cu-4, Fe-4,Mn-1, Zn-4,Cd-4, Ag-4,Se-1, Pb-3,Ba-1, Cr-4WBIDs 2580B (Ag,Fe, Pb, Se), 2363E(As, Cd, Cu, Fe,Ni, Pb, Se, Zn),2553 (Fe), 2363D(Ag, Cd,Pb,Se,Tl)SC-1SC-3—Seepage fromsurficial aquifer,possible upwelling or pumpagefrom FloridanaquiferHigh(Nutrients,Mn, Fe, Cd,Pb, Zn)HalifaxRiverNO3-1,P-5NO3-3,P-16WBIDs 2620,2634A, 2635,2634, 2647,2666, 2670,2674A, 2674,2678——WBIDs2634,2672,2674,2674AAl-3, Ba-1,Ca-3, Cr-1, Fe5, Cu-3, Pb-5,Mn-2, Ni-1,Ag-2, Zn-4Al-1, Cu-7,Fe-11, Mn-2,Zn-9, Cd-6,Ag-11, Se-1,Pb-11, Hg-4,Cr-14WBIDs2363B(Cu,Fe),2634A (Cu,Fe,Pb), 2634 (Cu,Fe,Pb), 2674A (Fe),2674 (Fe), 2620(Se)SC-2SC-3—Seepage fromsurficial aquifer,possible upwelling or pumpagefrom FloridanaquiferHigh(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.

NO 3 

### = 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 unconfi ned 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; unconfi ned ground water seepage and springs discharge from confined aquifers identifi ed 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 Flori

dan 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) 

# 111 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

## 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 screen

ing 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 aqui

fer 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 plan

ning 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 phospho

rus). 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 signifi

cant 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 thresh

olds 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 , how

ever, 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 con

centrations 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 

# 113 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

## 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 sum

marized 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 iden

tified 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 monitor

ing 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 con

ductance 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 Depart

ment 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 

# 115 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

## 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 develop

ment of ground water resources. The Floridan aquifer is known to have high TDS throughout much of the basin due to natural condi

tions. Also, in certain near-coastal areas, saltwater intrusion into the surficial aquifer is occurring and is being exacerbated by overpump

ing. 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 poten

tial 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 residen

tial 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 contribu

tion 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 caus

ative 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. 

# 117 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

## 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 Plan

ning 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 Water

shed Restoration Act, Planning Lists of potentially impaired waters are submit

ted to the EPA for informa

tional 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, stakehold

ers 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 water

bodies to be included on the Verified List. 

# 119 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

### 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** 

# 121 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

### 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 maxi

mum daily loads for 303(d)-listed waterbodies.



## Summary of Potential Impairments

The Upper East Coast Basin contains a total of 126 waterbody seg

ments. 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 impair

ments 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 con

ducted 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 comple

tion 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 L ower 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** 

# 123 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

### 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 accor

dance 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 objec

tives, 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 

# 125 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

## 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 ofaddressing 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 orga

nizations will be included in the evaluation to help verify the condition of potentially impaired waterbodies and provide data by which other water

bodies 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 poten

tially 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 pol

lutants 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 **127** Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

## 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 compre

hensive 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 Plan

ning 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 Plan

ning 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 STO rage and RET rieval (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 seg

ments. 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 com

ment period or before, the Department will consider it before submitting the proposed list to the Secretary and EPA. 

# 129 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

## References

Bermes, B. J., G. W. Leve and G. R. Tarver. 1963. Geology and Ground Water Resources of Flagler, Putnam, and St. Johns Counties, Florida

. Report of 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 Protec

tion, 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 Monitor

ing 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 Investiga

tion No. 54. Tallahassee, Florida: U.S. Geological Survey. St. Johns River Water Management District. July 26, 2004. Govern

ing 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.go v

. 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 Qual

ity 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. Environ

mental Protection Agency. 

# 131 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

## 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 D evel oping 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 Sh eets for Ground Wat er Evaluations ........... 176
Appendix G: Monitoring Priorities in the Upper East Coast Basin....................... 188

# 134 W a t e r Q u a l i t y S t a t u s R e p o r t : U p p e r E a s t C o a s t



# App e n d i x A: L e gi s l at i v e an d Re gu l a t or y Ba c k gr ou n d on t h e W at e r s h e d M an a ge m e n t A ppr o ac h a n d t h e I m p l e m e n t a t i on of
T

o t al M ax i m u m D a i l y L oads

Federal and State Legislation on S urface Water Quality and Total Maximum Daily Loads

C

l e an W at

e r A c t

C ongr e s s e na c t e d t he C l e a n W a t e r A c t i n 1972 w i t h t he goa l o f r e s t or i ng a nd

m a i nt a i ni ng t he “ c he m i c a l

, phys i c a l

, a nd bi ol og i c a l i nt e gr i t y of t he na t i on’ s w a t e r s ” ( 33 U

. S

. C

. § 1251 [ a ] )

. T he u l t i m a t e goa l of t he a c t i s t o e l i m i na t e t he “ di s c ha r ge o f [ a l l ] pol l ut a nt s i nt o na vi ga bl e w a t e r s ” ( 33 U

. S

. C

. § 125 1[ a ] [ 1] )

. S e c t i on 305( b) of t he C l e a n W a t e r A c t r e qui r e s s t a t e s t o r e por t bi e nni a l l y t o t he U

. S

. E nvi r onm e nt a l P r ot e c t i on A ge nc y ( E P A ) on t h e i r w a t e r qua l i t y. T he 305( b ) r e po r t
pr ovi de s i nf or m a t i on on t he phys i c a l

, c he m i c a l

, bi ol ogi c a l

, a nd c ul t u r a l f e a t u r e s of e a c h

r i ve r ba s i n i n F l or i da

. T hi s i ni t i a l a s s e s s m e nt pr ovi de s a c om m on f a c t ua l ba s i s f o r i de nt i f yi ng i n f or m a t i on s our c e s a nd m a j or i s s ue s , a nd f or de t e r m i ni ng t he f u

t ur e c ha nge s , s t r a t e gi e s , a nd a c t i ons ne e de d t o pr e s e r ve , pr ot e c t
, a nd/ or r e s t or e w a t e r qua l i t y. U nde r s t a ndi ng t he phys i c a l f r a m e w or k of e a c h ba s i n a l l ow s t he de ve l opm e nt o f a

s c i e nc e

- ba s e d m e t hodol ogy f or a s s e s s i ng w a t e r qua l i t y a nd a n a c c ur a t e pi c t u r e of t he

w a t e r s t ha t a r e m os t i m pa i r e d or vul ne r a bl e t o c ont a m i na t i on. S e c t i on 303( d) of t he C l e a n W a t e r A c t r e qui r e s s t a t e s t o s ubm i t t o t he E P A l i s t s of

s ur f a c e w a t e r s t ha t do not m e e t a ppl i c a bl e w a t e r q ua l i t y s t a nda r ds a nd e s t a bl i s h t ot a l

m a xi m um da i l y l oa ds ( T M D L s ) f or e a c h of t he s e w a t e r s on a s c he dul e

. A pol l ut i on l i m i t i s t he n a l l oc a t e d t o e a c h pol l u t a nt s our c e i n a n i ndi vi dua l r i ve r ba s i n. A T M D L r e pr e s e nt s t he m a xi m um a m ount of a gi v e n pol l ut a nt t ha t a w a t e r body c a n

a s s i m i l a t e a nd m e e t a l l of i t s de s i gna t e d us e s ( s e e N ot e w or t h y on F l or i da ’ s s ur f a c e w a t e r qua l i t y c l a s s i f i c a t i ons f or a l i s t i ng of t he s e c l a s s i f i c a t i ons )

. A w a t e rbody t ha t doe s not

m e e t i t s de s i gna t e d us e i s de f i ne d a s i m pa i r e d

.

N O T E W O R T H Y: F LO R I D A ’S S U R F A C E W A T E R QU A LI T Y C L AS SI F I C A T I O N S

F

l o r i d a ’ s w a t

e r q u a l i t

y s t a n d a r d s p r o g r a m
, t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f t h e s t a t

e ’

s p r o g r a m o f w a t

e r q u a l i t

y

m a n a g e m e n t

, d e s i g n a t e s t h e “ p r

e s e n t a n d f u t u r e m o s t b e n e f i c i

a l u s e s ” o f t h e w a t

e r

s o f t h e s t a t

e ( S u b s e c t i o n 4 0 3

. 0 6 1 [ 1 0 ]

, F

. S

. )

. W a t

e r q u a l i t

y c r i t

e r

i a
, e x p r

e s s e d a s n u m e r i c o r n a r r a t

i v e l i m i t s f o r

s p e c i f i c p a r a m e t e r s
, d e s c r i b e t h e w a t

e r q u a l i t

y n e c e s s a r y t o m a i n t

a i

n t h e s e u s e s f o r s u r f a c e

w

a t

e r a n d g r o u n d w a t

e r

. F l o r i d a ’ s s u r f a c e w a t e r i s p r o t e c t e d f o r f i v e d e s i g n a t e d u s e

c l

a s s i f i c a t i o n s
, a s f o l

l o w s :

C l

a s s I P o t a b l e w a t e r s u p p l i e s C l

a s s I I S h e l l f i s h p r o p a g a t i o n o r h a r v e s t i n g C l

a s s I I I R e c r e a t i o n , p r o p a g a t i o n , a n d m a i n t e n a n c e o f a h e a l t h y , w e l

l

- b a l a n c e d
p o p u l a t i o n o f f i s h a n d w i l d

l i

f e C l

a s s I V A g r i c u l t u r a l w a t e r s u p p l i e s C l

a s s V N a v i g a t i o n , u t i l

i t

y

, a n d i n d u s t r

i a l u s e ( t h e r e a r e n o s t a t e w a t e r s c u r r

e n t l y i n t h i

s c l a s s )

### 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 wa ters, 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 futu re state list of impaired waters developed using this new methodology, and directed th e Department to establish an Allocation Technical Advisory Committee to address the allocation process for TMDLs. The act also declared Lake Okeechobee impaired a nd, 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 wate rbodies 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 met hodology for evaluating wate r 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 sta ndard 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 waterbodi es takes place in two phases. First, in each river basin the Department evaluate s the existing water quality data, using the methodology prescribed in the 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 Subsec tions 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 additiona l 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 containi ng 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 unde r 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 a pproach does not focus on individual causes of pollution. Instead, each basin is assessed as an entire functioning system, and aquatic resources are evaluated from a basinwide perspective that considers the cumulative effects of human activities. Water resources are managed on the basis of natural boundaries, such as river basins, rather than political or 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 coope ratively to focus resources and implement effective strategies to restore water quality . Extensive public participation in the decision-making process is crucial. The watershed management appr oach 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 su rface 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 entir e natural systems and addressing the cumulative effects of human activities on a watershed basis, this approach is intended to protect and enhance the ecological structur e, function, and integrity of Florida’s watersheds. It provides a framework for setting priorities and focusing the Department’s resources on protecting and restoring wate r quality, and aims to increase cooperation among state, regional, local, and federal inte rests. 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 multiage ncy projects. It avoids duplication by building on existing assessments and restor ation activities and pr omotes 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 watershe d management approach, TMDLs will be developed, and the corresponding pollutant load ings allocated, as part of a watershed management cycle that rotates through the st ate’s 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 setti ng as well as historical, current, and proposed watershed mana gement 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 wate rshed management cycle due to fiscal and technical limitations, waterbodies w ill 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 aff ected 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, in forming stakeholders and the public, and monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the plan.

To implement the watershed cycle, the stat e’s river basins have been divided into five groups within each of the Department’s 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 implement ation, 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 (T MDL implementation) will be monitored in successive cycles. Mon itoring 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 impaire d. 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
1 st 

### Five-Year Cycle – High-Priority Waters 2 nd 

### Five-Year Cycle – Medium-Priority Waters

Note: Projected years for Phases 3, 4, and 5 may change due to accelerated local activities, length of plan development, legal challenges, etc.Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast141Figure 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, organizati ons, 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 polluta nt 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, Nati onal 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 P ERMITS 

## All point sources that discharge to surface waterbodies require a NPDES permit. These permits can be classified into two t ypes: domestic or industrial wastewater discharge permits, and stormwater permits . NPDES-permitted point sources may be affected by the development and implementation of a TMDL. All NPDES permits include “reopener clauses” that allow the 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 activitie s 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

D OMESTIC AND I NDUSTRIAL W ASTEWATER P ERMITS 

## In addition to NPDES-permitte d facilities, all of which discharge to surface waters, Florida also regulates domestic and industria l wastewater discharges to ground water via land application. Since ground water and surf ace 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.

F LORIDA S TORMWATER /E NVIRONMENTAL R ESOURCE P ERMITS 

## With the implementation of the state’s st ormwater treatment rule in 1982, Florida became the first state to require the treatment of stormwater from all new development. Today, except in the area served by the Northwest Florida Water Management District, new development projects receive an Envi ronmental 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, es pecially 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.

L OCAL L AND D EVELOPMENT C ODES 

## Since structural stormwater treatment practices can only achieve certain levels of load reductions, and because the hydrologi c changes accompanying urban development often cause ecological impacts to aquatic sy stems, local land development codes that promote “low-impact developm ent” 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 protecti on of vegetation, promote the protection and restoration of riparian buffers along streams and lakes, and adopt the principles of the Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program in local landscaping codes.

B EST M ANAGEMENT P RACTICES 

## 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 educati on). Many BMPs have been developed for urban stormwater to reduce pollutant loadings and peak flows. These BMPs accommodate site-specific conditions, includi ng 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 professiona l 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 presump tion of compliance similar to that granted a developer who obtains an Environmental Resource Permit.

O THER S TRATEGIES 

## The success of implementing nonpoint source TMDL load allocations will require variety, creativity, stakeholder commitment to watershed management, and personal stewardship. In addition to BMPs, other possible strategies for meeting TMDLs, restoring water quality, and preventing the furt her degradation of Florida’s watersheds include cost sharing, waste minimization, pollution prevention, new approaches to land use design and development, and pollutant tr ading. 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 adopti on. The Department will also continue to work with local stakeholders on TMDL a llocation issues and implementation plans.

Sources of Information
For additional information on the Depar tment’s Watershed Ma nagement 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 imp lementing TMDLs, contact Jan MandrupPoulsen at (850) 245-8448. Additional informa tion is available on th e 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 me thodology 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 pr ovide greater confidence that the outcome of the water quality assessment is correct. Th e 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 me thodology for developing the Planning List includes an evaluation of aquatic life use s upport, primary contact and recreational use support, fish and shellfish consumption us e 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 met hodology 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 (TMD Ls) for these waters under Subsection 403.067(4), F.S.



# Attainment of Designated Use(s)

While the designated uses of a given wate rbody 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 provi de use attainment status for both the state’s 305(b) report and the state’s 303(d) list of impaired wate rs, 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 de signated use attain ment 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 qua lity 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 STO rage and RET rieval (STORET) databases, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Department, the Florida Department of Hea lth (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/stor et/). However, because of software difficulties associated with batch uploading of data to the modernized STORET, the data being uploaded to the national repository decr eased 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 us ed 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 organi zations providing the largest datasets include the South Florida, Southwest Florida, and St. Johns Ri ver 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, base d 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 Li st 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—c hemistry data, biological data, and fish consumption advisories—were evaluated to determine pot ential impairments for the four designated use attainment categories discussed earlier: aquatic life, primary c ontact and recreation, fish and shellfish consumption, and drinki ng water use and protection of human health.

Aquatic Life Based Attainment
The Impaired Surface Waters Rule follows th e principle of independent applicability. A waterbody is listed for potential impairm ent of aquatic life use support based on exceedances of any one of four types of wa ter quality indicators (n umeric water quality criteria, nutrient thresholds, biologi cal thresholds, and toxicity data).

# 148 Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast

E XCEEDANCES OF N UMERIC W ATER Q UALITY C RITERIA 

## The chemistry data from STORET used in evaluating impairment were also used for preparing the state’s 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, es tuary, 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 to tal 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 sa mples from the 10-year period of record shown in Table B.2, unless there were 3 exceedances of water qua lity 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 criteri on 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 anal ysis and statistical summaries of segments with waterbody identification numbers (WBIDs), waterbody types, and parameters obtained from the STORET Database were conducted using Acce ss, SAS statistical software, and ArcView GIS applications. The data for metals and c onventional 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

E XCEEDANCES OF N UTRIENT T HRESHOLDS 

## 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 wa ter be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna.” Th e 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 vege tation, changes in algal species richness, and excessive diel oxygen swings. Potential nutrient impairment was evalua ted by calculating annual mean chlorophyll

a values for estuaries and streams and the TSI for lakes. For lakes, the TSI was calculated using chlorophyll a , total phosphorus, and total 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 ( μ g/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 μ g/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 m ean TSI exceeded 60. A lake with a mean color less than or equal to 40 PCUs was cons idered 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.

E XCEEDANCES OF B IOLOGICAL T HRESHOLDS


## Bioassessments were carried out for stream s, lakes, canals, and rivers using the Impaired Surface Waters Rule as guidance and following the Department’s standard operating procedures, which provide definiti ons 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 ch aracterizations is that biological components of the environment manifest l ong-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 num bers 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 Dipt era, percent filter feeders) were used independently and as an aggregated group calle d 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 variable s. A number of bioassessment metrics and indices exist for assessing populations of plan t and animal life, including fish, diatoms (e.g., microscopic algae and unicellular plankt on), and macroinvertebrates (e.g., insects, crayfish, snails, and mussels). Only macroinvertebrate data from ambient sites in state surface waters were used in the bioassessments analyzed for the Planning a nd Verified Lists. The data included sites designated as test and bac kground sites for National Pollu tant 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 s ite-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 procedur es referenced in the Impaired Surface Waters Rule (Section 62-303.330, F.A.C.). The data from these databases are used w ithout regard to the randomness of sample site selection. For the purposes of the 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.

L AKE C ONDITION I NDEX 

## 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.

S TREAM C ONDITION I NDEX 

## A total Stream Condition Index (SCI) scor e was calculated by adding the scores of the seven metrics in the method: total number of taxa; tota l number of taxa belonging to the orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT taxa); percent Chironomid taxa; percent dominant taxa; percent Diptera; pe rcent filter feeders; and Florida Index. A poor or very poor rating based on the total sc ore constituted a failed bioassessment, based on the Impaired Surface Waters Rule. The Basin Status Reports contain definitions and specific methods for the generation an d analysis of bioassessment data.

B IO R ECON 

## To establish an impairment rating based on BioRecon data, three metrics were used: the Florida Index score, total number of taxa, and total number of EPT taxa. If all three metrics failed to meet thresholds, the water was deemed “impaired” based on the Impaired Surface Waters Rule.

B IOLOGICAL I NTEGRITY S TANDARD 

## Quantitative data, generated through the use of Hester-Dendy artificial substrate samplers, were used to calculate Shannon-Wi ener Diversity Index scores for paired background and test sites, as specified in th e 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.

E VALUATION OF T OXICITY D ATA 

## Although the Impaired Surface Waters Rule desc ribes 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 water body 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 ar ea that was closed by a local health department or county governme nt for more than 1 week or more than once during a calendar year based on bacteriological data,

• The waterbody segment included a bathing ar ea for which a local health department or county government issued closures, advi sories, or warnings totaling 21 days or more during a calendar year based on bacteriological data, or

• The waterbody segment included a bathing area that was closed or had advisories or warnings for more than 12 weeks during a calendar year based on previous bacteriological data or on derived relationshi ps 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 cons umption” or “no consumption” advisories for surface waters because of high levels of merc ury 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 potentia lly impaired if it did not meet the applicable Class I water quality criteria.

.Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast153Appendix C: Permitted Discharge Facilities, Superfund Sites, and Landfills in the Upper EastCoast Basin, by Planning UnitTable C.1: Permitted Facilities with Discharges to Surface Water and Ground Water, by Planning UnitFacility ID Name Facility Type Status NPDESDesign Capacity(millions of gallonsper day)Tolomato River Planning UnitFL0117897 SAWGRASS WWTF DW A Y 1.5000FL0117951 PONTE VEDRA WWTF DW A Y 0.5000FLA011765 NORTH BEACH UTILITIES WWTF DW A N 0.1500FLG110334 RINKER MATERIALS–NORTH ST AUGUSTINE FACILITY CBP A Y 0.0000FLA011773 PONCE DE LEON WWTF DW A N 0.4000Matanzas River Planning UnitFLA011761 J C 'S CAR WASH IW A N 0.0015FLA016927 FDOT–ST AUGUSTINE MAINTENANCE IW A N 0.0120FLA011769 MOULTRIE WOODS WWTF DW A N 0.0240FL0043109 STATE ROAD 16 WWTF DW A Y 1.5000FL0021938 ST AUGUSTINE WWTF NO 1 DW A Y 5.0000FLA011783 SOUTH GATE CARWASH IW N N 0.0015FL0038831 ANASTASIA ISLAND WWTF DW A Y 4.0000FLA011791 SPANISH TRAIL MOBILE HOME PARK WWTF DW A N 0.0250FLG110373 FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES–ST AUGUSTINE CBP A Y 0.0000FLA011781 WAGON WHEEL MOBILE HOME PARK WWTF DW A N 0.0042FL0117471 STATE ROAD 207 WWTF DW A Y 0.2500FLG110563 TARMAC–ST. AUGUSTINE FACILITY CBP A Y 0.0000FLA011762 WILDWOOD/OAKRIDGE APARTMENTS WWTF DW C N 0.0350Pellicer Creek Planning UnitFL0039756 BEVERLY BEACH WWTF DW A Y 0.2150FLA011602 DUNES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WWTF DW A N 0.5000FLA011611 FLAGLER-BY-THE-SEA WWTF DW A N 0.0100FLA011784 CHARLIE T'S TRUCKSTOP WWTF DW C N 0.0050FLA011797 DAIRY QUEEN RESTAURANT WWTF DW A N 0.0110154Water Quality Status Report: Upper East CoastFacility ID Name Facility Type Status NPDESDesign Capacity(millions of gallonsper day)FLA011599 MATANZAS SHORES WWTF DW A N 0.3220FLA011593 MARITIME I ESTATES DW A N 0.0120FLA011612 MARINE PARK OF FLAGLER WWTF DW A N 0.0600FLA011604 MARITIME ESTATES II DW A N 0.0134FLRNEE181 ASCOM ENERGY SYSTEMS NEX A Y 0.0000FLA011595 PALM COAST INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY WWTF DW A N 0.0100FLRNEE282 CITY OF PALM COAST WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT NEX A Y 0.0000FLA175463GRAND HAVEN DISTRICT REUSE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY(CDD)DW A N 1.0000FL0116009 PALM COAST WWTF DW A Y 4.0000Hallifax River Planning UnitFLA011164 OCEANAIRE CONDO (DW) DW A N 0.0050FLA011188 SEABRIDGE WWTF (DW) DW A N 0.2100FLA011176 VCUD/PELICAN DUNES (DW) DW A N 0.0180FLA011603 HOLIDAY TRAVEL PARK DW A N 0.0600FLA011601 BULOW VILLAGE WWTF DW A N 0.0880FLA011597 PLANTATION BAY WWTF DW A N 0.4750FL0043125VCUD/HIGHBRIDGE PARK REVERSE OSMOSIS WATER TREATMENTPLANTIW A Y 0.0018FLA011131 VCUD/ HALIFAX PLANTATION WWTF DW A N 0.3000FLA011192 KINGSTON SHORES CONDOS (DW) DW A N 0.0500FL0026611 FLAGLER BEACH WWTF DW A Y 1.0000FLA017453 VCUD/HALIFAX PLANTATION RO (IW) IW A N 0.0625FLA011185 MADEIRA VILLA CONDOS NORTH (DW) DW A N 0.0099FLA011151 WINDEMERE SHORES CONDO (DW) DW A N 0.0090FLA011252 ORMOND BEACH SURFSIDE CLUB NORTH WWTF DW A N 0.0150FLA011116 VCUD/SUNNY BEACH WWTF DW A N 0.0110FLA011156 VAN LEE CONDOMINIUMS (DW) DW A N 0.0200FLA011162 OCEAN HOUSE CONDO (DW) DW A N 0.0180FLA011167 SAND DUNES CONDO WWTF (DW) DW A N 0.0050FLA011170 ORMONDY CONDOMINIUM (DW) DW A N 0.0180Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast155Facility ID Name Facility Type Status NPDESDesign Capacity(millions of gallonsper day)FLA011178 OCEAN SHORE PLAZA WWTF DW A N 0.0120FLA011183 MADEIRA VILLA SOUTH (DW) DW A N 0.0035FLA011184 MADEIRA VILLA CENTRAL (DW) DW A N 0.0080FLA011206 ORMOND OCEANSIDE CONDO (DW) DW A N 0.0033FLA011253 ORMOND SURFSIDE CLUB SOUTH WWTF DW A N 0.0150FLA011259 REGENCY PLAZA CONDOMINIUM (DW) DW A N 0.0400FLA011117 VCUD/LEEWARD WIND WWTF DW A N 0.0120FLA111554 GEMINI CONDOMINIUMS (DW) DW A N 0.0160FLA017020 VCUD/OCEAN DUNES CONDO (DW) DW A N 0.0070FLA011174 OCEAN WATCH WWTF DW A N 0.0240FLA011122 VCUD/ATLANTIC 22 CONDO (DW) DW A N 0.0070FLA011150 MARINERS BAY CONDO (DW) DW A N 0.0075FLA011161 SEASCAPE CONDOMINIUM WWTF DW A N 0.0110FLA011160 INDIES HOUSE CONDO (DW) DW A N 0.0125FLA011171 SUNRISE CONDOMINIUM DW A N 0.0100FLA011213 TRADERS INN BEACH CLUB WWTF (DW) DW A N 0.0150FLA011120 VCUD/TIFFANY CONDOMINIUM WWTF DW A N 0.0090FLA011157 FAIRWIND SHORES (DW) DW A N 0.0310FLA011205 COMFORT INN /ORMOND BEACH (DW) DW A N 0.0300FLA011146 SCOTTISH INN (DW) DW A N 0.0200FLA011169 VILLAGES OF PINE RUN (DW) DW A N 0.0400FLA011226 SUPER 8 MOTEL/ORMOND BEACH WWTF DW A N 0.0100FLA011239ENCORE SUPERPARK AKA SUNSHINE HOLIDAY CAMPER RESORT(DW)DW A N 0.0400FLA011242 RAMADA INN(I-95) DW A N 0.0250FLA016726 ORMOND SEPTIC SYSTEMS RMF RES A N 0.0500FLA011152 OCEAN SHORE (DW) DW A N 0.0083FLA011196 VILLA SERENO CONDO (DW) DW A N 0.0090FLA011272 WINCHESTER MANOR (DW) DW A N 0.0100FLA011228 CAMINO REAL APARTMENTS WWTF DW A N 0.0065FLA011247 VCUD/SPANISH WATERS (DW) DW A N 0.0090156Water Quality Status Report: Upper East CoastFacility ID Name Facility Type Status NPDESDesign Capacity(millions of gallonsper day)FLA011153 STARBOARD LIGHTS CONDOMINIUM WWTF DW A N 0.0075FLA011215 ORMOND BREAKERS CONDOMINIUM, STP DW A N 0.0200FLA011225 AQUARIUS CONDO (DW) DW A N 0.0200FLA011233 CORINTHIAN VILLAS (DW) DW A N 0.0150FLA011240 ORMOND BY THE SEA (DW) DW A N 0.0100FLA011236 EMERALD PALMS WWTF DW A N 0.0030FLRNEE153 AIRPORTNEX A Y 0.0000FLA011193 TYMBER CREEK (DW) DW A N 0.1310FLG110216 RINKER MATERIALS/ORMOND BEACH CONCRETE BATCH PLANT CBP A Y 0.0016FLG910598 BP STATION #24650 (IW) PET A Y 0.0000FLRNEE154 SOUTHLAND NEX A Y 0.0000FL0020532 ORMOND BEACH WWTF DW A Y 6.0000FL0037877 VCDSWM/TOMOKA FARMS ROAD LANDFILL IWTP IW A Y 0.0000FLA017086 FLORIDA N-VIRO/TOMOKA RMF (DW) RES A N 0.0580FLA016692RINGHAVER/TOMOKA FARM ROAD/ EQUIPMENT WASH RECYCLESYSTEMIW A N 0.0016FLG110452 TARMAC/DAYTONA BEACH CBP A N 0.0250FLG110462 CEMEX/DAYTONA BEACH CB PLANT (IW) CBP A Y 0.0560FLRNEE148 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FACILITY NEX A Y 0.0000FLA011274 KONNY'S COIN LAUNDRY (IW) IW A N 0.0040FLA011125VCUD/NORTHEAST BARN/EQUIPMENT & TRUCK WASH RECYCLESYSTEMIW A N 0.0000FLA016556 VCSB/DAYTONA BEACH BUS WASH FACILITY IW A N 0.0012FL0027677 CITY OF HOLLY HILL DW A Y 2.4000FLRNEE285 AIRBORNE FEIGHT CORP. NEX A Y 0.0000FLA111392 DAYTONA BEACH WESTSIDE REGIONALWWTF DW A N 15.0000FL0025984 DAYTONA BEACH/BETHUNE POINT WWTF DW A Y 13.0000FLA112551 BATTELLE FLORIDA MATERIALS RESEARCH CENTER IW N N 0.0750FLA011201 MANSFIELD MOBILE HOME PARK, STP DW A N 0.0050FLA011224 COLONY IN THE WOODS (DW) DW A N 0.0660FLG110181 RINKER MATERIALS/SOUTH DAYTONA CONCRETE BATCH PLANT CBP A N 0.0025Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast157Facility ID Name Facility Type Status NPDESDesign Capacity(millions of gallonsper day)FL0020559 CITY OF PORT ORANGE WWTF DW A Y 6.0000FLA011181 DOUBLE D MOBILE RANCH WWTF DW A N 0.0075FLA185086 VCUD/SPRUCE CREEK (IW) IW A N 0.3500FLA011113 VCSB SAMSULA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (DW) DW A N 0.0050FLA011173 SUGAR MILL RUINS TRAVEL PARK WWTF DW A N 0.0150FLA011256 SUGAR MILL COUNTRY CLUB (DW) DW A N 0.2700FLA011209 EL DORADO MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY (DW) DW A N 0.0200FLRNEE083 NEW SMYRNA BEACH–REDDY PLANT #343 NEX A Y 0.0000FL0172090 NEW SMYRNA BEACH WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY (DW) DW A Y 7.0000FLA011249 TROPICAL CHEVRON/NEW SMYRNA (DW) DW A N 0.0024FLA011243 SUGAR MILL MHP (DW) DW A N 0.0250158Water Quality Status Report: Upper East CoastTable C.2: Superfund Sites, by Planning UnitPlanningUnitSite Name City County District Program Status Operation Program LeaderMatanzasRiver000000000043ControlProductsAssociatedSt.AugustineStJohnsNortheastStateFundedDelistedPesticide/Insecticide/HerbicideFlorida Department ofEnvironmental ProtectionWater Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast159Table C.3: Permitted Landfill Facilities, by Planning UnitFacility NameAddressCityCountyDepartmentDistrictStatus1Facility TypeFacility Code2Tolomato River Planning UnitNine Mile CompostingFacility Cof445 A International GolfPkwySt. Augustine 55 Northeast J Solid Waste 320Nine Mile RoadSouthland CDS445 A International GolfPkwySt. Augustine 55 Northeast A Solid Waste 540Nine Mile Rd MaterialsRecovery Facility4454 Nine Mile Rd St. Augustine 55 Northeast J Solid Waste 810Matanzas River Planning UnitAnastasia IslandOff State Rd 3 & FishIsland RdSt. Augustine 55 Northeast K Solid Waste 100St. Augustine BeachLFEnd of Pope RdSt. AugustineBeach55 Northeast K Solid Waste 200Ravenswood DumpRavenswood Dr &Volusia StSt. Augustine 55 Northeast K Solid Waste 300Hicks Land Clearing &Fill Dirt CDS, LCD3445 Old Moultrie Rd St. Augustine 55 Northeast A Solid Waste 540St. Augustine TransferStation (TS)Holmes Blvd St. Augustine 55 Northeast I Solid Waste 75016thStreet CollectionCenter WTC (WasteTires)840 W 16thSt St. Augustine 55 Northeast J Solid Waste 751Ravenswood RecylingCollection Center WTC(Waste Tires)870 Pacific Blvd St. Augustine 55 Northeast J Solid Waste 751Old City MaterialsRecovery Facility(MRF)3953 Deerpark Blvd Elkton 55 Northeast I Solid Waste 810Saint Johns Pk2 Miles E of St.Augustine BeachSt. Augustine 18 Northeast J Solid Waste 520Pellicer Creek Planning UnitLCD of Flagler Hwy US 1 Bunnell 18 Northeast A Solid Waste 310William Paterson(C&D) CDSOld Kings Rd N Palm Coast 18 Northeast J Solid Waste 540160Water Quality Status Report: Upper East CoastFacility NameAddressCityCountyDepartmentDistrictStatus1Facility TypeFacility Code2Halifax River Planning UnitFlagler County CentralLandfill LFC1 (OldKings Rd)Old Kings Rd 1 Mile SState Rd 100Bunnell 18NortheastDistrictK Solid Waste 100Tomoka Farms RoadLandfill1990 Tomoka Farms Rd Daytona Beach 64 Central A Solid Waste 100Flagler County Class IIILF1.7 Miles S State Rd 100 Bunnell 18NortheastDistrictI Solid Waste 300Ormond Beach NovaRoad Landfill III520 North Nova Rd Ormond Beach 64CentralDistrictK Solid Waste 300Port Orange LandfillHerbert St, East of ClydeMorris BlvdPort Orange 64CentralDistrictJ Solid Waste 300Tomoka Farms RoadLandfill1990 Tomoka Farms Rd Daytona Beach 64CentralDistrictA Solid Waste 300Kirton C&D LF (East)—Land Clearing DebrisOnly1630 Tomoka Farms Rd Daytona Beach 64CentralDistrictA Solid Waste 310Flagler County DitchCleaning @ C&D Fac(SW0)1700 S Old Kings Rd Flagler 18NortheastDistrictA Solid Waste 500Daytona BeachInternational AirportGeneral AviationDevelt700 Catalina Drive, Suite110Daytona Beach 64CentralDistrictP Solid Waste 520New Smyrna BeachAirport Landfill1800 Turnbull Bay RdNew SmyrnaBeach64CentralDistrictK Solid Waste 520Ormond Beach NovaRoad Landfill III520 North Nova Rd Ormond Beach 64CentralDistrictK Solid Waste 520Port Orange LandfillHerbert St, East of ClydeMorris BlvdPort Orange 64CentralDistrictJ Solid Waste 520Flagler County C&DCDS1 Mile S State Rd 100Old Kings RdBunnell 18NortheastDistrictA Solid Waste 540Kirton-Self C&DLandfill (West)West of Tomoka FarmRd, 1/4 Miles South of I-4Daytona Beach 64CentralDistrictA Solid Waste 540Klenk C&D 3555 Jackson St Port Orange 64CentralDistrictA Solid Waste 540Port OrangeIncinerator4625 Recreation Dr Port Orange 64CentralDistrictI Solid Waste 610Tomoka Farms Road 1990 Tomoka Farms Rd Daytona Beach 64 Central A Solid Waste 630Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast161Facility NameAddressCityCountyDepartmentDistrictStatus1Facility TypeFacility Code2LandfillDistrictAirport Used AutoParts Salvage Yard1295 Kenard StNew SmyrnaBeach64CentralDistrictP Solid Waste 710Reti Co Inc. 1527 Pine St Holly Hill 64CentralDistrictP Solid Waste 710Tire City Waste TireProcessing892 S Nova Rd Ormond Beach 64CentralDistrictP Solid Waste 710Ormond BeachTransfer Station450 North Orchard St Ormond Beach 64CentralDistrictA Solid Waste 750Ormond Beach NovaRoad Landfill III520 North Nova Rd Ormond Beach 64CentralDistrictK Solid Waste 900Flagler County WasteTire Collection Center1700 Old Kings Rd Bunnell 18NortheastDistrictA Solid Waste 751Flagler County WasteTire Collection Center1700 Old Kings Rd Bunnell 18NortheastDistrictA Solid Waste 7511Status:A–ActiveJ–Closed, No MonitoringK–Closed, MonitoredP–PermittedI–Inactive2100 Class I Landfill200 Class II Landfill300 Class III Landfill310 Land Clearing Debris320 Yard Trash Composting with Disposal500 Other Disposal Facility520 Old Dump540 Construction/Demolition Debris610 Incineration630 Other Treatment710 Waste Tire Processing Facility750 Transfer Station Processing Facility751 Waste Tire Collection Center810 Material Recovery900 Other Volume Reduction/Resource Recovery Facility162Water Quality Status Report: Upper East CoastAppendix D: Water Quality Monitoring Stations,by Planning UnitWBIDWaterbody SegmentWaterbodyTypeClassSTORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear# of Observa-tionsTolomato River Planning Unit2320 Guana River Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010168 Guana Lake at boat ramp 1995 1995 582320 Guana River Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010169Guana Lake 50 yards south ofdam1995 1995 572320 Guana River Estuary IIIM 21FLSJWMGARGuana River 100 yds. south ofdam1997 2003 18182320 Guana River Estuary IIIM 21FLVOL ICW110 Guana River Dam 1995 1997 2172320ALake Vedra Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010181 Lake Vedra at Corona Rd. 1996 1996 1732320ALake Vedra Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010182 Ponte Vedra Lake at Sawgrass1996 1996 1732363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 20030446 ICWW @ Plantation Canal 1995 1995 582363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010123 ICWW at powerlines 1994 1995 1372363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010124 ICWW at Wards Landing 1995 1995 582363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010125ICWW dk nr Quonset Hut DPC#51995 1995 572363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010127 ICWW Red Channel Marker #21994 1998 4222363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010128Creek 1/2 mile from bridgeICWW1995 1995 572363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010130ICWW conf Tolomato R &Guano R1994 1994 792363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010145 ICWW St Johns #9 1995 1995 572363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010146ICWW 10 Marker 21 TolomatoRiver1994 1998 4202363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010175ICWW @ Unnamed Cr SE ofXimanies Cr1995 1995 572363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010177 ICWW @ ditch SE of airport 1995 1995 55Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast163WBIDWaterbody SegmentWaterbodyTypeClassSTORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear# of Observa-tions2363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 92010SEASW end of basin adjacent to St.Aug. Airport1994 2001 9292363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 92015SEAS ICWW CM 48 1994 2001 11712363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 92021SEASNorthernmost marker Lease1088 in Ximanies C.1994 2001 23412363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 92065SEASCreek mouth E shore north ofICWW CM 551994 2001 9412363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 92071SEAS W shore W of ICWW CM 55 1994 2001 11752363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 92081SEAS Mouth of Robinson Creek 1994 2001 11762363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 92091SEAS Mouth of Pancho Creek 1994 2001 11752363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLFMRIHAL200101 Halifax–Tolomato River 2001 2001 212363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLFMRIHAL200102 Halifax–Tolomato River 2001 2001 122363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLFMRIHAL200103 Halifax–Tolomato River 2001 2001 422363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLSJWMJXTR17Confluence of Tolomato andGuana Rivers–ICWW1997 2003 16962363I Matanzas River Estuary II 21FLVOL ICW050 I.C.W. at Palm Valley Bridge 1995 1996 812400 Smith Creek Stream IIIF 21FLSJWMSMITHSCR Smith's Creek 1997 2003 16772406 Deep Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010165 Deep Creek at mouth 1995 2002 5212406 Deep Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010166 Deep Cr at Sweetwater Cr 1995 2002 5072406 Deep Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010190Deep Creek at trail (wooden)bridge2001 2002 1852442 Marshall Creek Stream IIIF 21FLA 27010183 Marshall Cr 3/4 Mile ab mouth 1999 2002 4552442 Marshall Creek Stream IIIF 21FLA 27010184 Marshall Cr at mouth 1999 2002 4512451 Stokes Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010170Stokes Cr N Prong near WestBend1995 1995 542451 Stokes Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010171Stokes Cr S Prong S MedicisIsland1995 2002 5052451 Stokes Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010172 Stokes Cr at mouth 1995 1995 542451 Stokes Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010185 Stokes Cr 1/4 Mile ab mouth 1999 2002 478164Water Quality Status Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbody SegmentWaterbodyTypeClassSTORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear# of Observa-tions2451 Stokes Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLSJWMSTOKESCR Stokes Creek 1997 2003 16832468 Casa Cola Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010173Casa Cola Cr N Prong nearWest Bend1995 1995 542468 Casa Cola Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010174 Casa Cola Cr at mouth 1995 1995 542468 Casa Cola Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLSJWMCCC Casa Cola Creek 1997 2003 18572483 Pancho Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLA 92095SEASUp Pancho Creek as far spossible1994 2001 9422487 Robinson Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010152 ICWW at Robinson Creek 1994 1998 4362487 Robinson Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010178Robinson Cr N Prong NW offork1995 1995 572487 Robinson Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010179Robinson Cr S Prong SW offork1995 1995 572487 Robinson Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLA 92085SEASUp Robinson Creek as far aspossible1994 2001 9422487 Robinson Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLFMRIHAL200129 Halifax–Tolomato River 2001 2001 128123AVilano Beach Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH ST JOHNS245 Vilano Beach 2000 2003 1278125AMickler’s Landing Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH ST JOHNS246 Mickler’s Landing 2000 2003 1278125BSolana Rd Coastal IIIM 21FLA 27010180 Lake Vedra at Solana Rd 1996 1996 1758125BSolana Rd Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH ST JOHNS247 Solana Rd 2000 2003 127Matanzas River Planning Unit2363GMatanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010155 ICWW at East Creek 1994 1994 772363GMatanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010156 ICWW at Marker 43 1994 1994 752363GMatanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010157 ICWW at CM 21 1994 1998 4922363GMatanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010158 ICWW at ASD WWTP POD 1994 1998 4882363GMatanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010159 ICWW at CM 18 1994 1998 4812363GMatanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010160 ICWW 50 feet north of SR 312 1994 1998 4852363GMatanzas River Estuary II 21FLA 27010161 ICWW at CM 12 1994 1998 502Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast165WBIDWaterbody SegmentWaterbodyTypeClassSTORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear# of Observa-tions2363GMatanzas River Estuary II 21FLFMRIHAL200105 Halifax–Matanzas River 2001 2001 122363GMatanzas River Estuary II 21FLSJWMJXTR21Matanzas River north ofCrescent Beach @ SR206Bridge1997 2003 26022363GMatanzas River Estuary II 21FLSJWMMR312 Matanzas River AT HWY 312 1994 2003 29862363GMatanzas River Estuary II 21FLVOL ICW150I.C.W. St. Augustine N ofSR3121995 1996 1802363GMatanzas River Estuary II 21FLVOL ICW210 I.C.W. St. Augustine 1995 1996 2402491 San Sebastian River Stream IIIF 21FLSJWMSSBSan Sebastian River at US 1 INSt. Augustine1997 2003 16892493 Moultrie Creek Stream II 21FLA 27010188 Moultrie Creek at CR 207 2000 2000 212493 Moultrie Creek Stream II 21FLSJWMMCICW Moultrie Creek off ICWW 1997 2003 18062493 Moultrie Creek Stream II 21FLSJWMMTC Moultrie Creek at SR 207 1994 1998 12592499 Oyster Creek Stream IIIF 21FLVOL ICW130 Oyster Creek-St. Augustine 1995 1996 1222502 Salt Run Estuary II 21FLFMRIHAL200104 Halifax–Salt Run 2001 2001 172502 Salt Run Estuary II 21FLVOL ICW170Salt Run -Lighthouse Pier St.Augustine1996 1996 422520 Wildwood Creek Stream IIIF 21FLA 27010189 Wildwood Cr. @ Wildwood Rd. 2001 2001 222535 Moses Creek Stream IIIF 21FLA 27010050 Moses Cr at US 1 2000 2000 212535 Moses Creek Stream IIIF 21FLVOL HID010Hidden cr. upstrm of confl withMoses Cr1996 1996 1042535 Moses Creek Stream IIIF 21FLVOL ICW190Moses Cr approx 0.5 mi upstrmof I.C.W.1996 1996 1038122 Matanzas River Ocean Coastal IIIM 21FLA 88050SEASSouth of Devils Elbow FishCamp east shore1994 2000 10048122A Crescent Beach Coastal IIIM 21FLA 27010097ICWW Marker 60 N CrescentBch Br1994 1998 3498122A Crescent Beach Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH ST JOHNS241 Crescent Beach 2000 2003 1268122BSt. Augustine Bch OceanTraceCoastal IIIM 21FLDOH ST JOHNS242 St. Augustine Bch Ocean Trace2000 2003 1268122C St. Augustine Bch A Street Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH ST JOHNS243 St. Augustine Bch A Street 2000 2003 1278122D Anastasia State Park Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH ST JOHNS244 Anastasia State Park 2000 2003 127Pellicer Creek Planning Unit2363D Palm Coast Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010102ICWW marker at ITT NP PalmCst C1994 1994 80166Water Quality Status Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbody SegmentWaterbodyTypeClassSTORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear# of Observa-tions2363DPalm Coast Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010103 ICWW at St Joe Canal 1994 1994 802363DPalm Coast Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010104 ICWW Marker 1 at Fox Cut 1995 1998 2742363DPalm Coast Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010150ICWW Flagler Palm Coast MidCana1994 1994 802363DPalm Coast Estuary IIIM 21FLSJWMJXTR26 ICWW marker @ Fox Cut 1997 2003 16262363EICWW Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010099 ICWW Marker 87 at Marineland1994 1994 792363EICWW Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010101ICWW Marker 108 at Lung Crconf1995 1998 2712363EICWW Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010142 ICWW N of Marineland 1995 1995 102363EICWW Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010143 ICWW S of Marineland 1995 1995 102363EICWW Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010144 ICWW between CM 100 & 1021995 1995 102363EICWW Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010149ICWW Flagler Palm CoastNorth Cn1994 1994 792363EICWW Estuary IIIM 21FLSJWMMATMatanzas River S ofWashington Oaks @ CM #1091994 2003 29642363EICWW Estuary IIIM 21FLSJWMMRT Matanzas River at CM #89 1997 2002 15542363EICWW Estuary IIIM 21FLSJWMTOLTolomato River at SpanishLanding1994 2002 36672363EICWW Estuary IIIM 21FLVOL ICW220 I.C.W. Park-Flagler Co. 1995 1995 642363FICWW Estuary IIIM 21FLA 88010SEASMouth of creek southeast ofCM 791994 2000 44522363FICWW Estuary IIIM 21FLA 88011SEASAcross from Fort Matanzas atcreek mouth1994 2000 11902363FICWW Estuary IIIM 21FLA 88012SEAS Up creek from station 11 1994 2000 9252363FICWW Estuary IIIM 21FLA 88015SEAS Up creek from station 10 1994 2000 33442363FICWW Estuary IIIM 21FLFMRIHAL200106 Halifax–ICWW 2001 2001 122550 Unnamed Drain Stream IIIF 21FLA 88017SEAS Up creek southwest of CM 78 1994 2000 43952553 Cracker Branch Blackwater IIIF 21FLA 27010060 Cracker Br. @ CR 204 1998 1998 322577 Stevens Branch Stream IIIF 21FLA 27010070 Stevens Br. off CR 204 1998 1998 32Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast167WBIDWaterbody SegmentWaterbodyTypeClassSTORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear# of Observa-tions2580B Pellicer Creek Stream IIIF 21FLA 27010016 Pellicer Cr at US 1 1998 1998 332580B Pellicer Creek Stream IIIF 21FLSJWMPEL Pellicer Creek at US 1 1994 1998 12788120A Picknickers/Beverly Beach Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH FLAGLER318 Picknickers/Beverly Beach 2000 2003 1278120B Varn Park/Beverly Beach Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH FLAGLER104 Varn Park/Beverly Beach 2000 2003 1278121 Pellicer Creek Ocean 2 Coastal IIIM 21FLA 88030SEASCulvert south of boat ramp eastof CM 721994 2000 11918121 Pellicer Creek Ocean 2 Coastal IIIM 21FLA 88031SEAS Mouth of creek east of CM 75 1994 2000 11888121 Pellicer Creek Ocean 2 Coastal IIIM 21FLA 88032SEAS Up creek from station 31 1994 2000 11578121 Pellicer Creek Ocean 2 Coastal IIIM 21FLA 88055SEASMouth of residential canalsouth of inlet1995 2000 9248121 Pellicer Creek Ocean 2 Coastal IIIM 21FLA 88061SEASEast of Summer Haven atnorthwest turn1994 2000 11918121 Pellicer Creek Ocean 2 Coastal IIIM 21FLA 88081SEASMouth of creek southwest ofCM 851994 2000 9018121 Pellicer Creek Ocean 2 Coastal IIIM 21FLA 88091SEASTip of small island east ofRattlesnake Is1994 2000 11908121A Washington Oaks Beach Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH FLAGLER103 Washington Oaks Beach 2000 2003 1278121B Marineland Beach Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH FLAGLER102 Marineland Beach 2000 2002 538121C Matanzas Inlet Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH ST JOHNS240 Matanzas Inlet 2000 2003 127Halifax River Planning Unit2363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010423Halifax R Intracoast Wat Mark591996 1996 242363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010429Halifax R. 50 yds. east of PortOrange Canal1996 1996 242363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010439Halifax R. 50 yds. east of ReedCanal1996 1996 372363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010610Halifax R. 100 yds. N. ofDaytona Outfall1996 1996 242363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010611Halifax R. 100 yds. S. ofDaytona Outfall1996 1996 242363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLFMRIHAL200109 Halifax–Port Orange 2001 2001 122363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLFMRIHAL200110 Halifax–Daggett Island 2001 2001 122363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLFMRIHAL200111Halifax–End of Inlet HarborRoad2001 2001 322363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLKWATVOL-HA-RIVER-1 Volusia-Halifax River-1-1 2001 2003 125168Water Quality Status Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbody SegmentWaterbodyTypeClassSTORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear# of Observa-tions2363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLKWATVOL-HA-RIVER-2 Volusia-Halifax River-2-2 2001 2003 1172363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLKWATVOL-HA-RIVER-3 Volusia-Halifax River-3-3 2001 2003 1192363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL13 Halifax River at ICWW CM44 1994 1998 24812363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL14 Halifax River at ICWW CM47 1994 1998 23852363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL15 Halifax River at ICWW CM56 1994 1998 20642363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL16 Halifax River at ICWW CM57 1994 1998 17802363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL17 Halifax River at ICWW CM63 1994 1998 18432363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL18 Halifax River at ICWW CM 1 1994 1998 26652363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL19 Halifax River at ICWW CM7 1994 1998 26292363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-014 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 47 1999 2003 6072363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-015 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 56 1999 2003 6872363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-016 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 57 1999 2003 6052363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-017 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 63 1999 2003 5852363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-018 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 1 1999 2003 6052363A Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-019 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 7 1999 2003 5832363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010037Halifax R 100 Ft N Si Bch MemBr1994 1995 1352363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010402Halifax R 50 Y N Ormond BchSTP1996 1996 242363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010404Halifax R 50 Y S Ormond BchSTP1996 1996 232363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010405 Halifax R 50 Y N Holly Hill STP 1996 1996 242363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010407 Halifax R 50 Y S Holly Hill STP 1996 1996 242363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010468Halifax R. at ICWW CM 9 eastside of channel1996 1996 24Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast169WBIDWaterbody SegmentWaterbodyTypeClassSTORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear# of Observa-tions2363BHalifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010832 Halifax River at ICWW #22 1996 1996 242363BHalifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLFMRIHAL200107 Halifax–ICWW 2001 2001 122363BHalifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLFMRIHAL200108 Halifax–ICWW 2001 2001 272363BHalifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLSJWM27010037Halifax River 100 ft N si BeachMemorial Bridge1995 1998 8612363BHalifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL04 Halifax River at ICWW CM 6 1994 1998 16792363BHalifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL05 Halifax River at ICCW CM 11 1994 1998 17482363BHalifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL06 Halifax River at ICCW CM 16 1994 1998 17362363BHalifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL07 Halifax River at ICCW CM 21 1994 1998 17052363BHalifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL08 Halifax River at ICWW CM 25 1994 1998 19722363BHalifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL09 Halifax River at ICCW CM 30 1994 1998 16852363BHalifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL10 Halifax River at ICWW CM 33 1994 1998 16512363BHalifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL11Halifax River 100 yds N. ofOrange Ave Bridge1994 1998 25882363BHalifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL12Halifax River at entrance toHalifax Harbor1994 1998 15792363BHalifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL20 Ponce Inlet – center channel 1994 1998 28612363BHalifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-005 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 11 1999 2003 8632363BHalifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-006 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 16 1999 2003 8492363BHalifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-007 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 21 1999 2003 8182363BHalifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-008 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 25 1999 2003 6862363BHalifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-009 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 30 1999 2003 6112363BHalifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-010 Halifax River, at ICWW CM 33 1999 2003 5932363BHalifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-011Halifax River, at ICWW CM 36,N of Orange Ave Brid1999 2003 604170Water Quality Status Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbody SegmentWaterbodyTypeClassSTORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear# of Observa-tions2363B Halifax River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-012Halifax River, at entrance toHalifax Harbor Marin1999 2003 5912363C Tomoka Basin Estuary IIIM 21FLKWATVOL-TO-TOMOKA-1 Volusia-Tomoka-1 2000 2001 282363C Tomoka Basin Estuary IIIM 21FLKWATVOL-TO-TOMOKA-2 Volusia-Tomoka-2 2000 2001 252363C Tomoka Basin Estuary IIIM 21FLKWATVOL-TO-TOMOKA-3 Volusia-Tomoka-3 2000 2001 262363C Tomoka Basin Estuary IIIM 21FLKWATVOL-TO-TOMOKA-4 Volusia-Tomoka-4 2000 2001 262363C Tomoka Basin Estuary IIIM 21FLKWATVOL-TO-TOMOKA-5 Volusia-Tomoka-5 2000 2001 282363C Tomoka Basin Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL03Halifax River center of TomokaBasin1994 1998 16742363C Tomoka Basin Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-003Halifax River, center of TomokaBasin1999 2003 8492363J Palm Coast Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010020Halifax River north at ICWWChannel Marker 261994 1996 1382363J Palm Coast Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010106ICWW Marker 19 at FlaglerBeach1995 1998 2712363J Palm Coast Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL01Halifax River near HighbridgeRd1994 1998 17232363J Palm Coast Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDHL02 Halifax River at ICWW CM 29 1994 1998 16782620 Bulow Creek Stream IIIF 21FLFMRIHAL200130 Halifax–Tolomato River 2001 2001 122620 Bulow Creek Stream IIIF 21FLSJWMBUL Bulow Creek at low bridge 1994 1998 13282634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF 21FLA 27010579Tomoka River at 11thStreetBridge1994 1998 1072634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF 21FLCEN 27010579Tomoka River at 11thStreetBridge2000 2003 402634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF 21FLCEN 27010596Tomoka River at U.S. Highway922000 2000 162634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF 21FLGW 3516 27010579 1998 2003 14302634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF 21FLSJWM27010579Tomoka River at 11thStreetBridge1995 1998 10802634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF 21FLSJWMTR11Tomoka River@ 11thStreetBridge1994 1995 3272634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF 21FLVEMDTR03Tomoka River upstream of S.R.40 Bridge1994 1998 15782634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF 21FLVEMDTR04Tomoka River upstream of 11thStreet Bridge1994 1998 1976Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast171WBIDWaterbody SegmentWaterbodyTypeClassSTORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear# of Observa-tions2634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF 21FLVEMDTR05Tomoka River upstream of U.S.92 Bridge1994 1998 7972634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF 21FLVEMDVC-077Tomoka River, from upstreamside of S.R. 401999 2003 6472634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF 21FLVEMDVC-078Tomoka River, from upstreamside of LPGA Blvd.1999 2003 5162634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF 21FLVEMDVC-079Tomoka River, from upstreamside of U.S. 921999 2003 1832634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF 21FLWPB 20010739 Tomoka River@ 11thStreet 2003 2003 1452634 Tomoka River Stream IIIF 21FLWPB 20010740Tomoka River@ State Highway402003 2003 1562634A Tomoka River Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010024 Tomoka R Old Dixie Hwy Br 1994 1998 1602634A Tomoka River Estuary IIIM 21FLCEN 27010023 Tomoka River at US Highway 1 2000 2000 182634A Tomoka River Estuary IIIM 21FLCEN 27010024Tomoka River at Old DixieHighway2000 2000 182634A Tomoka River Estuary IIIM 21FLSJWM27010024Tomoka River at Old Dixie HwyBridge1995 1998 9202634A Tomoka River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDTR01Tomoka River at Old DixieHighway1994 1998 45712634A Tomoka River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDTR02Tomoka River downstream ofU.S. 1 Bridge1994 1998 28962634A Tomoka River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-075Tomoka River, from upstreamside of CR4011, by Tom1999 2003 7052634A Tomoka River Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-076Tomoka River, fromdownstream side of U.S. 11999 2003 5372635 Grover Branch Stream IIIF 21FLCEN 27010580Grover Branch at Airport RoadBridge2000 2000 152641 Unnamed Branch Stream IIIF 21FLA 27010469North Ormond Airport Ditch atAirport Road (aka B1996 1996 202645 Mizners Branch Stream IIIF 21FLCEN 27010595 Mizners Branch at S.R. 40 2000 2000 172646 Little Tomoka River Stream IIIF 21FLCEN 27010583Little Tomoka River atBreakaway Trail2000 2000 142647 Holly Hill Ditch Stream IIIF 21FLA 27010479Holly Hill Canal at 11thSt andU.S. Hwy 11996 1996 202654 Drainage Canals Stream IIIF 112WRD 02247480Tiger Bay Canal nr DaytonaBch, Fl1997 1999 712664 Reed Canal Stream IIIF 21FLA 27010483Reed Canal at US HWY 1Daytona Beach1996 1996 212666A Sweetwater Creek Stream IIIF 21FLA 27010536 Sweetwater Creek at C.R. 421 1998 1998 232666A Sweetwater Creek Stream IIIF 21FLCEN 27010536 Sweetwater Creek at C.R. 421 1999 1999 16172Water Quality Status Report: Upper East CoastWBIDWaterbody SegmentWaterbodyTypeClassSTORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear# of Observa-tions2670 Halifax Canal Stream IIIF 21FLVEMDVC-070Rose Bay, from S. side of MainStreet bridge in Ha1999 2003 5392672 Rose Bay Estuary IIIM 21FLKWATVOL-RO-SEBAY-1 Volusia-Rose Bay-1 2001 2003 1212672 Rose Bay Estuary IIIM 21FLKWATVOL-RO-SEBAY-2 Volusia-Rose Bay-2 2001 2003 1192672 Rose Bay Estuary IIIM 21FLKWATVOL-RO-SEBAY-3 Volusia-Rose Bay-3 2001 2003 1182672 Rose Bay Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDRB01Rose Bay west of Hwy U.S. 1Bridge1994 1998 16132672 Rose Bay Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDRB02Rose Bay south of Nova Rd.Bridge1994 1998 20532673 Unnamed Drain Stream IIIF 21FLA 27010537Unnamed drain of SpruceCreek at C.R. 4211998 1998 242673 Unnamed Drain Stream IIIF 21FLCEN 27010537Unnamed drain of SpruceCreek at C.R. 4211999 1999 162674 Spruce Creek Stream IIIF 21FLA 27010332Spruce Creek at Spruce CreekBlvd.1998 1998 222674 Spruce Creek Stream IIIF 21FLA 27010539 Spruce Creek at C.R. 41182674 Spruce Creek Stream IIIF 21FLCEN 27010539 Spruce Creek at C.R. 4118 1999 1999 172674 Spruce Creek Stream IIIF 21FLKWATVOL-SP-CREEK-1 Volusia-Spruce Creek-1-1 1995 2003 3212674 Spruce Creek Stream IIIF 21FLKWATVOL-SP-CREEK-2 Volusia-Spruce Creek-2-2 1995 2003 3222674 Spruce Creek Stream IIIF 21FLKWATVOL-SP-CREEK-3 Volusia-Spruce Creek-3-3 1995 2003 3232674 Spruce Creek Stream IIIF 21FLSJWM02248000 Spruce Creek near Samsula 1995 1998 9012674A Spruce Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDSC01Spruce Creek center bridge onU.S. Hwy 11994 1998 16542674A Spruce Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDSC02Spruce Creek west of SSCRailroad1994 1998 19542674A Spruce Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDSC04Spruce Creek west of AirportRd1994 1998 25792674A Spruce Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDSC05Spruce Creek at dock atGamble Place1994 1998 18472674A Spruce Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-072Spruce Creek, from dock atRiverwood, W. of SCL Ra1999 2003 5582674A Spruce Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-073Spruce Creek, from W. side ofMoody Bridge on Airp1999 2003 5082674A Spruce Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLVEMDVC-074Spruce Creek, from dock atGamble Place1999 2003 4582674A Spruce Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLWPB 20010737Spruce Creek @ Cypress HeadDevelopment2003 2003 136Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast173WBIDWaterbody SegmentWaterbodyTypeClassSTORET Station ID Station DescriptionBeginningYearEndingYear# of Observa-tions2674ASpruce Creek Estuary IIIM 21FLWPB 20010738 Spruce Creek @ Airport Road 2003 2003 1682674BStrickland Bay at US # Estuary IIIM 21FLA 27010835 Strickland Bay at US #1 1998 1998 242675 Sand Creek Stream IIIF 21FLCEN 27010538 Sand Creek at C.R. 415 1999 1999 162678 Turnbull Bay Estuary IIIM 21FLCEN 27010542 Turnbull Creek at S.R. 44 1999 1999 172678 Turnbull Bay Estuary IIIM 21FLWPB 20010735 Turnbull Creek @ Jungle Road2003 2003 1242678 Turnbull Bay Estuary IIIM 21FLWPB 20010736 Turnbull Creek @ Pioneer Trail2003 2003 1552679 Unnamed Drain Stream IIIF 21FLCEN 27010540Unnamed drain into SpruceCreek at Martin Dairy Ro1999 1999 162681 Glencoe Ditches Stream IIIF 21FLCEN 27010541Glencoe Ditch at Turnbull BayRoad1999 1999 178117AToronita Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH VOLUSIA288 Toronita 2000 2003 1288117BDunlawton Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH VOLUSIA287 Dunlawton 2000 2003 1278117DSilver Beach Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH VOLUSIA338 Silver Beach 2000 2003 1298117EMain Street Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH VOLUSIA285 Main Street 2000 2003 1278117FSeabreeze Blvd Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH VOLUSIA284 Seabreeze Blvd 2000 2003 1278118AGranda Blvd Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH VOLUSIA283 Granda Blvd 2000 2003 1278118BBicentennial Park Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH VOLUSIA282 Bicentennial Park 2000 2003 1268119AGamble Rogers State Park Coastal IIIM 21FLDOH FLAGLER106 Gamble Rogers State Park 2000 2003 1278119BFlagler Pier at Flagler BeachCoastal IIIM 21FLDOH FLAGLER105South Flagler Pier @ FlaglerBeach2000 2003 1278119BFlagler Pier at Flagler BeachCoastal IIIM 21FLDOH FLAGLER349 North Flagler Pier 2002 2003 74

# 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.180Water Quality Status Report: Upper East CoastAll Networks—UPPER EAST COAST—UNCONFINED AQUIFER—METALSParameterNameAntimony, TotalArsenic,TotalBarium,TotalBeryllium,TotalCadmium,TotalChromium,TotalLead,TotalMercury,TotalNickel,TotalSelenium,TotalThallium,TotalParameterCode109710021007101210271034105171900106711471059Unitsug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/LTotal Wells 5 12 14 5 14 14 13 14 11 11 5NumberBDLs4 7 0 5 2 2 0 9 8 9 3NumberMCL/GCLExceedances0 0 1 0 0 1 8 1 0 0 0PercentMCL/GCLExceedances0.00% 0.00% 7.14% 0.00% 0.00% 7.14% 61.54% 7.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Minimum 0.1 0.5 8.2 0.05 0.04 1 1.1 0.05 2 0.5 0.011st Quartile 0.2 0.5 22.5 0.25 0.34 7 7 0.05 3.5 0.5 0.025Median 0.2 0.5 36.5 0.25 0.9 15 27.7 0.075 5 0.5 0.0253rd Quartile 0.2 1.55 129 0.25 1.9 22.5 60 0.175 5 0.5 0.11Maximum 0.5 5 2,520.00 0.25 3.6 204 900 52 40 7.5 0.13InterquartileRange0 1.05 106.5 0 1.56 15.5 53 0.125 1.5 0 0.085Mean 0.24 1.43 332.87 0.21 1.23 28.39 100.6 3.81 7.82 1.18 0.06StandardDeviation0.15 1.53 717.32 0.09 1.09 51.48 242.36 13.87 10.91 2.1 0.06Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast181All Networks—UPPER EAST COAST—UNCONFINED AQUIFER—METALSParameterNameAntimony, TotalArsenic,TotalBarium,TotalBeryllium,TotalCadmium,TotalChromium,TotalLead,TotalMercury,TotalNickel,TotalSelenium,TotalThallium,TotalParameterCode109710021007101210271034105171900106711471059Unitsug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/LRelativeStandardDeviation63.20% 106.70%215.50% 42.60% 88.50% 181.30% 240.90%364.00%139.50%177.80% 92.60%StandardError0.07 0.44 191.71 0.04 0.29 13.76 67.22 3.71 3.29 0.63 0.02Variance 0.02 2.34 514549.520.01 1.18 2650.08 58738.4 192.38 118.96 4.41 0Coefficient ofSkewness3428.778 2483.8161341.26 4248.529 2564.144 1363.248 1130.962818.826 1691.9841449.619 2789.512Number RiskIndicators-0---------Percent RiskIndicators-0.00%---------Number SRAIndicators002082135210Percent SRAIndicators0.00%0.00%14.29%0.00%57.14%14.29%100.00%35.71%18.18%9.09%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.182Water Quality Status Report: Upper East CoastAll Networks—UPPER EAST COAST—CONFINED AQUIFER—METALSParameterNameAntimony, TotalArsenic,TotalBarium,TotalBeryllium,TotalCadmium,TotalChromium,TotalLead,TotalMercury,TotalNickel,TotalSelenium,TotalThallium,TotalParameterCode109710021007101210271034105171900106711471059Unitsug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/LTotal Wells 12 20 23 12 23 23 23 23 20 17 12NumberBDLs11 14 0 12 8 1 6 17 18 14 12NumberMCL/GCLExceedances0 0 0 0 1 1 11 1 0 1 0PercentMCL/GCLExceedances0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.35% 4.35% 47.83% 4.35% 0.00% 5.88% 0.00%Minimum 0.1 0.5 14 0.05 0.01 2.5 0.5 0.05 0.5 0.5 0.011st Quartile 0.2 0.5 30 0.25 0.2 8.5 5 0.05 2 0.5 0.021Median 0.2 0.5 48.1 0.25 0.5 11 11 0.05 2 0.5 0.0253rd Quartile 0.75 1.25 105 0.25 1.385 17.4 28 0.175 5 0.5 0.75Maximum 1.5 20 1,032.000.5 30 780 280 4.7 5 64.5 1.5InterquartileRange0.55 0.75 75 0 1.185 8.9 23 0.125 3 0 0.729Mean 0.53 1.89 123.4 0.25 2.13 46.04 34.41 0.35 2.9 5.06 0.43Water Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast183All Networks—UPPER EAST COAST—CONFINED AQUIFER—METALSParameterNameAntimony, TotalArsenic,TotalBarium,TotalBeryllium,TotalCadmium,TotalChromium,TotalLead,TotalMercury,TotalNickel,TotalSelenium,TotalThallium,TotalParameterCode109710021007101210271034105171900106711471059Unitsug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/LStandardDeviation0.59 4.34 218.43 0.1 6.13 160.16 63.01 0.98 1.67 15.49 0.66RelativeStandardDeviation110.90% 229.60%177.00%37.90% 288.00% 347.80% 183.10%283.40%57.80% 306.30% 153.60%StandardError0.17 0.97 45.54 0.03 1.28 33.4 13.14 0.2 0.37 3.76 0.19Variance 0.35 18.84 47709.940.01 37.59 25650.51 3969.95 0.96 2.81 240.09 0.44Coefficient ofSkewness2367.457 1191.2081474.7015314.594 960.01 793.783 1463.9391007.6774000.258947.187 1915.308Number RiskIndicators-1---------Percent RiskIndicators-5.00%---------Number SRAIndicators0010123176030Percent SRAIndicators0.00%0.00%4.35%0.00%52.17%13.04%73.91%26.09%0.00%17.65%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.188Water Quality Status Report: Upper East CoastAppendix G: Monitoring Priorities in the Upper East Coast BasinPlanningUnitWBIDWaterSegmentNameWaterTypePriorityProjectedYear ofTMDLDevelopment1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessedUsing TheImpairedWaters Rule(IWR)PlanningList StatusPlanningListIntegratedReportCategoryPlanningList: Num. ofExceedances/ Num. ofSamplesVerifiedList StatusVerifiedListIntegratedReportCategoryVerified List:Num. ofExceedances/ Num. ofSamplesNumberofSamplesfor 2005SamplingFrequencyOtherMetricsNeededCommentsHalifaxRiverUnit2363AHalifaxRiverEstuaryChlorophyllPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3D124 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2363AHalifaxRiverEstuaryNutrients ChlorophyllPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3D12nutrients4 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2363BHalifaxRiverEstuaryLow2011CopperCopperPlanninglist3Cpp = 13 / 19254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2363BHalifaxRiverEstuaryLow 2011 Iron IronPlanninglist3C pp = 18 / 22254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2363BHalifaxRiverEstuaryAluminumInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 2254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2363BHalifaxRiverEstuaryArsenicInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 2254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2363BHalifaxRiverEstuaryCadmiumInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2620BulowCreekStreamConductancePlanninglist3Cpp = 21 / 31Insufficientdata3Bvp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2620BulowCreekStreamDissolvedOxygenPlanninglist3C pp = 15 / 31Insufficientdata3B vp = 1 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2620BulowCreekStreamSeleniumPlanninglist3C pp = 8 / 11254 QtrsWater Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast189PlanningUnitWBIDWaterSegmentNameWaterTypePriorityProjectedYear ofTMDLDevelopment1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessedUsing TheImpairedWaters Rule(IWR)PlanningList StatusPlanningListIntegratedReportCategoryPlanningList: Num. ofExceedances/ Num. ofSamplesVerifiedList StatusVerifiedListIntegratedReportCategoryVerified List:Num. ofExceedances/ Num. ofSamplesNumberofSamplesfor 2005SamplingFrequencyOtherMetricsNeededCommentsHalifaxRiverUnit2620BulowCreekStreamSilverInsufficientdata3B pp = 2 / 2254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2634TomokaRiverStreamCopperPlanninglist3Cpp = 7 / 41Insufficientdata3Bvp = 1 / 12254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2634TomokaRiverStreamLow 2011FecalColiformFecalColiformPlanninglist3Cpp = 41 /264Verifiedlist3Dvp = 16 /108254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2634TomokaRiverStreamAlkalinityPlanninglist3C pp = 7 / 40Insufficientdata3B vp = 1 / 3254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2634TomokaRiverStreamNutrientsHistoricChlorophyllPlanninglist3CNotimpaired212nutrients4 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2634TomokaRiverStreamLow 2011 Lead LeadPlanninglist3C pp = 7 / 26Insufficientdata3B vp = 1 / 2254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2634TomokaRiverStreamHistoricChlorophyllPlanninglist3CNotimpaired212 chla4 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2634TomokaRiverStreamLow 2011 Iron IronPlanninglist3C pp = 13 / 31Insufficientdata3B vp = 1 / 2254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2634TomokaRiverStreamLow 2011DissolvedOxygenDissolvedOxygenPlanninglist3Cpp = 169 /287Verifiedlist3Dvp = 80 /127254 QtrsBOD25HalifaxRiverUnit2634TomokaRiverStreamNickelInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 7254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2634TomokaRiverStreamChlorineInsufficientdata3B pp = 1 / 1Insufficientdata3B vp = 1 / 1254 Qtrs190Water Quality Status Report: Upper East CoastPlanningUnitWBIDWaterSegmentNameWaterTypePriorityProjectedYear ofTMDLDevelopment1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessedUsing TheImpairedWaters Rule(IWR)PlanningList StatusPlanningListIntegratedReportCategoryPlanningList: Num. ofExceedances/ Num. ofSamplesVerifiedList StatusVerifiedListIntegratedReportCategoryVerified List:Num. ofExceedances/ Num. ofSamplesNumberofSamplesfor 2005SamplingFrequencyOtherMetricsNeededCommentsHalifaxRiverUnit2634TomokaRiverStreamCadmiumInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 8254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2634TomokaRiverStreamSilverInsufficientdata3B pp = 2 / 2254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2634TomokaRiverStreamChromium3Insufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 3254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2634ATomokaRiverEstuaryCopperPlanninglist3Cpp = 10 / 14254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2634ATomokaRiverEstuaryDissolvedOxygenPlanninglist3Cpp = 52 /193Verifiedlist3D vp = 16 / 51254 QtrsBOD25HalifaxRiverUnit2634ATomokaRiverEstuaryLow 2011 Iron IronPlanninglist3C pp = 18 / 24Insufficientdata3B vp = 1 / 2254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2634ATomokaRiverEstuaryHistoricChlorophyllPlanninglist3CNotimpaired20HalifaxRiverUnit2634ATomokaRiverEstuaryNutrientsHistoricChlorophyllPlanninglist3CNotimpaired20HalifaxRiverUnit2634ATomokaRiverEstuaryLow 2011 Lead LeadInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 7Insufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 2254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2634ATomokaRiverEstuaryArsenicInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 2254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2634ATomokaRiverEstuaryNickelInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1254 QtrsWater Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast191PlanningUnitWBIDWaterSegmentNameWaterTypePriorityProjectedYear ofTMDLDevelopment1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessedUsing TheImpairedWaters Rule(IWR)PlanningList StatusPlanningListIntegratedReportCategoryPlanningList: Num. ofExceedances/ Num. ofSamplesVerifiedList StatusVerifiedListIntegratedReportCategoryVerified List:Num. ofExceedances/ Num. ofSamplesNumberofSamplesfor 2005SamplingFrequencyOtherMetricsNeededCommentsHalifaxRiverUnit2634ATomokaRiverEstuaryAluminumInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 2254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2635GroverBranchStreamBiologyPlanninglist3ConceSCI 1HalifaxRiverUnit2635GroverBranchStreamAlkalinityInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1Insufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2635GroverBranchStreamIronInsufficientdata3B pp = 1 / 1Insufficientdata3B vp = 1 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2635GroverBranchStreamLeadInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1Insufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2635GroverBranchStreamTurbidityInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1Insufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2635GroverBranchStreampHInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1Insufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2641UnnamedBranchStreamDissolvedOxygenInsufficientdata3Bpp = 0 / 1254 QtrsBOD25HalifaxRiverUnit2641UnnamedBranchStreampHInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2641UnnamedBranchStreamUnionizedAmmoniaInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2641UnnamedBranchStreamFecalColiformInsufficientdata3B pp = 1 / 1254 Qtrs192Water Quality Status Report: Upper East CoastPlanningUnitWBIDWaterSegmentNameWaterTypePriorityProjectedYear ofTMDLDevelopment1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessedUsing TheImpairedWaters Rule(IWR)PlanningList StatusPlanningListIntegratedReportCategoryPlanningList: Num. ofExceedances/ Num. ofSamplesVerifiedList StatusVerifiedListIntegratedReportCategoryVerified List:Num. ofExceedances/ Num. ofSamplesNumberofSamplesfor 2005SamplingFrequencyOtherMetricsNeededCommentsHalifaxRiverUnit2641UnnamedBranchStreamConductanceInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2641UnnamedBranchStreamAlkalinityInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2641UnnamedBranchStreamTurbidityInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2645MiznersBranchStreamAlkalinityInsufficientdata3Bpp = 0 / 1Insufficientdata3Bvp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2645MiznersBranchStreamIronInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1Insufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2645MiznersBranchStreamLeadInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1Insufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2645MiznersBranchStreamTurbidityInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1Insufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2645MiznersBranchStreampHInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1Insufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2646LittleTomokaRiverStreampHInsufficientdata3Bpp = 0 / 1Insufficientdata3Bvp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2646LittleTomokaRiverStreamTurbidityInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1Insufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2646LittleTomokaRiverStreamAlkalinityInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1Insufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 1254 QtrsWater Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast193PlanningUnitWBIDWaterSegmentNameWaterTypePriorityProjectedYear ofTMDLDevelopment1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessedUsing TheImpairedWaters Rule(IWR)PlanningList StatusPlanningListIntegratedReportCategoryPlanningList: Num. ofExceedances/ Num. ofSamplesVerifiedList StatusVerifiedListIntegratedReportCategoryVerified List:Num. ofExceedances/ Num. ofSamplesNumberofSamplesfor 2005SamplingFrequencyOtherMetricsNeededCommentsHalifaxRiverUnit2646LittleTomokaRiverStreamLeadInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1Insufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2647Holly HillDitchStreamBiologyPlanninglist3ConceSCI 1HalifaxRiverUnit2647Holly HillDitchStreamConductanceInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2647Holly HillDitchStreamDissolvedOxygenInsufficientdata3B pp = 1 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2647Holly HillDitchStreamFecalColiformInsufficientdata3B pp = 1 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2647Holly HillDitchStreamTurbidityInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2647Holly HillDitchStreamUnionizedAmmoniaInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2647Holly HillDitchStreampHInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2647Holly HillDitchStreamAlkalinityInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2664Reed CanalStreamConductanceInsufficientdata3Bpp = 1 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2664Reed CanalStreampHInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1254 Qtrs194Water Quality Status Report: Upper East CoastPlanningUnitWBIDWaterSegmentNameWaterTypePriorityProjectedYear ofTMDLDevelopment1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessedUsing TheImpairedWaters Rule(IWR)PlanningList StatusPlanningListIntegratedReportCategoryPlanningList: Num. ofExceedances/ Num. ofSamplesVerifiedList StatusVerifiedListIntegratedReportCategoryVerified List:Num. ofExceedances/ Num. ofSamplesNumberofSamplesfor 2005SamplingFrequencyOtherMetricsNeededCommentsHalifaxRiverUnit2664Reed CanalStreamUnionizedAmmoniaInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2664Reed CanalStreamTurbidityInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2664Reed CanalStreamDissolvedOxygenInsufficientdata3B pp = 1 / 1254 QtrsBOD25HalifaxRiverUnit2664Reed CanalStreamAlkalinityInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2664Reed CanalStreamFecalColiformInsufficientdata3B pp = 1 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2666ASweetwaterCreekStreampHInsufficientdata3Bpp = 0 / 2Insufficientdata3Bvp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2666ASweetwaterCreekStreamUnionizedAmmoniaInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2666ASweetwaterCreekStreamAlkalinityInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 2Insufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2666ASweetwaterCreekStreamChlorophyllInsufficientdata3B No data 3A124 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2666ASweetwaterCreekStreamConductanceInsufficientdata3B pp = 1 / 2Insufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2666ASweetwaterCreekStreamTurbidityInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 2Insufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 1254 QtrsWater Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast195PlanningUnitWBIDWaterSegmentNameWaterTypePriorityProjectedYear ofTMDLDevelopment1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessedUsing TheImpairedWaters Rule(IWR)PlanningList StatusPlanningListIntegratedReportCategoryPlanningList: Num. ofExceedances/ Num. ofSamplesVerifiedList StatusVerifiedListIntegratedReportCategoryVerified List:Num. ofExceedances/ Num. ofSamplesNumberofSamplesfor 2005SamplingFrequencyOtherMetricsNeededCommentsHalifaxRiverUnit2666ASweetwaterCreekStreamDissolvedOxygenInsufficientdata3B pp = 2 / 2Insufficientdata3B vp = 1 / 1254 QtrsBOD25HalifaxRiverUnit2670HalifaxCanalStreamFecalColiformPlanninglist3Cpp = 14 / 26Verifiedlist3Dvp = 14 / 27254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2670HalifaxCanalStreamDissolvedOxygenPlanninglist3C pp = 7 / 25Verifiedlist3D vp = 7 / 27254 QtrsBOD25HalifaxRiverUnit2670HalifaxCanalStreamConductancePlanninglist3C pp = 25 / 25Verifiedlist3D vp = 27 / 27254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2672Rose BayEstuaryLow2011FecalColiformFecalColiformPlanninglist3Cpp = 20 /108254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2672Rose Bay EstuaryNutrients ChlorophyllPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3D12nutrients4 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2672Rose Bay EstuaryChlorophyllPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3D12 chla4 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2673UnnamedDrainStreampHInsufficientdata3Bpp = 0 / 2Insufficientdata3Bvp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2673UnnamedDrainStreamConductanceInsufficientdata3B pp = 1 / 2Insufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2673UnnamedDrainStreamTurbidityInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 2Insufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2673UnnamedDrainStreamDissolvedOxygenInsufficientdata3B pp = 2 / 2Insufficientdata3B vp = 1 / 1254 QtrsBOD25196Water Quality Status Report: Upper East CoastPlanningUnitWBIDWaterSegmentNameWaterTypePriorityProjectedYear ofTMDLDevelopment1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessedUsing TheImpairedWaters Rule(IWR)PlanningList StatusPlanningListIntegratedReportCategoryPlanningList: Num. ofExceedances/ Num. ofSamplesVerifiedList StatusVerifiedListIntegratedReportCategoryVerified List:Num. ofExceedances/ Num. ofSamplesNumberofSamplesfor 2005SamplingFrequencyOtherMetricsNeededCommentsHalifaxRiverUnit2673UnnamedDrainStreamAlkalinityInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 2Insufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2673UnnamedDrainStreamChlorophyllInsufficientdata3B No data 3A254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2673UnnamedDrainStreamUnionizedAmmoniaInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2674SpruceCreekStreampHPlanninglist3Cpp = 5 / 24Insufficientdata3Bvp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2674SpruceCreekStreamAlkalinityPlanninglist3C pp = 6 / 25Insufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2674SpruceCreekStreamChlorophyllPlanninglist3CNotimpaired204 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2674SpruceCreekStreamNutrients ChlorophyllPlanninglist3CNotimpaired204 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2674SpruceCreekStreamHigh 2006DissolvedOxygenDissolvedOxygenPlanninglist3C pp = 5 / 24Insufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 1254 QtrsBOD25HalifaxRiverUnit2674SpruceCreekStreamHigh 2006FecalColiformFecalColiformPlanninglist3C pp = 8 / 20254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2674SpruceCreekStreamHigh 2006 Iron IronPlanninglist3C pp = 20 / 23254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2674SpruceCreekStreamNickelInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 2254 QtrsWater Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast197PlanningUnitWBIDWaterSegmentNameWaterTypePriorityProjectedYear ofTMDLDevelopment1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessedUsing TheImpairedWaters Rule(IWR)PlanningList StatusPlanningListIntegratedReportCategoryPlanningList: Num. ofExceedances/ Num. ofSamplesVerifiedList StatusVerifiedListIntegratedReportCategoryVerified List:Num. ofExceedances/ Num. ofSamplesNumberofSamplesfor 2005SamplingFrequencyOtherMetricsNeededCommentsHalifaxRiverUnit2674SpruceCreekStreamCadmiumInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 2254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2674ASpruceCreekEstuaryNutrientsChlorophyllPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3D12nutrients4 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2674ASpruceCreekEstuaryCopperPlanninglist3C pp = 6 / 12Insufficientdata3B vp = 6 / 12254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2674ASpruceCreekEstuaryHigh 2006DissolvedOxygenDissolvedOxygenPlanninglist3Cpp = 90 /285Verifiedlist3D vp = 32 / 88254 QtrsBOD25HalifaxRiverUnit2674ASpruceCreekEstuaryFecalColiformPlanninglist3Cpp = 69 /284Verifiedlist3D vp = 24 / 75254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2674ASpruceCreekEstuaryChlorophyllPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3D12 chla4 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2674BStricklandBay at US #EstuarypHInsufficientdata3Bpp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2674BStricklandBay at US #EstuaryTotalColiformInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2674BStricklandBay at US #EstuaryDissolvedOxygenInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1254 QtrsBOD25HalifaxRiverUnit2674BStricklandBay at US #EstuaryFecalColiformInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2674BStricklandBay at US #EstuaryTurbidityInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1254 Qtrs198Water Quality Status Report: Upper East CoastPlanningUnitWBIDWaterSegmentNameWaterTypePriorityProjectedYear ofTMDLDevelopment1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessedUsing TheImpairedWaters Rule(IWR)PlanningList StatusPlanningListIntegratedReportCategoryPlanningList: Num. ofExceedances/ Num. ofSamplesVerifiedList StatusVerifiedListIntegratedReportCategoryVerified List:Num. ofExceedances/ Num. ofSamplesNumberofSamplesfor 2005SamplingFrequencyOtherMetricsNeededCommentsHalifaxRiverUnit2675Sand CreekStreampHInsufficientdata3Bpp = 1 / 1Insufficientdata3Bvp = 1 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2675Sand CreekStreamTurbidityInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1Insufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2675Sand CreekStreamDissolvedOxygenInsufficientdata3B pp = 1 / 1Insufficientdata3B vp = 1 / 1254 QtrsBOD25HalifaxRiverUnit2675Sand CreekStreamConductanceInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1Insufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2675Sand CreekStreamAlkalinityInsufficientdata3B pp = 1 / 1Insufficientdata3B vp = 1 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2678TurnbullBayEstuaryBiologyPlanninglist3C???onceSCI 1HalifaxRiverUnit2678TurnbullBayEstuaryChlorophyllPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3D124 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2678TurnbullBayEstuaryDissolvedOxygenPlanninglist3C pp = 7 / 13Insufficientdata3B vp = 7 / 13254 QtrsBOD25HalifaxRiverUnit2679UnnamedDitchStreampHInsufficientdata3Bpp = 0 / 1Insufficientdata3Bvp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2679UnnamedDitchStreamDissolvedOxygenInsufficientdata3B pp = 1 / 1Insufficientdata3B vp = 1 / 1254 QtrsBOD25HalifaxRiverUnit2679UnnamedDitchStreamTurbidityInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1Insufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 1254 QtrsWater Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast199PlanningUnitWBIDWaterSegmentNameWaterTypePriorityProjectedYear ofTMDLDevelopment1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessedUsing TheImpairedWaters Rule(IWR)PlanningList StatusPlanningListIntegratedReportCategoryPlanningList: Num. ofExceedances/ Num. ofSamplesVerifiedList StatusVerifiedListIntegratedReportCategoryVerified List:Num. ofExceedances/ Num. ofSamplesNumberofSamplesfor 2005SamplingFrequencyOtherMetricsNeededCommentsHalifaxRiverUnit2679UnnamedDitchStreamConductanceInsufficientdata3B pp = 1 / 1Insufficientdata3B vp = 1 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2679UnnamedDitchStreamAlkalinityInsufficientdata3Bpp = 0 / 1Insufficientdata3Bvp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2681GlencoeDitchesStreamAlkalinityInsufficientdata3Bpp = 0 / 1Insufficientdata3Bvp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2681GlencoeDitchesStreamConductanceInsufficientdata3B pp = 1 / 1Insufficientdata3B vp = 1 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2681GlencoeDitchesStreamDissolvedOxygenInsufficientdata3B pp = 1 / 1Insufficientdata3B vp = 1 / 1254 QtrsBOD25HalifaxRiverUnit2681GlencoeDitchesStreamTurbidityInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1Insufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit2681GlencoeDitchesStreampHInsufficientdata3B pp = 0 / 1Insufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 1254 QtrsHalifaxRiverUnit8117HalifaxRiverOcean 1CoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DHalifaxRiverUnit8117AToronitaCoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DHalifaxRiverUnit8117BDunlawtonCoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DHalifaxRiverUnit8117CHiltonCoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3D200Water Quality Status Report: Upper East CoastPlanningUnitWBIDWaterSegmentNameWaterTypePriorityProjectedYear ofTMDLDevelopment1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessedUsing TheImpairedWaters Rule(IWR)PlanningList StatusPlanningListIntegratedReportCategoryPlanningList: Num. ofExceedances/ Num. ofSamplesVerifiedList StatusVerifiedListIntegratedReportCategoryVerified List:Num. ofExceedances/ Num. ofSamplesNumberofSamplesfor 2005SamplingFrequencyOtherMetricsNeededCommentsHalifaxRiverUnit8117DSilverBeachCoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DHalifaxRiverUnit8117EMain StreetCoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DHalifaxRiverUnit8117FSeabreezeBlvdCoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DHalifaxRiverUnit8118HalifaxRiverOcean 2CoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DHalifaxRiverUnit8118AGrandaBlvdCoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DHalifaxRiverUnit8118BBicentennialParkCoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DHalifaxRiverUnit8119HalifaxRiverOcean 3CoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DHalifaxRiverUnit8119AGambleRogersState ParkCoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DHalifaxRiverUnit8119BFlagler Pierat FlagerBeachCoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DWater Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast201REV DRAFT SMP, Upper East Coast—Northeast District Sampling 2005PlanningUnitWBIDWater SegmentNameWaterTypePriorityProjectedYear ofTMDLDevelopment1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessedUsing theImpairedWaters Rule(IWR)PlanningListStatusPlanningListIntegratedReportCategoryVerifiedListStatusVerifiedListIntegratedReportCategoryVerifiedPeriod =Exceedancesdivided bytotal num. ofSamplesNumberofSamplesNeededSeasons/PeriodsNeededOtherSamples/MetricsCommentsMatanzasRiverUnit2363GMatanzas RiverEstuaryIronPlanninglist3C254 QrtsMatanzasRiverUnit2363GMatanzas River EstuaryZincPlanninglist3C254 QrtsMatanzasRiverUnit2363GMatanzas River EstuaryTotalColiformPlanninglist3C254 QrtsMatanzasRiverUnit2363GMatanzas River EstuaryNickelPlanninglist3C254 QrtsMatanzasRiverUnit2363GMatanzas River EstuaryCopperPlanninglist3C254 QrtsMatanzasRiverUnit2363GMatanzas River EstuaryChlorophyllPlanninglist3CNotimpaired225MatanzasRiverUnit2363GMatanzas River EstuaryArsenicPlanninglist3C254 QrtsMatanzasRiverUnit2363GMatanzas River EstuaryFecalColiformPlanninglist3CNotimpaired2 vp = 8 / 8725MatanzasRiverUnit2363GMatanzas River EstuaryManganeseInsufficientdata3B204 QrtsMatanzasRiverUnit2363GMatanzas River EstuarySeleniumInsufficientdata3B254 QrtsMatanzasRiverUnit2363GMatanzas River EstuaryCadmiumInsufficientdata3B254 Qrts202Water Quality Status Report: Upper East CoastPlanningUnitWBIDWater SegmentNameWaterTypePriorityProjectedYear ofTMDLDevelopment1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessedUsing theImpairedWaters Rule(IWR)PlanningListStatusPlanningListIntegratedReportCategoryVerifiedListStatusVerifiedListIntegratedReportCategoryVerifiedPeriod =Exceedancesdivided bytotal num. ofSamplesNumberofSamplesNeededSeasons/PeriodsNeededOtherSamples/MetricsCommentsMatanzasRiverUnit2363GMatanzas River EstuaryAluminumInsufficientdata3B254 QrtsMatanzasRiverUnit2491San SebastianRiverStreamDissolvedOxygenPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3Dvp = 21 / 51294 Qrts24 -BOD1 -SCI ?MatanzasRiverUnit2491San SebastianRiverStreamConductancePlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3D vp = 51 / 51294 QrtsMatanzasRiverUnit2493Moultrie CreekStreamHistoricChlorophyllPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3D244 Qrtschl-aMatanzasRiverUnit2493 Moultrie Creek StreamNickelPlanninglist3C224 QrtsMatanzasRiverUnit2493 Moultrie Creek StreamCopperPlanninglist3C224 QrtsMatanzasRiverUnit2493 Moultrie Creek StreamFecalColiformPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3D vp = 12 / 45244 QrtsMatanzasRiverUnit2493 Moultrie Creek StreamIronPlanninglist3C224 QrtsMatanzasRiverUnit2493 Moultrie Creek StreamLeadInsufficientdata3B224 QrtsMatanzasRiverUnit2493 Moultrie Creek StreamTotalColiformInsufficientdata3BInsufficientdata3B vp = 1 / 1244 QrtsMatanzasRiverUnit2493 Moultrie Creek StreamArsenicInsufficientdata3B224 QrtsWater Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast203PlanningUnitWBIDWater SegmentNameWaterTypePriorityProjectedYear ofTMDLDevelopment1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessedUsing theImpairedWaters Rule(IWR)PlanningListStatusPlanningListIntegratedReportCategoryVerifiedListStatusVerifiedListIntegratedReportCategoryVerifiedPeriod =Exceedancesdivided bytotal num. ofSamplesNumberofSamplesNeededSeasons/PeriodsNeededOtherSamples/MetricsCommentsMatanzasRiverUnit2493 Moultrie Creek StreamCadmiumInsufficientdata3B224 QrtsMatanzasRiverUnit2493 Moultrie Creek StreamSeleniumInsufficientdata3B224 QrtsMatanzasRiverUnit2499Oyster CreekStreamDissolvedOxygenPlanninglist3C124 Qrts12 -BOD1 -SCI ?MatanzasRiverUnit2502Salt RunEstuaryDissolvedOxygenInsufficientdata3BInsufficientdata3Bvp = 0 / 5244 Qrts24 -BODMatanzasRiverUnit2502 Salt Run EstuaryTurbidityInsufficientdata3BInsufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 5244 QrtsMatanzasRiverUnit2502 Salt Run EstuarypHInsufficientdata3BInsufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 5244 QrtsMatanzasRiverUnit2502 Salt Run EstuaryChlorophyllNo data 3AInsufficientdata3B244 QrtsMatanzasRiverUnit2520Wildwood CreekStreamConductanceInsufficientdata3BInsufficientdata3Bvp = 0 / 1244 QrtsMatanzasRiverUnit2520 Wildwood Creek StreampHInsufficientdata3BInsufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 1244 QrtsMatanzasRiverUnit2520 Wildwood Creek StreamTurbidityInsufficientdata3BInsufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 1244 QrtsMatanzasRiverUnit2520 Wildwood Creek StreamTotalColiformInsufficientdata3BInsufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 1244 Qrts204Water Quality Status Report: Upper East CoastPlanningUnitWBIDWater SegmentNameWaterTypePriorityProjectedYear ofTMDLDevelopment1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessedUsing theImpairedWaters Rule(IWR)PlanningListStatusPlanningListIntegratedReportCategoryVerifiedListStatusVerifiedListIntegratedReportCategoryVerifiedPeriod =Exceedancesdivided bytotal num. ofSamplesNumberofSamplesNeededSeasons/PeriodsNeededOtherSamples/MetricsCommentsMatanzasRiverUnit2520 Wildwood Creek StreamDissolvedOxygenInsufficientdata3BInsufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 1244 Qrts24 -BOD1 -SCI ?MatanzasRiverUnit2520 Wildwood Creek StreamFecalColiformInsufficientdata3BInsufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 1244 QrtsMatanzasRiverUnit2535Moses CreekStreamDissolvedOxygenPlanninglist3CInsufficientdata3Bvp = 0 / 3244 Qrts24 -BOD1 -SCI ?MatanzasRiverUnit2535 Moses Creek StreamTurbidityInsufficientdata3BInsufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 3244 QrtsMatanzasRiverUnit2535 Moses Creek StreamFecalColiformInsufficientdata3BInsufficientdata3B vp = 2 / 3244 QrtsMatanzasRiverUnit2535 Moses Creek StreamTotalColiformInsufficientdata3BInsufficientdata3B vp = 0 / 1244 QrtsMatanzasRiverUnit2535 Moses Creek StreamChlorophyllNo data 3AInsufficientdata3B244 QrtsMatanzasRiverUnit8122Matanzas RiverOceanCoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DMatanzasRiverUnit8122ACrescent BeachCoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DMatanzasRiverUnit8122BSt. AugustineBeach Ocean TraceCoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DMatanzasRiverUnit8122CSt. AugustineBeach A StreetCoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DWater Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast205PlanningUnitWBIDWater SegmentNameWaterTypePriorityProjectedYear ofTMDLDevelopment1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessedUsing theImpairedWaters Rule(IWR)PlanningListStatusPlanningListIntegratedReportCategoryVerifiedListStatusVerifiedListIntegratedReportCategoryVerifiedPeriod =Exceedancesdivided bytotal num. ofSamplesNumberofSamplesNeededSeasons/PeriodsNeededOtherSamples/MetricsCommentsMatanzasRiverUnit8122DAnastasia StateParkCoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DPellicerCreekUnit2363EIntercoastalWaterwayEstuaryCadmiumPlanninglist3C254 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2363EIntercoastalWaterwayEstuaryZincPlanninglist3C254 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2363EIntercoastalWaterwayEstuaryNickelPlanninglist3C254 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2363EIntercoastalWaterwayEstuarySeleniumPlanninglist3C254 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2363EIntercoastalWaterwayEstuaryLeadPlanninglist3C254 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2363EIntercoastalWaterwayEstuaryArsenicPlanninglist3C254 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2363EIntercoastalWaterwayEstuaryCopperPlanninglist3C254 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2363EIntercoastalWaterwayEstuaryHistoricChlorophyllPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3D254 Qrts chl-aPellicerCreekUnit2363EIntercoastalWaterwayEstuaryIronPlanninglist3C254 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2363FIntercoastalWaterwayEstuaryChlorophyllNo data3AInsufficientdata3B204 Qrts20 -BOD206Water Quality Status Report: Upper East CoastPlanningUnitWBIDWater SegmentNameWaterTypePriorityProjectedYear ofTMDLDevelopment1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessedUsing theImpairedWaters Rule(IWR)PlanningListStatusPlanningListIntegratedReportCategoryVerifiedListStatusVerifiedListIntegratedReportCategoryVerifiedPeriod =Exceedancesdivided bytotal num. ofSamplesNumberofSamplesNeededSeasons/PeriodsNeededOtherSamples/MetricsCommentsPellicerCreekUnit2553Cracker BranchBlackwaterBiologyPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3D33 - SCIPellicerCreekUnit2553 Cracker Branch BlackwaterLow 2011DissolvedOxygenDissolvedOxygenInsufficientdata3B244 Qrts12 -BODPellicerCreekUnit2553 Cracker Branch BlackwaterCopperInsufficientdata3B244 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2553 Cracker Branch BlackwaterChromium3Insufficientdata3B244 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2553 Cracker Branch BlackwaterConductanceInsufficientdata3B244 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2553 Cracker Branch BlackwaterLow 2011 IronIronInsufficientdata3B244 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2553 Cracker Branch BlackwaterpHInsufficientdata3B244 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2553 Cracker Branch BlackwaterNickelInsufficientdata3BNotListed4 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2553 Cracker Branch BlackwaterLow 2011FecalColiformFecalColiformInsufficientdata3B244 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2553 Cracker Branch BlackwaterTotalColiformInsufficientdata3B244 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2553 Cracker Branch BlackwaterTurbidityInsufficientdata3B244 QrtsWater Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast207PlanningUnitWBIDWater SegmentNameWaterTypePriorityProjectedYear ofTMDLDevelopment1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessedUsing theImpairedWaters Rule(IWR)PlanningListStatusPlanningListIntegratedReportCategoryVerifiedListStatusVerifiedListIntegratedReportCategoryVerifiedPeriod =Exceedancesdivided bytotal num. ofSamplesNumberofSamplesNeededSeasons/PeriodsNeededOtherSamples/MetricsCommentsPellicerCreekUnit2553 Cracker Branch BlackwaterZincInsufficientdata3B244 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2553 Cracker Branch BlackwaterCadmiumInsufficientdata3B244 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2577Stevens BranchStreamIronInsufficientdata3B224 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2577 Stevens Branch StreampHInsufficientdata3B244 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2577 Stevens Branch StreamZincInsufficientdata3B224 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2577 Stevens Branch StreamTurbidityInsufficientdata3B244 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2577 Stevens Branch StreamNickelInsufficientdata3BNotListed4 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2577 Stevens Branch StreamFecalColiformInsufficientdata3B244 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2577 Stevens Branch StreamDissolvedOxygenInsufficientdata3B244 Qrts24 -BOD1 -SCI ?PellicerCreekUnit2577 Stevens Branch StreamCopperInsufficientdata3B224 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2577 Stevens Branch StreamChromium3Insufficientdata3B224 Qrts208Water Quality Status Report: Upper East CoastPlanningUnitWBIDWater SegmentNameWaterTypePriorityProjectedYear ofTMDLDevelopment1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessedUsing theImpairedWaters Rule(IWR)PlanningListStatusPlanningListIntegratedReportCategoryVerifiedListStatusVerifiedListIntegratedReportCategoryVerifiedPeriod =Exceedancesdivided bytotal num. ofSamplesNumberofSamplesNeededSeasons/PeriodsNeededOtherSamples/MetricsCommentsPellicerCreekUnit2577 Stevens Branch StreamConductanceInsufficientdata3B244 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2577 Stevens Branch StreamCadmiumInsufficientdata3B224 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2577 Stevens Branch StreamTotalColiformInsufficientdata3B244 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2580BPellicer CreekStreamLow2011DissolvedOxygenDissolvedOxygenPlanninglist3CInsufficientdata3Bvp = 3 / 5134 Qrts13 -BOD1 -SCI ?PellicerCreekUnit2580BPellicer Creek StreamSilverPlanninglist3C204 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2580BPellicer Creek StreamSeleniumPlanninglist3C204 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2580BPellicer Creek Stream Low 2011 LeadLeadPlanninglist3C204 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2580BPellicer Creek StreamConductancePlanninglist3CInsufficientdata3B vp = 3 / 5134 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2580BPellicer Creek Stream Low 2011 IronIronPlanninglist3C204 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2580BPellicer Creek StreamTotalColiformInsufficientdata3B204 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit2580BPellicer Creek StreamChromium3Insufficientdata3B204 QrtsWater Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast209PlanningUnitWBIDWater SegmentNameWaterTypePriorityProjectedYear ofTMDLDevelopment1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessedUsing theImpairedWaters Rule(IWR)PlanningListStatusPlanningListIntegratedReportCategoryVerifiedListStatusVerifiedListIntegratedReportCategoryVerifiedPeriod =Exceedancesdivided bytotal num. ofSamplesNumberofSamplesNeededSeasons/PeriodsNeededOtherSamples/MetricsCommentsPellicerCreekUnit2580BPellicer Creek Stream Low 2011FecalColiformFecalColiformInsufficientdata3BInsufficientdata3B vp = 2 / 5204 QrtsPellicerCreekUnit8120Pellicer CreekOcean 1CoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DPellicerCreekUnit8120APicknickers/BerverlyBeachCoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DPellicerCreekUnit8120BVarn Park/BeverlyBeachCoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DPellicerCreekUnit8121Pellicer CreekOcean 2CoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DPellicerCreekUnit8121AWashington OaksBeachCoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DPellicerCreekUnit8121BMarineland BeachCoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DPellicerCreekUnit8121CMatanzas InletCoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DTolomatoRiverUnit2320Guana RiverEstuaryHistoricChlorophyllPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DTolomatoRiverUnit2320 Guana River EstuaryChlorophyllPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3D244 QrtsTolomatoRiverUnit2320 Guana River EstuaryTotalColiformInsufficientdata3B244 Qrts210Water Quality Status Report: Upper East CoastPlanningUnitWBIDWater SegmentNameWaterTypePriorityProjectedYear ofTMDLDevelopment1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessedUsing theImpairedWaters Rule(IWR)PlanningListStatusPlanningListIntegratedReportCategoryVerifiedListStatusVerifiedListIntegratedReportCategoryVerifiedPeriod =Exceedancesdivided bytotal num. ofSamplesNumberofSamplesNeededSeasons/PeriodsNeededOtherSamples/MetricsCommentsTolomatoRiverUnit2320ALAKE VEDRAEstuaryTurbidityInsufficientdata3B244 QrtsTolomatoRiverUnit2320ALAKE VEDRA EstuarypHInsufficientdata3B244 QrtsTolomatoRiverUnit2320ALAKE VEDRA EstuaryZincInsufficientdata3B244 QrtsTolomatoRiverUnit2320ALAKE VEDRA EstuaryFecalColiformInsufficientdata3B244 QrtsTolomatoRiverUnit2320ALAKE VEDRA EstuaryTotalColiformInsufficientdata3B244 QrtsTolomatoRiverUnit2320ALAKE VEDRA EstuaryDissolvedOxygenInsufficientdata3B244 Qrts24 -BODTolomatoRiverUnit2363IMatanzas RiverEstuaryChlorophyllPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DTolomatoRiverUnit2363I Matanzas River Estuary NutrientsChlorophyllPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3D364 QrtsTolomatoRiverUnit2363I Matanzas River EstuaryTotalColiformPlanninglist3C364 QrtsTolomatoRiverUnit2400Smith CreekStreamChlorophyllPlanninglist3CNotimpaired2NotListed4 QrtsTolomatoRiverUnit2400 Smith Creek StreamConductancePlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3D vp = 51 / 51NotListed4 QrtsWater Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast211PlanningUnitWBIDWater SegmentNameWaterTypePriorityProjectedYear ofTMDLDevelopment1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessedUsing theImpairedWaters Rule(IWR)PlanningListStatusPlanningListIntegratedReportCategoryVerifiedListStatusVerifiedListIntegratedReportCategoryVerifiedPeriod =Exceedancesdivided bytotal num. ofSamplesNumberofSamplesNeededSeasons/PeriodsNeededOtherSamples/MetricsCommentsTolomatoRiverUnit2400 Smith Creek StreamDissolvedOxygenPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3D vp = 23 / 49NotListed4 Qrts20 - BOD1 - SCI ?TolomatoRiverUnit2406Deep CreekEstuaryChlorophyllInsufficientdata3BInsufficientdata3B244 QrtsTolomatoRiverUnit2435Capo CreekEstuaryChlorophyllNo data3AInsufficientdata3B344 QrtsTolomatoRiverUnit2442Marshall CreekStreamConductancePlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3Dvp = 59 / 59124 QrtsTolomatoRiverUnit2442 Marshall Creek StreamDissolvedOxygenPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3D vp = 17 / 54244 Qrts24 -BOD1 -SCI ?TolomatoRiverUnit2442 Marshall Creek StreamChlorophyllInsufficientdata3BInsufficientdata3B334 QrtsTolomatoRiverUnit2468Casa Cola CreekEstuaryHistoricChlorophyllPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3D22TolomatoRiverUnit2468 Casa Cola Creek EstuaryChlorophyllPlanninglist3CNotimpaired222TolomatoRiverUnit2468 Casa Cola Creek EstuaryTotalColiformInsufficientdata3B224 QrtsTolomatoRiverUnit2470Sombrero CreekEstuaryChlorophyllNo data3AInsufficientdata3B244 QrtsTolomatoRiverUnit2477Ximanies CreekEstuaryChlorophyllNo data3AInsufficientdata3B404 Qrts212Water Quality Status Report: Upper East CoastPlanningUnitWBIDWater SegmentNameWaterTypePriorityProjectedYear ofTMDLDevelopment1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessedUsing theImpairedWaters Rule(IWR)PlanningListStatusPlanningListIntegratedReportCategoryVerifiedListStatusVerifiedListIntegratedReportCategoryVerifiedPeriod =Exceedancesdivided bytotal num. ofSamplesNumberofSamplesNeededSeasons/PeriodsNeededOtherSamples/MetricsCommentsTolomatoRiverUnit2483Pancho CreekEstuaryChlorophyllNo data3AInsufficientdata3B244 QrtsTolomatoRiverUnit2487Robinson CreekEstuaryChlorophyllNo data3AInsufficientdata3B244 QrtsTolomatoRiverUnit8123Tolomato RiverOcean 1CoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DTolomatoRiverUnit8123AVilano BeachCoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DTolomatoRiverUnit8124Tolomato RiverOcean 2CoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DTolomatoRiverUnit8125Tolomato RiverOcean 3CoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DTolomatoRiverUnit8125AMickler's LandingCoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DTolomatoRiverUnit8125BSolana RdCoastalMercury -FishPlanninglist3CVerifiedlist3DTolomatoRiverUnit8125B Solana Rd CoastalTurbidityInsufficientdata3BNotListed4 QrtsTolomatoRiverUnit8125B Solana Rd CoastalTotalColiformInsufficientdata3BNotListed4 QrtsTolomatoRiverUnit8125B Solana Rd CoastalDissolvedOxygenInsufficientdata3BNotListed4 Qrts 20 - BODWater Quality Status Report: Upper East Coast213PlanningUnitWBIDWater SegmentNameWaterTypePriorityProjectedYear ofTMDLDevelopment1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessedUsing theImpairedWaters Rule(IWR)PlanningListStatusPlanningListIntegratedReportCategoryVerifiedListStatusVerifiedListIntegratedReportCategoryVerifiedPeriod =Exceedancesdivided bytotal num. ofSamplesNumberofSamplesNeededSeasons/PeriodsNeededOtherSamples/MetricsCommentsTolomatoRiverUnit8125BSolana Rd CoastalpHInsufficientdata3BNotListed4 QrtsTotalSamples tobe Collected2452

### 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