[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]



      FLORIDA WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
                  1994 305 (b) REPORT


                               "01
















      WATER QUALITY
          GOOD
          THREATENED
          FAIR
          POOR
          UNKNOWN












   MARY PAULIC AND JOE HAND
   BUREAU OF SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT
   FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
   NOVEMBER, 1994
































                             FLORIDA WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
                                  1994 305(b) MAIN REPORT



                               Submitted in Accordance with
                               The Federal Clean Water Act
                                      Section 305(b)





                                       NOVEMBER 1994





                                 Mary Paulic and Joe Hand
                             Standards and Monitoring Section
                            Bureau of Surface Water Management
                          Department of Environmental Protection
                                   Tallahassee, Florida












                                          TABLE OF CONTENTS


                                                                                    Paqo

                Acknowledgements   ........................................            x

                Key  .....................................................            xi

                PART I:       Executive Summary/overview      ..................       1
                                 Surface Water Assessment     ..................       1
                                 Ground Water Quality     ......................       7
                                 Summary of Other Programs      .................      8

                PART II:      Background    ..................................         9
                                 Total Waters   ..............................        13
                                 Summary of Classified Uses      ................     16

                PART III:     Surface Water Assessment      ....................      18
                                 Chapter One: Surface Water
                                   Monitoring Program     ......................      18
                                   SWAMP Monitoring Strategy      ...............     18
                                     Ecoregion Subregionalization
                                        and Community Bioassessment       ..........  19
                                     Water Chemistry Trend Network        .........   22
                                     Water Chemistry Status Network        ........   23
                                     Lake Ecoregion and Community
                                        Bioassessment Projects      ..............    25
                                     Special SWAMP Projects      ................     25
                                     SWAMP Monitoring Coordination        .........   26
                                   Fish Tissue, Sediment, and Shellfish
                                     Monitoring Program     ....................      27
                                   Quality Assurance/Quality Control        .......   27
                                   Data Management    .........................       39
                                   Volunteer Monitoring     ....................      31
                                   Fifth Year Inspection Program       ...........    31
                                   Intensive Surveys    ........  *''**''**''****     32
                                   Applied Marine Research Programs        ........   32
                                   Surface Water Improvement and
                                     Management Act     ........................      33
                                   Other Monitoring Programs      ...............     34
                                 Chapter Two: Assessme'n't Methology and
                                   Summary Data    ............................       40
                                   Assessment Methodology     ..................      40
                                   Water Quality Summary      ...................     42
                                   Trend Analysis    ..........................       46
                                   Maps  ....................................         51
                                   Section 303(d) Waters      ...................     51

                                 Chapter Three: Rivers and Streams Water
                                   Quality Assessment     ......................      52
                                   Designated Use Support     ..................      52


                                                   ii









                                       Causes and Sources of Nonsupport
                                         of Designated Use     .....................       53
                                         Relative Assessment of Causes       .........     53
                                         Relative Assessment of Sources.....,         ...  56
                                       Use Attainability Analyses of
                                         the Fenholloway River      .................      56
                                       River Restoration and Rehabilitation          ....  59
                                         Upper Oklawaha River SWIM Project         .....   59
                                         Kissimmee River SWIM Project       ...........    61
                                         Upper St. Johns River Project       .........     62
                                       Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Fli-nt/
                                         Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa Rivers
                                         Comprehensive Study      ....................     64

                                    Chapter Four: Lake Water Quality...........            68
                                       Designated Use Support      ..................      68
                                       Causes and Sources of Nonsupport
                                         of Designated Use     .....................       69
                                         Relative Assessment of Causes       .........     69
                                         Relative Assessment of Sources         ........   72
                                       Clean Lakes Program     .....................       72
                                         Five year work plan-1992 to 1997         ......   74
                                         Lake Water Quality Assessment       .........     75
                                         Phase One Lake Diagnostic/Feasibility
                                           Studies  ..............................         79
                                         Phase Two Lake Restoration Projects          ...  80
                                         Coordination, Staffing, and Funding
                                            Plans  ................................        82
                                         Summary   ...............................         83
                                       Trophic Status/Impaired and Threatened
                                         Lakes   .................................         83
                                       Control.Methods    .........................        86
                                       Lake Restoration and Rehabilitation         .....   87
                                       Acid Effects on Lakes     ....................      94
                                       Trends in Lake Water Quality       ............     96
                                       Volunteer Monitoring of Lakes        ............   97

                                    Chapter Five: Estuary and Coastal
                                       Assessment   ..............................       100
                                       Designated Use Support      ..................    101
                                       Causes and Sources of Nonsupport
                                         of Designated Uses      ....................    102
                                         Relative Assessment of Causes       .........   102
                                         Relative Assessment of Sources         ........ 10S
                                       Eutrophication    ...........................     105
                                       Algal Blooms    .............................     106
                                       Habitat Modifications and Changes in
                                         Living Resources     ......................     107
                                         Habitat Modification      ..................    107
                                         Fish and Shellfish Resources
                                            of Florida   ...........................     110
                                         Example of Estuarine Habitat


                                                      iii









                                         Modification: Florida Bay       ...........  116
                                    Pollution Load Reduction Goals       ..........   119
                                    Case Studies of Florida Estuaries         ....... 121
                                       Tampa Bay   .............................      121
                                       Indian River Lagoon     ...................    127
                                       Sarasota Bay   ..........................      132
                                    Special Programs     ........................     136

                                  Chapter Six: Wetlands Assessment       ..........   138
                                    Extent of Wetland Resources      .............    138
                                    Integrity of Wetland Resources       ..........   145
                                    Development of Wetland Water Quality
                                       Standards   .............................      147
                                    Additional Wetland Protection
                                       Activit'i'es .............................     149

                                  Chapter Seven: Public Health/Aquatic
                                    Life Concerns    ...........................      151
                                    Size of Waters Affected by Toxicants         .... 151
                                    Public Health/Aquatic Life Impacts         ...... 153
                                       Fishing Advisories and Bans Currently
                                         in Effect   ...........................      153
                                       Fish Abnomalities/Disease     .............    161
                                       Fish Kills   ............................      164
                                       Sites of Known Sediment/Soil
                                         Contamination Sediments     .............    172
                                         Sediment Studies     ....................    173
                                         Hazardous Waste Sites-...         .........  183
                                       Shellfish Restrictions/Closures
                                         Currently in Effect     ........  :,*'',***  186
                                       Bathing Area Closures/Advisories        ...... 198
                                       Surface Drinking Water Supply
                                         Closures   ............................      202
                                       Tissue Contamination     ..................    203

                 PART IV:      Ground Water Quality      ........................     209
                                  Overview   ..................................       209
                                  Ground Water Quality     ......................     210
                                  Ground Water Indicators      ...................    215
                                    Exceedances of Maximum Contaminant
                                       Levels as Ground Water Quality
                                       Indicators   .............................     215
                                    Exceedances in Raw Ground Water        .........  215
                                  Conclusion   ................................       229

                 PART V:       Water Pollution Control Program       .............    231
                                  Chapter One: Point Source Control
                                    Program   .................................       231
                                    Facility Permitting      .....................    231
                                    Permit Compliance     .......................     233
                                    Enforcement    .............................      233




                                                    iv









                                Chapter Two: Nonpoint Source As"sessmej.-it
                                  update  ..................................   235
                                Chapter Three: Cost/Benefit Assessment      ... 237
                                Chapter Four: Special State Concerns
                                  and Recommendations   .....................  241
                                  Special State Concerns   ................... 241
                                  Recommendations   ...............I .......... 246

                Appendix A 1994 Nonpoint Source Assessment       ............. 249

                Appendix B Florida Lakewatch Data     ........... ...........  254










































                                                V











                                           LIST OF TABLES


                 Table                                                           Page

                      1.    Atla s of Florida   ..............................      11
                      2.    Mileages of Florida Waters Assessed       ...........   14
                      3.    Waters Classified for Uses Consistent
                              with Clean Water Act Goals     ..................     16
                      4.    Summary of Components of the SWAMP
                              Program ...... :,**'*********   ...  *******"****'*   20
                      5.    Candidate Macroinvertebrate Metrics
                              to be Used for Site Classification
                              and Discrimination    ..........................      22
                      6.    other Agencies in Florida That Perform
                              Monitoring. Numbers Listed with
                              Parameter Groups Represent Number
                              of Sampling Events per Year      .................    28
                      7.    Priority Waters Designated by Water
                              Management Districts for Surface Water
                              Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plans        .....  35
                      8.    Summary of Work Performed by SWIM
                              Projects   ....................................       36
                      9.    Use Support Determinations for 1994
                              305(b) Report   ...............................       43
                      10.   Trend Analysis for 1984-1993 STORET Data        ......  48
                      11*   Overall Designated Use Support Summary       ........   52
                      12.   Individual Use Support Summary Table       ..........   54
                            Total Sizes of Waters Not Fully Supporting
                              Uses by Various Cause Categories. NPS is
                              Qualitative Data Obtained from the Nonpoint
                              Source Assessment and STORET Refers to
                              Quantitative Data from the STORET Database.. 55
                      14.   Total Sizes of Waters Not Fully Supporting
                              Uses Affected by Various Source Categories.. 56
                      15.   Overall Designated Use Support Summary       ........   68
                      16.   Individual Use Support Summary      ................    70
                      17.   Total Sizes of Lake Waterbodies Not Fully
                              Supporting Uses by Various Cause
                              Categories. NPS Refers to Qualitative
                              Data Obtained from the Nonpoint Source
                              Assessment and STORET Refers to
                              Quantitative Data from the STORET Database..          71
                      18.   Total Sizes of Waters Not Fully Supporting
                              Uses Affected by Various!Source Categories..          72
                      19.   Florida Clean Lakes Projects      ..................    73
                      20.   Trophic Status of Significantly Publicly
                              Owned Lakes  ............  :...  **''*'*''**''*'**    85
                      21.   Lake Rehabilitation Techniques      ................    88
                      22.   Lakes Assessed for Low pH and Alkalinity        ......  96
                      23.   Water Quality Trends in Lakes (1984-1993)        .....  96




                                                  vi









                                    LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
                  Table 24. Lakewatch  Lakes with High TSI Values. NS            Page
                               Means Not Sampled   ...........................     99
                      25. Overall Use Support Summary       ...................  102
                      26. Individual Use Support Summary..;        ............. 103
                      21. Total Sizes of Waterbodies Not Fully
                               Supporting Uses by Various Cause Categories.
                               NPS is Qualitative Data Obtained from the
                               Nonpoint Source Assessment and STORET
                               Refers to Quantitative Data from the
                               STORET Database   .............................   104
                      28. Total Sizes of Waters Not Fully Supporting
                               Uses by Various Source Categories     ........... 105
                      29.   Summary of Fisheries Habitat Alterations
                               for Select Florida Estuaries   ................   108
                      30.   Acreages of Seagrasses in Tampa Bay, 195d-
                               1988  ........................ @.;  ............. 126
                      3i.   Acreages of Seagrasses in Indian River
                               Lagoon, 1970-1992   ...........................   130
                      32.   Historical Estimates of Wetlands in Florida       ... 140
                      33.   Extent of Wetlands, by Type    ........... i ....... 141
                      34.   Wetlands Affected by Permitted Activities
                               (1985-1993)  ..................................   146
                      3S;   Development of State Wetland Water Quality
                               Standards ............................    i ...... 149
                      36.   Total Size of Waterbodies Affected by Metals
                               (not including fish tissue data)     ............ 152
                      37.   Percent Exceedances of Individual Metals in
                               the Water Column   .............................  152
                      38.   Waterbodies Affected by Fish Consumption
                               Advisories  ..................................    154
                      39.   Waterbodies Affected by Fish Abnormalities      ... ; 16
                      40.   Major Waterbodies Affected by Fish Kills-         ... 166
                      41.   Waterbodie8 Affected by Sediment
                               Contamination  ................................   176
                      42.   Progress Toward Cleanup at NPL Sites in
                               Florida  .....................................    184
                      43.   Acreages of Florida Shellfish Harvesting
                               Areas. (Revised May 6, 1993)   ................   192
                      44.   Location of State's Shellfish Resources
                               not Classified for Harvesting    ...............  194
                      45.   Reclassification of Shellfish Waters      .......... 195
                      46.   Waterbodies Affected by Bathing Area
                               Closures and Health Advisories    ..............  200
                      47@   Station Names and Locations of NOAA Mussel.
                               Watch Program Sampling Sites   ................   205
                      48.   General Trends of Oyster Tissue Contaminants
                               for Florida's Estuarine Waters Detected by
                               NOAA's Mussel Watch Program from 1986-1990.. 206


                                                 vii










                                   LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

                Table                                                            Page

                     49.   Location of EMAP Sampling Stations       ............  207
                     50.   Major Sources of Ground Water Contamination        ... 212
                     51.   Ground Water Contaminants     .....................    213
                     52.   Florida Community Public Water System
                              Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) Exceedance
                              for Selected Contaminant Groups      .............  216
                     53.   Number of Ground Water Based on Partial
                              Ground Water Supplied Community Public
                              Water Supplies (PWSs) with Maximum
                              Contaminant Level Exceedances (MCL)      .........  216
                     54.   Number of Sampling Detections Between 50
                              and 100 Percent of Maximum Contaminant
                              Level (MCL) for Four Contaminant Groups       ..... 217
                     55.   Number of Ground Water Based or Partial
                              Ground Water Supplied Community Public
                              Water Supplies (PWSs) that have Local
                              Wellhead Protection Programs in Place       ....... 217
                     56.   Ground Water Quality Monitoring Network
                              Parameters  ..................................      219
                     57.   Florida Ground Water Quality Background
                              Network (BKN) and Department of Health
                              and Rehabilitative Services (HRS)
                              Private Well Survey Exceedances for
                              Select Contaminant Groups     ...................   225
                     58.   Florida Ground Water Quality Very Intense
                              Survey (VISA) Network Exceedances for
                              Selected Contaminant Groups     .................   227
                     59.   Florida Agricultural Sources Exceedances
                              for Selected Contaminant Groups      .............  227
                     60.   Indicator Parameters of Ground Water Quality.. 228
                     61.   Trophic State Index (TSI) for 391 Florida
                              Lakes Monitored by Florida Lakewatch during
                              1993  ........................................      254



























                                                Vill











                                          LIST OF FIGURES


                Figure                                                          Page
                      1.    Percent Change in Area of Waterbody Coverage
                              and Assessed Area Between 1992 and 1994
                              305(b) Reports   ..............................     15
                      2.    Locations of DEP Water Chemistry Trend
                            - Network Stations   ............................     24
                      3.    Percentage of Assessed Water Quality Data
                              Collected by Various Florida Agencies.
                              WMD Refers to Water Management Districts,
                              Game & Fish to the GFWFC, and Others
                              Includes County, Local, and Federal
                              Agencies and Governments    ....................    44
                      4.    Comparison by Waterbody Type of Different
                              Assessment Methodologies    ....................    45
                      5.    Support of Designated Use of Florida
                              Waterbodies by Waterbody Type     ...............   47
                      6.    Ten Year Water Quality Trend Analysis for
                              Florida Waterbodies (1984-1993).     :*,*,*****''   49
                      7.    Locations of Water Quality Trends in
                              Florida Waters (1984-1993)     ..................   so
                      8.    Areas of Florida With Sediment Metal
                              Enrichment Factors of 5 or Greater For Lead
                              (Pb), Mercury (Hg), and Zinc (Zn). There
                              were 90 Samples for Lead, 47 for Mercury
                              and 64 for Zinc   .............................    180
                      9.    Locations of Shellfish Harvesting Areas
                              in Florida   ..................................    193
                      10.   Locations of Ground Water Quality Monitoring
                              Program Background Network Wells (BKN)      ...... 221
                      11.   Locations of Counties Surveyed for the
                              Department of Health'and Rehabilitative
                              Services Private Well Survey     ................  222
                      12.   Locations and Descriptions of Ground Water
                              Quality Monitoring Program Very Intense
                              Study Areas   .................................    223


















                                                 ix













                                     ACKNOWLEDGMENTS



              We would like to express our gratitude to all of the
              professionals that supplied us with water quality data and
              reports, responded to letters, and answered telephone
              inquiries concerning the status of waterbodies in their area.
              The quality of this report has been greatly enhanced by their
              efforts. Agencies that were especially helpful include
             .Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission regional
              offices, water management districts, a number of local county
              and municipal offices, HRS county public health units and, of
              course, Dan Ahern of EPA for providing the guidelines and a
              variety of support services.

              Several DEP staff were also very helpful. Special thanks to
              Tom Atkeson, Ken Haddad and his staff at Florida Marine
              Research Institute, Gail Sloane, Tom Seal, Fred Calder, John
              Labie, Ted Hoehn, Rodney DeHan and staff from the Ground
              Water Quality Monitoring Section, Mike Scheinkman, Clyde
              Diao, and Bob Thompson for providing reports, data,
              assistance, or their time to answer questions. This report
              would not have been possible without support from Vivian
              Garfein and Don Axelrad and thanks to Mark Latch and Richard
              Harvey for their review of the final document. To the staff
              of the Standards and Monitoring Section, including Dave
              Gowan, Janet Klemm, Nancy Turner, Dean Jackman, and Eric
              Shaw, thanks for the assistance in obtaining STORET data,
              helping with sections of text, reviewing draft reports,
              preparing final figures, and for providing the emotional and
              moral support needed to get us through this process.
              Finally, we are indebted to Machelle Jarmon for typing this
              report.






















                                           x



















                                  KEY


                          Abbreviation Definitions

              BMPs    best management practices
              BOD     biochemical oxygen demand
              cfs     cubic feet per second
              Corps   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
              DEP     Florida Departmentlof Environmental Protection (also
                        referred to as Department)
              DER     Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
              DNR     Department of Natural Resources
              DO      dissolved oxygen
              EAA     Everglades Agricultural Area
              EMAP    Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental
                        Mapping and Assessment Program
              EPA     Environmental Protection Agency
              FAC     Florida Administrative Code
              FS      Florida Statute
              FYI     Fifth Year Inspection
              GFWFC   Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
              GIS     Geographic Information System
              HRS     Florida Department of Health and
                        Rehabilitative Services
              HUC     Hydrologic Unit Code
              MFC     Marine Fisheries Commission
              MSSW    Management and Storage of Surface Waters Permit
              NEP     National Estuary Program
              NMFS    National Marine Fisheries Service
              NOAA    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
              NPDES   National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
              NPS     Nonpoint Source Water Quality Assessment
              NWFWMD  Northwest Florida Water Management District
              OFW     Outstanding Florida Water
              ONRW    Outstanding National Resource Water
              PAH     poycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
              pcb     polychlorinated bip
              PLRGs   Pollution Load Reduction Goals
              ppb     parts per billion
              ppm     parts per million






                                             xi










                                       KEY (Continued)


               REACH    an EPA-designated waterbody or  portion of a
                          waterbody
               RF2      REACH File 2
               RF3      REACH File 3
               SFWMD    South Florida Water Management District
               SJRWMD   St. Johns River Water Management District
               SRF      State Revolving Fund
               SRWMD    Suwannee River Water Management District
               STAs     Stormwater Treatment  Areas
               STORET   EPA's water quality data storage and
                          retrieval system
               SWAMP    Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program
               SWFWMD   Southwest Florida Water Management District
               swim     Surface Water Improvement and Management Act
               TXN      total Kjeldahl nitrogen (organic nitrogen and
                          ammonia)
               TOC      total organic carbon
               TSI      Trophic State Index
               UAA      Use Attainability Analysis
               UDS      Ulcerative Disease Syndrome
               USGS     U.S. Geological Survey
               WLA      wasteload allocation
               WMD      water management district
               WQI      Water Quality Index
               WWTP     wastewater treatment plant
























                                              xii













                                    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS




              We would like to express our gratitude to all of the
              professionals that supplied us with water quality data and
              reports, responded to letters, and answered telephone
              inquiries concerning the status of waterbodies in their
              area. The quality of this report has been greatly enhanced
              by their efforts. Agencies that were especially helpful
              include Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
              regional offices, water management districts, a number of
              local county and municipal offices, HRS county public health
             ,units and, of course, Dan'Ahern of EPA for providing the
              guidelines and a variety of support services.

              Several DEP staff were also very helpful. Special thanks to
              Tom Atkeson, Ken Haddad and his staff at Florida Marine
              Research Institute, Gail Sloane, Tom Seal, Fred Calder, John
              Labie, Ted Hoehn, Rodney DeHan and staff from the Ground
              Water Quality Monitoring Section, Mike Scheinkman, Clyde
              Diao, and Bob Thompson for providing reports, data,
              assistance, or their time to answer questions. This report
              would not have been possible without support from Vivian
              Garfein and Don Axelrad and thanks to Mark Latch and Richard
              Harvey for their review of the final document. To the staff
              of :the Standards and Monitoring Section, including Dave
              Gowan, Janet Klemm, Nancy Turner, Dean Jackman, and Eric
              Shaw, thanks for the assistance in obtaining STORET data,
              helping with sections of text, reviewing draft reports,
              preparing final figures, and for providing the emotional and
              moral support needed to get us through this process.
              Finally, we are indebted to Machelle Jarmon for typing this
              report.




















                                            x


















                                  KEY


                          Abbreviation Definitions




              BMPs    best management practices
              BOD     biochemical oxygen demand
              cfs     cubic feet per second
              Corps   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
              DEP     Florida Department of Environmental Protection (also
                        referred to as Department)
              DER     Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
              DNR     Department of Natural Resources
              DO      dissolved oxygen
              EAA     Everglades Agricultural Area
              EMAP    Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental
                        Mapping and Assessment Program
              EPA     Environmental Protection Agency
              FAC     Florida Administrative Code
              FS      Florida Statute
              FYI     Fifth Year Inspection
              GFWFC   Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
              GIS     Geographic Information System
              HRS     Florida Department of Health and
                        Rehabilitative Services
              MFC     Marine Fisheries Commission
              MSSW    Management and Storage of Surface Waters Permit
              NEP     National Estuary Program
              NMFS    National Marine Fisheries Service
              NOAA    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
              NPDES'  National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
              NPS     Nonpoint Source Water Quality Assessment
              NWFWMD  Northwest Florida Water Management District
              OFW     Outstanding Florida Water
              ONRW    Outstanding National Resource Water
              PAH     poycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
              pcb     polychlorinated bip
              PLRGs   Pollution Load Reduction Goals
              ppb     parts per billion
              ppm     parts per million
              REACH   an EPA-designated waterbody or portion of a
                        waterbody



                                            xi











               RF2      REACH File 2
               RF3      REACH File 3
               SFWMD    South Florida Water Management District
               SJRWMD   St. Johns River Water Management District
               SRF      State Revolving Fund
               SRWMD    Suwannee River Water Management District
               STAs     Stormwater Treatment Areas
               STORET   EPA's water quality data storage and
                          retrieval system
               SWAMP    Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program
               SWFWMD   Southwest Florida Water Management'District
               swim     Surface Water Improvement and Management Act
               TKN      total Kjeldahl nitrogen (organic nitrogen and
                          ammonia)
               TOC      total organic carbon
               TSI      Trophic State Index
               UAA      Use Attainability Analysis
               UDS      Ulcerative Disease Syndrome
               USGS     U.S. Geological Survey
               WLA      wasteload allocation
               WMD      water management district
               WQI      Water Quality Index
               WWTP     wastewater treatment plant






























                                              xii









             PART 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/OVERVIEW


             Surface Water Assessment


             The surface water assessment section of the 305(b)   Report
             identifies the quality and trends of Florida's surface
             waters, provides summaries of stream, lake, and estuary use
             support status, and identifies the causes of nonsupport of
             designated uses. More detailed information about individual
             hydrologic units is contained in the Technical Appendix.

             Assessment methodology was changed for the 1994 reporting
             cycle. Florida has in past reports based water quality
             assessments on the condition of 1,600 REACHES. These are
             approximately 5 mile lengths of rivers or 5 square mile
             areas of lakes and estuaries that are identified in the
             Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) REACH File 2. Only
             major waterbodies could be assessed due to the limitation
             imposed on resolution by these map files. Florida in the
             1994 report has utilized the newer REACH File 3 ( 1:100,000
             scale delineation of surface hydrography) along with a
             watershed delineation technique. Florida now utilizes 4,400
             watersheds for assessment rather than 1,600 REACHES. The
             change to watersheds allows the incorporation of data for
             smaller streams and lakes allowing an increase in the total
             area of surface waters assessed. This increased the area
             assessed by 5026 for rivers, 30*-. for lakes, and 200-1; for
             estuaries.


             The 305(b) assessment also includes information from the
             1994 Department of Environmental Protection Nonpoint Source
             Assessment Survey (which is based on the responses of 150
             Florida agencies). This survey summarized professional
             judgment and evaluation of problems in Florida's watersheds.
             The information was used to supplement quantitative data.

             The assessment of Florida's surface waters required analysis
             of the available STORET water quality data for the 1989-1993
             time period for monitored stations and 1970-1989 data and
             qualitative assessment information for evaluated stations.
             Data collected from state, regional, federal, county, and
             local agencies representing 4,000 stations and 2,440
             watersheds are assessed in this report. Of the total number
             of watersheds, 1,500 were assessed with solely STORET data
             and 940 with additional data from the Nonpoint Source
             Assessment Survey. Techniques used for assessment included
             a Water Quality Index, Trophic State Index, exceedances of









               screening level values, statistical trend analysis,
               information from special studies, 1994 Nonpoint. Source
               Assessment Survey, and professional judgment.

               Florida's surface water quality is displayed on the map on
               the cover of the report. Two important conclusions can be
               drawn from this figure: first, the majority of Florida's
               surface water has good quality; and second, the majority of
               problems are found in Central and South Florida.

               The sparsely populated northwest and west-central sections
               of the State have relatively better water quality than other
               areas. Water quality problem areas in the State are evident
               around the densely populated, major urban areas including:
               Jacksonville, Orlando, Tampa, Pensacola, the Cape Kennedy
               area, and the southeastern Florida coast. Other areas of
               poor water quality, not associated with population, are
               found in basins with intense agricultural usage and heavy
               industrial use.


               A quantitative summary of the State's water quality -was
               accomplished by determining the degree of designated use
               support for the different waterbody types. In summary, 650-.
               of the total river miles, 421 of total lake areas, and 63%
               of total estuarine areas fully supported their designated
               uses. An additional 27% of river miles, 39% of lake areas,
               and 33% of estuarine areas partially support use.

               Pollution sources and problems in Florida are varied. The
               State does not have extensive industrialization, but. rather
               localized concentrations of heavy industry centered mostly
               in urban areas. Many of the problems found in surface
               waters in urban areas can be attributed to industrial
               discharges. Silviculture, agriculture, and various types of
               animal husbandry are a large part of Florida's current and
               historical economy. Furthermore, Florida is presently the
               fourth most populated state in the nation with a large share
               of this growth occurring over the past two decades. This
               has resulted in more pollution sources associated with
               residential development and suburban sprawl.

               Primary causes of waterbodies not  fully supporting use
               varied by waterbody type. For rivers, significant causes
               are nutrient enrichment, suppressed dissolved oxygen levels  ,
               high bacteria counts, turbidity, and suspended solids.
               Problems in lakes are attributed to algal blooms, turbidity,
               and nutrient enrichment. While for estuaries, primary



                                             2









              pauses are identified as algal blooms, nutrient enrichment,
              suppressed dissolved oxygen levels, and turbidity.

              Sources of Florida's major surface water quality problems
              can be summarized into five general categories which are
              listed below:


                   1. Urban Stormwater. Stormwater carries a wide
                      variety of pollutants from nutrients to toxic
                      pollutants. Siltation and turbidity associated
                      with construction activities can also be a major
                      problem. Problem.areas are obviously concentrated
                      around urban centers and mimic, quite well, the
                      population map of the state. Current stormwater
                      rules and growth management laws address this
                      problem for new sources, but are difficult to
                      monitor and enforce.


                   2. Agricultural Runoff. The major pollutants involved
                      include nutrients, turbidity, BOD, bacteria, and
                      herbicides/pesticides. These pollutants generally
                      do their worst damage in lakes and slow moving
                      rivers and canals, and sometimes, the receiving
                      estuary.


                      Problems are concentrated in the central and
                      southern portions of the State, and in several of
                      the rivers entering the state from the north.
                      Traditionally, agricultural operations have had far
                      more lenient regulation than point sources;
                      however, there is increasing recognition of the
                      need for improved treatment of runoff water.


                   3. Domestic Wastewater. This is an area that has
                      shown significant improvement in the last decade.
                      Most of the waterbodies with improving water
                      quality trends can be traced to wastewater
                      treatment plant (WWTP) upgrades. Further
                      advancements are being encouraged with design
                      innovations such as wastewater discharge to
                      wetlands, water reuse, and advanced treatment.
                      Still, a problem exists in the rural areas of the
                      State where financial and technological resources
                      are limited. Consequently, several of these poorly
                      operating facilities are polluting some of
                      Florida's relatively pristine natural waterbodies.




                                            3









                        Also, septic tank leachate contributes to the
                        degradation of many of Florida's waterbodies.

                    4.  Industrial Wastewater. Most notable among these
                        are the pulp and paper mills. Because of,the
                        volume and nature of their discharge, all of the
                        pulp and paper mills operating in the state
                        seriously degrade their receiving waters., The
                        phosphate and fertilizer industries are major
                        pollution sources (both point and nonpoint) in
                        several of Florida's surface water basins. In
                        addition, the mining of phosphate causes'surface

                        land use disturbances.
                        water hydrological modifications and major


                    5.  Hydrological Modifications. This can take the form
                        of damming running waters, channelizing slow, moving
                        waters, or dredging, draining, and filling
                        wetlands. Such modifications are not strictly
                        pollution sources. However, in most cases where
                        the natural hydrological regime was modified
                        (mostly for water quantity purposes) water quality
                        problems have ensued. Rating the effect of
                        hydrologic modification is difficult. Dredcfe and
                        fill activities result in a loss of habitat area.
                        Disruption of wetlands with a resultant net loss of
                        area reduces the buffering and filtering capacities
                        and biological potential of wetlands. This is a
                        particularly important problem in estuaries. The
                        loss of seagrasses and other marine habitats can
                        seriously affect the maintenance of a viable
                        fishery.

               It is very important to address both the sources of
               pollution and trends in water quality. In the past, the
               majority of identified water quality problems in the State
               were caused by point sources, including both domestic
               and industrial sources. Through the implementation of new
               technologies, better treatment of wastes, and-.!regulatory
               controls point source contributions to the degradation of
               Florida waters have been reduced. Nonpoint 'sources now
               account for the majority of Florida's water quality
               problems. Increase acreage of agricultural and urban
               developed land and their associated runoff contribute to the
               nonpoint source problem.





                                             4









              Water quality trend analysis was performed on 467
              waterbodies which had sufficient data, over the past 10
              years, for analysis. The majority of these waterbodies
              (about 71*-.) exhibited no significant trends while 2411
              improved and 5% worsened. The improved water quality trends
              were generally the result of wastewater treatment plant
              upgrades or the additions of new regional WWTPs and nonpoint
              source controls in Tampa, Orlando, and several other cities.
              There were 21 waterbodies with worsening trends; probable
              causes may be attributed to silviculture operations and
              increased land development.

              There are no regional patterns for degrading trends similar
              to the improving trends. The causes of degrading trends
              included point sources and nonpoint sources. Statewide
              trend detection is limited for the following reasons:

                   1. Only one-tenth of the waterbodies assessed had
                       adequate data to perform trend analysis.

                   2.  The primary focus of our monitoring network has not
                       traditionally been trend assessment; most stations
                       are frequently moved resulting in few sites with
                       long-term, monthly data.

                   3.  Our trend assessment technique is tailored to the
                       problem identified in #2, thus, it only identified
                       relatively drastic changes in water quality.
                       Subtle water quality changes due to  population
                       growth or nonpoint source treatment improvements
                       are not picked up by this analysis.

              Of the lakes that were assessed, 23*1 showed an improving
              trend, 511 declining trend, and 72% remained the same. The
              decline in water quality was attributed to nonpoint source
              pollution. The improvement in water quality of 230-o of the
              assessed lakes is attributed to the removal of discharges
              from WWTP. This was particularly true for Lakes Howell,
              Jessup, Harney, and Monroe.

              The assessment of public health and aquatic life impacts
              found several concerns. Many of these problems are
              associated with estuaries and are of a persistent nature.
              Fish with Ulcerative Disease Syndrome are still present in
              the lower St. Johns River. This problem was first
              identified in the early to mid-80s. Second, large fish
              kills (as much as 20 tons of fish) occurred in the Pensacola



                                            5









               Bay system over the past two years. The more massive of
               these kills occurred in Bayou Chico. Chronic and acute
               bacterial contamination in the water and contaminated
               sediments of the Miami River threatens Biscayne Bay. Many
               urban estuaries throughout the State have enriched heavy
               metal concentrations and organic contaminants in their
               sediments. Examples are Tampa Bay, St. Johns River 'Estuary,
               and Pensacola Bay. The continued loss of fishery habitat
               from dredge and fill and construction activities is a threat
               to the maintenance of a viable fishery. The extensive die
               off of mangroves and seagrasses and algal blooms in Florida
               Bay are an important State concern. The probable cause of
               the bay's problems is the extensive channelization and
               hydrological modification of the bay's watershed exacerbated
               in recent years by a lack of flushing from hurricanes, high
               water temperature, and high salinity.

               Regulatory actions taken in the 1980s   and recent efforts
               through the National Estuary Program and Florida's Surface
               Water Improvement and Management Act have resulted in
               improvements in water quality in Tampa Bay and Sarasota Bay.
               The Grizzle-Figg Legislation passed in the mid-80s required
               that all surface water discharges of domestic waste to these
               estuaries be given advanced wastewater treatment. With
               improved water quality, acreages of seagrasses have
               increased in Tampa Bay. Recent experiments have indicated
               that scallops would be able to live in the bay. Scallops
               disappeared from Tampa Bay in the 60s and 70s because of
               poor water quality conditions.

               Water quality has improved in  the northern and central
               portions of Sarasota Bay. The City of Sarasota has reduced
               its nitrogen loading by 80-90-*. with advanced wastewater
               treatment. This amounts to a 1431 baywide reduction in
               nitrogen loading. Manatee County has removed its wastewater
               discharge from the bay by using deep well injection for
               waste disposal. The County also reduced stormwater runoff
               into the bay from a gladiolus farm using reclaimed.water.

               Three other problems exist  which are also.of a persistent
               nature, but largely impact  fresh water systems. First, fish
               consumption advisories for  largemouth bass continue to be
               issued because of elevated  mercury concentrations in. their
               tissue. Second, a no fish   consumption advisory has been
               issued for the Fenholloway  River. Elevated levels of dioxin
               were found in fish from this streams. This waterbody
               receives effluent from a pulp mill. The third problem is



                                              6










             the acute and chronic coliform. bacteria contamination of the
             Miami River. Sources of this contamination are illegal
             sewer connections to the stormwater pipe system, leaking or
             broken sewer lines, and direct discharges of raw sewage when
             pump stations have exceeded their capacity. During acute
             contamination events (direct discharge of sewage) coliform
             bacteria counts in the Miami River and adjoining waters of
             Biscayne Bay are hundreds of times higher than State
             criteria. Bathing beaches along Biscayne Bay and the
             Atlantic Ocean are periodically closed because of these
             discharges. Efforts are being made by the City of'Miami and
             Dade County to correct these problems.

             Ground Water Quality

             Because ground water supplies about 90% of Florida's
             drinking water, ground water programs traditionally focused
             on the monitoring of wells specifically for contamination.
             As part of the 1983 Water Quality Assurance Act, a program
             was begun to monitor the quality of ambient ground water.
             Data from 1,919 wells monitoring all major aquifer systems
             in the State have been collected and stored in a database.
             Preliminary analysis of the data indicates generally good
             ground water quality particularly in the Floridan aquifer,
             but threats and sources of contaminants to ground water do
             exist. The Floridan aquifer underlies all but the
             westerrimost and southernmost parts of Florida.

             Major sources of ground water contamination are underground
             storage tanks for petroleum products, agricultural
             activities, landfills, and septic tanks. Several hundred
             leaking petroleum storage tanks have been found and are
             being investigated. Agricultural activities use large
             quantities of pesticides and fertilizers. Several chemicals
             including aldicarb, alachlor, bromacil, simazine, and
             ethylene dibromide (EDB) have caused local and in the case
             of EDB regional contamination problems. Other pollutants
             that pose a threat to ground water are stormwater runoff
             laden with pesticides and fertilizers, leachate from
             hazardous wastes sites, and nitrates from dairy and other
             animal husbandry operations. of particular concern are
             ground water.contamination events that occur on highly
             permeable sandy soils in recharge areas.







                                            7









               All community water systems are required to be tested
               periodically for 118 organic contaminants. These include
               most of the priority pollutants as well as pesticides used
               and suspected as polluting ground water. Of the greatest
               concern is the potential for contamination events in highly
               populated areas with single source aquifers.

               Summary of Other Programs

               Point source pollution is controlled by a discharge
               permitting process separate from, but similar to, the NPDES
               process. Permits which set effluent limitations are
               required for the construction, operation and modification of
               domestic and industrial facilities. There are about 4,600
               permitted ground water and surface water discharge
               facilities in the State. The Department of Department of
               Environmental Protection is also encouraging WWTP discharge
               water reuse, primarily for irrigation, and discharge to
               wetlands for further improvement in water quality.

               At the core of the nonpoint source program is the DEP
               Stormwater Rule and supporting stormwater legislation
               enacted.in 1989. Regulations require all new developments
               to retain the first inch of runoff water in ponds. This
               theoretically removes 80-900-. of the sediment associated
               pollutant load. The program is also integrated with the
               previously enacted Surface Water Improvement and Management
               Act as well as the Comprehensive Planning Act. There are
               ongoing contracts focusing on Best Management Practices
               (BMPs) for other nonpoint sources such as agriculture,
               septic tanks, landfills, mining and hydrologic modification.

               The Wetlands Assessment Chapter of the report reveals that
               Florida is rich in wetland resources. However, these
               wetlands are threatened from both urban and agricultural
               growth. Protective authority for wetlands is divided
               between DEP and the Water Management Districts. DEP has
               negotiated agreements with three of the five water
               management districts to combine dredge and fill and
               Management and Storage of Surface Water permits. These
               agreements will allow either the Department or water
               management district to process both permits. Permit'  ted
               activities are closely watched, and mitigation (creation,
               conservation or improvement) is encouraged for any loss.
               However, a total wetland acreage inventory and records of
               wetlands loss through non-permitted or illegal activities




                                              8









             are out-of-date or do not exist. To counterbalance any
             shortcomings of wetland regulation, Florida has been very
             active in land acquisition programs, having bought over one
             million acres of environmentally sensitive land (mostly
             wetlands) in the last 20 years.

















































                                           9











                PART II: BACKGROUND


                Florida is a rapidly growing state. Presently-, Florida
                ranks fourth in the U. S. in total population and third in
                percent population growth. The 1992 estimate of population
                was 13,424,400 (Florida Statistical Abstract, 1992). The
                projected annual rate of growth for the State for the period
                1990-2015 is 1.91@; (Wood and Poole, 1992 State Profile).
                Projections of total population in the year 2000 based on a
                range of growth rates from low to high vary from 14.15) to
                16.6 million (Florida Statistical Abstract, 1992).

                Florida's population is concentrated in several regions.
                Southeastern Florida is the most populated area, followed by
                the Tampa-St. Petersburg region, the Orlando area, and the
                Jacksonville area. There are also vast areas of the State
                that are sparsely populated. Maintaining good overall water
                quality despite rapid population growth is an important
                water quality challenge for the State of Florida.

                Florida's surface area of 58,560 square miles supports an
                abundance and diversity of surface water resources. Table 1
                is an atlas of facts about these resources. There are
                51,858 miles of streams and rivers in the State
                (approximately half identified as ditches and canals), more
                than 7,700 lakes with a total surface area of 3,258 square
                miles, and 4,298 square miles of estuaries. A line extended
                from the northeast corner of Florida down the coast to Key
                West and back up to the northwest corner along the Gulf
                coast would be 1,300 miles long. If the distance around
                barrier islands and estuaries were included, the line would
                stretch 8,460 miles. Florida has 4,510 islands, each 10
                acres or greater in area. Total area of these islands is
                840,727 acres.


                Climate within the State ranges from a zone of transition
                between temperate and subtropical in the-north and
                northwest, to tropical in the Keys. Tropical inflUEmce is
                indicated by the presence of the only emergent coral reef
                located within the conterminous 48 states.


                Summers are long with periods of very warm humid air
                throughout Florida. Maximum temperatures average about
                900F, although temperatures of 100OF or greater can occur in
                parts of the State. Winters are generally mild with the
                exception of periods when cold fronts move across the State.




                                             10










                Table 1. Atlas of Florida.




                1992 Estimated State population       13,424,400
                Surface area                          58,560 square miles
                Number of hydrologic units            52
                Total number of river/stream miles    51,858 miles
                *Border river miles-total             191 miles
                  Chattahoochee River                 26 miiles
                  Perdido River                       65 miiles
                  St. Marys River                     100 miiles
                 Total density of rivers/stream       0.89 miles/square mile
                 Perennial streams                    22,993 miles
                 Density of perennial streams         0.39 miles/square mile
                 Intermittent streams                 2,956 miiles
                 Density of intermittent streams      0.05 miles/square mile
                 Ditches and canals                   25,909 miles
                 Density of ditches and canals        0.44 miles/square mile
                *Number of lakes/reservoirs/ponds     7,712 (Z10 acres)
                *Area of lakes/reservoirs/ponds'      3,258 square miles
                *Area of estuaries/bays'              4,298 square-miles
                *Coastal miles                        8,460 miiles
                *Freshwater and tidal wetlands        17,830 square miles
                Area of islands > 10 acres            1,314 square miles


                *Numbers taken from 1990 305(b) Water Quality Assessment for the
                  State of Florida and provided by EPA from RF2 REACH files.

                 State estimate for lakes area is 2,065 square miles and for
                   estuaries 4,054 square miles.



                Frost and freezing temperatures are possible, but typically
                temperatures do not remain low throughout the day. Periods
                of cold weather usually do not last more than two or three
                days at a time. Rainfall varies across the State., On
                average 60 inches per year can fall in the far northwest and
                southeast, while the Keys receive on average 40 inches per
                year. Areas of heaviest rainfall are the northwest and a
                strip 10 to 15 miles inland along the southeast coast.
                (Fernald and Patton, 1984)

                With the exception of Northwest Florida, the year can be
                divided into two seasons: a rainy season and a relatively
                long dry season. For peninsular Florida, generally half the
                average rainfall for the year falls between approximately
                June and September. In the northwestern part of the State,



                                               11








                a secondary rainy season occurs in late winter to early
                spring. (Morris, 1993) Periods of lowest rainfall for most
                of Florida are fall, October/November, and spring, April/May
                (Fernald and Patton, 1984).

                Climatic differences across Florida are a determining factor
                in the water quality of streams. An approximate diagonal
                line drawn from the mouth of the St. Johns River at the
                Atlantic Ocean to the boundary of Levy and Dixie Counties on
                the Gulf of Mexico depicts what has be'en described a.13 a
                climatic river-basin divide (USGS, 1981). North and
                northwest of this line, streams follow a pattern of high
                discharge in spring/late winter (March-April), and low
                discharge in the fall/early winter (October-November). A
                second low water period occurs May-June. South of this
                divide high discharge occurs in September-October and low
                discharge from May-June. The Apalachicola River, Florida's
                river with the greatest maximum and average annual
                discharge, is located in the northwest. Many of the streams
                and rivers north of the divide are alluvial rivers, carrying
                sediment loads. Most of the major rivers north of the
                divide are interstate in origin and thus receive a portion
                of their discharge from outside of Florida.

                Close to 6% of Florida's surface area is occupied by lakes.
                The largest lake in the State is Okeechobee. It is also the
                ninth largest lake in surface area within the United States.
                Most lakes in the State are shallow. Average depth ranges
                from 7 feet to 20 feet, though many of the sinkhole lakes
                and portions of other lakes can be much deeper. (U.S.
                Geological Survey [USGS1, 1981)

                Most parts of Florida have relatively flat terrain and low
                land-surface elevation. For example, the longest river, St.
                Johns, only falls on average about 0.1 foot per mile from
                headwater to mouth, a distance of 318 miles.

                Low relief makes wetlands a prominent feature of Florida's
                landscape. Many rivers have their headwaters in wetlands.
                For example, the Green Swamp in central Florida is the
                headwater for three major river systems: the Withlacoochee,
                Oklawaha, and Hillsborough. Many smaller streams may flow
                into wetlands and later re-emerge as channelized flows.

                This low relief coupled with Florida's geological history
                has given the State unique hydrogeological features. Large
                areas of the State are characterized by karst topography.



                                              12









              Streams that disappear underground (sinking streams),
              springs, sinkholes, and caves dominate the surface relief in
              these areas. Florida's larger sinking streams include the
              Aucilla River, Chipola River, Santa Fe River, Alapaha River,
              and St. Marks River.


              There are approximately 320 springs in Florida. It is
              estimated that the combined discharges from all of the
              State's springs are over 8 billion gallons per day. The
              largest by discharge are the Spring Creek Springs in Wakulla
              County and Crystal River Springs Group in Citrus County.
              There are only a total of 78 first order magnitude springs
              in the United States. These are classified as springs that
              discharge on average at least 64.6 million gallons per day.
              Of the national total, 27 are located in Florida. (USGS,
              1981)


              Another major hydrological feature resulting from karst
              topography is the interaction of ground water and surface
              water. Most lakes and streams receive at least part of
              their discharge from ground water by either baseflow,
              springs, or seeps. By the same mechanisms, surface waters
              can recharge aquifers. Water in a karst terrain commonly
              drains internally into cavern formations and can reappear as
              springs and seeps, potentially in basins other than where it
              entered ground water. One example is a large karst area in
              Marion County. Water drains internally and provides water
              for Silver Springs which discharges to the Oklawaha River
              and thence to the St. Johns River and the Atlantic Ocean.
              This same drainage source also provides water for Rainbow
              Springs which discharges to the Withlacoochee River and
              thence to the Gulf of Mexico. (USGS, 1981)


              Total Waters


              Estimates of total river miles of Florida streams and rivers
              listed in Table 1 were based on the EPA's River REACH File 3.
              (RF3). These map files are'derived from 1:100,000 USGS
              hydrologic maps. Accurate estimates of lacustrine and
              estuarine areas were not available from EPA. Areas of lakes
              and estuaries listed in the table are based on REACH File 2
              (RF2) estimates. The State has also made estimates of lake
              and estuarine areas based on a new waterbody delineation
              technique. This technique utilizes EPA RF3 files and area
              determining techniques developed for a Geographic
              Information System (GIS) to estimate mileages of major




                                           13










               features. These estimates are included at the bottom of
               Table 1.


               Table 2 identifies the percentages of Florida waters
               assessed. Assessment categories in Table 2 include
               monitored miles (STORET data for 1989-1993), evaluated miles
               (based on older data, professional judgment, or other
               qualitative information), and unknown miles. Total assessed
               areas listed for lakes and estuaries represent the State's
               GIS estimate of area rather than the EPA RF2 estimates
               listed in Table 1. There.are calculation and methodology
               differences between the way the State and EPA estimate total
               areas of Florida lakes and estuaries. Florida calculates
               area using the higher resolution RF3. All estimates of lake
               and estuarine areas support or nonsupport of designated use
               are based on the State's calcualtion of area for these
               waterbody types. EPA has not provided the State with new
               estimates of lake and estuary areas based on RF3.


               Table 2.  Mileages of Florida Waters Assessed.




                                Monitored
                         (1989-1993 STORET Data) Evaluated' Unknown Total


               River (miles)       7,025     4,855     39,9782   51"BS8
               Lake (sq. miles)    1,541       400        124    2,065
               Estuary (sq. miles) 2,417     1,290        347    4,054


               'Qualitative information or older STORET data (1970-1988).
               2This number includes 25,909 miles of ditches and canals which have
               not been assessed.




               The change in total basemap mileages between the 1992 and
               1994 reporting years is reflected in Figure 1. This figure
               displays the increase in waterbody coverage area obtained by
               changing from a REACH based assessment to a watershed
               approach. By using a watershed approach, small tributaries
               and isolated streams not covered under RF2 are included as
               part of the total waterbody coverage area. For rivers this
               change yielded a 100% increase in area. However, because
               information was not available for all of these new stream






                                            14






















                                loo-
                                                94
                                go-                                                               M RIVERS

                                80-                                                               0 LAKES


                                                                                                  0 ESTUARIES

                                70-






                           W    60-

                           z
                                                                                51
                                50-                           47
                           z
                           W
                                                               ..........

                           W
                           0.   40-

                                                        ......... ..
                                                        ..........
                                                        ...........



                                30-


                                                                                                20

                                20-
                                                                                               ... ...........
                                                                                     30
                                                                                               ... ...........
                                                                                          .............. .........
                                                                                         .............. ....I.......
                                                                                         ............... ...........

                                10-
                                                              .. ...........


                                                                ...........                 ...... .........
                                                                                           ..........  -- ........

                                                                                            ......... ....
                                                                                           . ........ ...........  X.,

                                                                                          .............
                                 0 it
                                            WATERBODY                         ASSESSED
                                             COVERAGE                             AREA
                                                 AREA



                       Figure 1. Percent Change in Area of Waterbody Coverage and
                       Assessed Area Between 1992 and 1994 305(b) Reports.
                                                                      Im






                                                                        15









               segments, not all of the new stream miles were assessed. In
               effect, only a 50*-. increase in assessed area was realized.

               Sunnary of Classified Uses

               All surface waters of the State of Florida have been
               classified according to present and future most beneficial
               uses 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.

               The potential extent of Florida waters classified for uses
               consistent with the goals of the Clean Water Act is 'Listed
               in Table 3. These numbers should not be interpreted as
               miles or areas of waterbodies that support designated use.
               River miles listed do not include 25,909 miles of ditches
               and canals for which waterbody numbers could not be
               assigned.



               Table 3. Waters Classified for Uses Consistent with Clean
               Water Act Goals.




               Type of Water                   Fishable*       Swimmable*


               Estuaries (square miles)           4,054           4,054
               Lakes (square miles)               2,065           2,065
               Rivers (miles)                    19,532          19,532



               *The sizes listed include only waterbodies that have been
                assigned a Florida waterbody number.









                                              16









             In addition to its use classification, a waterbody may also
             be designated as an outstanding Florida Water (OFW). An OFW
             designation can be applied to waters recognized by the State
             as having either exceptional recreational or exceptional
             ecological significance. These waters are afforded a high
             degree of protection which corresponds to a "no significant
             degradation" clause in the rules. OFWs include waters
             within State and national parks, preserves, sanctuaries,
             rivers designated as wild and scenic either at federal or
             state level, plus certain "special" waters which are not
             already managed by other state or federal entities. A list
             of Outstanding Florida Waters can be found in Section 17-
             302.700, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Waterbodies
             that have been added to the list since January 1, 1992,
             include: the Econlockhatchee River and the Chassahowitzka
             and Homosassa Rivers system.





































                                          17










               PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT


               This section of the report discusses the water quality
               status of Florida's rivers, lakes, and estuaries.
               Determining the status of Florida's surface waters based on
               an analysis of all available information is essential as a
               basis for planning and conducting water management programs.
               The cover map and the figures and tables on the following
               pages provide designated use support information for Florida
               waterbodies to aid in interpreting information on a
               geographic basis. Causes and sources of use impairment are
               identified. Public health and aquatic life concerns, such
               as toxic pollutants and fishing bans are discussed.
               Finally, trends in water quality are discussed including
               identification of areas which show improved or degraded
               water quality. For more detailed surface water assessments,
               consult individual basin reports in the Technical Appendix.

               Chapter One: Surface Water Monitoring Program

               As of July 1, 1993, the Department of Environmental
               Protection (referred to as DEP or Department) was officially
               formed as a new agency from the merger of the Departments of
               Environmental Regulation (DER) and Natural Resources (DNR).
               The mission of the DEP is to protect, conserve, and restore
               the air, water, and natural resources of the@ State through
               the process of Ecosystem Management. A major goal of this
               management strategy is to better protect and manage
               Florida's ecosystems. The first of two important means of
               accomplishing this goal is to form a more effective
               partnership with other governmental entities for resource
               protection based on shared responsibilities. The second
               means is to implement a permanent environmental resource
               database and monitoring network throughout the State. The
               Department's monitoring effort, the Surface Water Ambient
               Monitoring Program (SWAMP), will aid in achieving the goal
               of better protection and management of Florida's
               environment.


               SWAMP Monitorincr Strate


               DEP's Bureau of Surface Water Management has program
               oversight of SWAMP. The Bureau's goals to help carry out
               DEP's mission are:


                    1. Identifying and documenting the existing condition
                       of the State's surface waters.



                                             18










                   2. Determining trends in surface water quality and
                      documenting potential problem areas.

                   3. Determining support of State water quality
                      criteria.


                   4. Establishing stream ecoregion reference sites for
                      comparison purposes.

                   5. Providing information for management, legislators,
                      other agencies, and the general public.

              Table 4 contains a summary of the SWAMP program. The major
              strategies for monitoring include: 1. the determination of
              ecoregion subregions and development of community
              bioassessment protocols; 2. development of and
              implementation of water chemistry trend network and water
              chemistry status network; and 3. when funds are available,
              special water quality assessment projects.

              A rivers and streams ecoregionalization and bioassessment
              project is in progress. During 1994/95 lake ecoregion and
              community bioassessment projects will begin.

              Ecoregion Subregionalization and Community Bioassessment


              The ecoregion subregionalization and associated stream
              community bioassessment project is a cooperative project
              between DEP and the EPA. The emphasis by EPA for developing
              narrative and numeric State water quality biocriteria
              provided the impetus for the State to pursue this'work. Two
              concurrent projects were begun: one to define Florida's
              ecological regions and a second to develop bioassessment
              sampling protocols.

              The subregionalization of Florida from three ecoregions to
              13 subregions has been completed. Reference sites have been
              established at 66 streams for use in the development of
              community bioassessment protocols. These sites were
              selected to represent unimpacted or background sites for
              each of the subregional types. Sampling is conducted at
              these sites two times per year once during the wet season
              and once during the dry season. The goal of sampling is to
              determine the best quality macroinvertebrate community





                                           19









                 Table 4. Summary of Components of the SWAMP Program.



                                    Number of      Sampling         Parameters
                                    Stations       Frequency


                 A. Stream Community 66            2 x/ year        1*, 2*
                    Bioassessment                  winter/summer

                 B. Water Chemistry 108            4 x/year         2*
                    Trend Network


                 C. Water Chemistry   150-300      4-6 x/year       3*
                    Status Network


                 D. Lake Project      60 lakes     2 x/year         1*, 4*
                                      150-200      winter/summer
                                      stations



                 *1  Macroinvertebrate, habitat analysis.
                 *2  Nutrients, Secchi depth, turbidity, color, pH, DO,
                     conductivity, temperature, alkalinity, chlorides,
                     sulfates, fecal and total coliform bacteria.
                 *3  All of #2 plus the following: anions/cations, total
                     dissolved solids, total suspended solids, total organic
                     carbon, and chlorophyll a (estuaries and lakes).
                 *4  Nutrients, Secchi depth, turbidity, conductivity, color,
                     temperature, alkalinity, DO, pH, algal growth potential,
                     chlorophyll a, algae identification, and sediment grain     size
                     and percent organic matter.





















                                                  20










              present for.the representative habitat and water chemistry.
              It is anticipated that this work will aid in the development
              of water quality standards and criteria.

              The second part of the project, to develop sampling
              protocols, is nearing completion. To accomplish this work
              contracts were executed with EA Engineering, Science, and
              Technology and Tetra-Tech, Inc., to provide a multi-metric
              assessment methodology for evaluating Florida's streams.
              The goal of community bioassessment work was to develop
              criteria for documenting water quality impairment from
              nonpoint source pollution,using biological data as well as
              habitat assessment.


              The biological component of choice was macroinvertebrates.
              These are animals large enough to be seen with the unaided
              eye, living in and on the bottom of streams. To aid in the
              accurate identification of these organisms, DEP plans to
              produce two taxonomic keys per year. The first key,
              Identification Manual for the Larval Chironomidae of Florida
              by J.H. Epler, was completed in 1992. The second key,
              Identification Manual for Marine Amphipoda: 1. Common Coral
              Reef and Rocky Bottom Amphipods of South Florida, by J. D.
              Thomas, was recently completed and is being distributed for
              review. Contracts have been completed for the next two keys
              to be produced in 1994: Taxonomy of the Caddisflies of
              Florida and Identification Manual for the Freshwater,
              Estuarine, and Near Shore Marine Oligochaetes of Florida.
              Metrics are being developed that will quantify biological
              characteristics of waterbodies. These metrics can be used
              to classify streams as to their level of anthropogenic
              impact. Table 5 lists metrics under consideration.

              An important goal of the community bioassessment project was
              to develop uniform procedures for sampling and quality
              assurance. A standard operating procedures manual was
              written and released in June of 1994. The project also
              adopted the Department's manual Standard Operating
              Procedures for Laboratory Operations and Sample Collection
              Activities. The Florida Association of Benthologists has
              compiled information on the environmental requirements,
              habitats, taxonomy, food habits, and distribution of
              Florida's aquatic macroinvertebrates. Volunteer experts
              update this information annually.






                                             21










               Table S. Candidate Macroinvertebrate Metrics to be Used for
               Site Classification and Discrimination.




               Richness Measures              Composition Measures



               1. Number of Taxa              1. Shannon-Wiener Index
               2. EPT Index                   2. % Dominant Taxon
               3. Number of Chironimidae      3. % Diptera
                  Taxa
               4. Number of Crustacean/       4. *-. Crustacean/Mollusc
                 Mollusc taxa



               Tolerance Measures             Trophic Measures



               1. Florida Index               1. % Collector-Gatherers
               2. % Class I and Class 11      2. % Collector-Filterers
               3. Hilsenhoff Biotic Index     3. % Shredders





               Water Chemistry Trend Ne twork


               Trend monitoring requires statistically sound sampling
               frequency, sample locations, and sampling/analysis
               techniques. The first trend program in Florida was
               established in 1973 as the Permanent Network Station. Program
               (PNS). It was later renamed the Fixed Station Monitoring
               Program (FMS). The goals of the Florida Trend Network are
               as follows:


                    1. To determine present water quality status through a
                       systematic and uniform process of data collection,
                       analysis, and reporting.

                    2. To describe temporal and spatial water   quality
                       variability.

                    3. To detect and document long-term water quality
                       trends.


                    4. To provide a consistent Statewide database for
                       water quality assessment.



                                             22









             At present, 108 stations are sampled quarterly by DEP
             district staff. Locations of stations are identified in
             Figure 2. Many of the stations in the network are monitored
             by a volunteer group the Bream Fishermans Association and
             are identified on the map. Samples are sent to the DEP
             Central Lab in Tallahassee for analysis. DEP District staff
             are responsible for verifying lab data and entering the
             results into STORET. Plans are under way to expand the DEP
             trend network. Accomplishing this task requires
             coordination and collaboration with water management
             districts and local and county environmental protection
             agencies. DEP has started the process by conducting
             workshops within different regions of the State. The goal
             of this effort is to obtain local input in determining areas
             of critical concern for which long term water quality
             information is important.


             Water Chemistry Status Network

             The objective of status monitoring is to define the existing
             conditions of a waterbody and provide background information
             to support other programs. Information from this monitoring
             is used for assessment purposes; primarily it will support
             the 305(b) process. The program is in its third year of
             waterbody evaluation. Begun in 1991, it was originally
             designed to address REACHES. In the future, program
             emphasis will be shifted to watershed assessment. With
             further refinement of design it will become a tool for
             identifying watersheds where there are existing problems.

             Waterbodies were selected for monitoring based on two
             criteria. The first was their identification by the 1990
             and 1992 305(b) assessments as having poor, fair, or unknown
             water quality. The second criterion applied to the
             selection process was a lack of recent data. This was
             defined as no new data over the preceding five years. For
             waterbodies classified as unknown, priority was given to
             areas with expected threats or impairments. This program
             has added over 500 new stations have been added for
             evaluation in the 1994 305(b) assessment.

             Funding for status monitoring is provided by grant monies
             from Section 205(j)(1) of the Clean Water Act. Contracts
             were executed with each of the five water management
             districts to perform water quality monitoring and data
             upload to STORET. A quality assurance project plan is




                                           23














                                           p   0




                                                                     Cl
                                                                   0
                                                                           C3

                                                                                                C3


                                                             E3

                                                                                                08


                                                                                                       0
                       PNS PERMANENT NETWORK STATIONS
                                                                                                   Cl
                       BF-A BREAM FISHERMANS ASSOCIATION STATIONS                               0         0
                                                                                                         Q
                                                                                                           S C7
                                                                                      13            013
                                                                                                           0
                                                                                              0   13N
                                                                                     Cl     di
                 FIXED STATION MONITORING
                                                                                               EJ
         N)                                                                                   0           Cl
                                                                                                        0
                                                                                            CA C3      0
                                                                                            13












                 Figure 2. Locations of DEP Water Chemistry Trend Network Stations (Fixed or
                 Permanent Network Stations).









             developed for each contract that outlines lab analytical
             methods and field procedures. These plans must be approved
             by the Department's Quality Assurance Section before
             sampling can begin. Samples are analyzed at either the DEP
             Lab or water management labs depending on available lab
             allocation at DEP.


             Lake Ecoregion and Community Bioassessment Projects


             DEP has received a Section 319(H) grant to develop a
             monitoring program for nonpoint source priority watersheds.
             Six biologist positions were initially funded through this
             grant, but have since been transferred to State funding.
             The emphasis of this program will be on nonpoint source
             pollution priority lake watersheds. Two lake projects have
             been initiated under this grant:

                  1.  A reference lake project is underway in which the
                      draft EPA lake protocols are being tested in best
                      available lakes in different ecoregions. A
                      contracted portion of this work will identify lake
                      ecoregions to provide a reasonable expectation of
                      lake water quality based on landscape, geology, and
                      climate. This work will provide an effective
                      framework for lake management.

                  2.  A paired lake study has commenced on 13 pairs of
                      lakes. Each lake pair consists of a reference lake
                      and a test lake or altered lake. Data are
                      collected for each pair and a comparison made
                      between lakes in a pair.

             The DEP  project manager is also a member of the EPA Lake
             Bioassessment Workgroup. This group is developing lake
             bioassessment protocols. The workgroup was involved in
             final approval of the design and will be involved in
             evaluating results.

             Special SWAMP Projects


             Section 205(j)(1) funds also provide for the initiation of
             special monitoring projects. These are problem-specific or
             waterbody-specific monitoring'programs. For the past two
             years, funds have been provided to the Suwannee River Water
             Management District (SRWMD), to obtain water chemistry data
             from springs within their district. This is critical
             background data needed to evaluate the impact of



                                           25









               agricultural and dairy practices on the Suwannee River and
               estuary. High nitrate levels have been found in ground
               water wells on agricultural lands near the river and in
               springs. The basin is an area of extensive karst topography
               and subject to the transfer of pollutants between ground
               water and surface water.


               A second project was initiated in 1994 with the Northwest
               Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD). This project
               provides for an inventory of water quality of springs
               located within northwest Florida. Many springs are located
               in karst areas of the panhandle where intensive agricultural
               activities are located and the potential exists for the same
               problems as in the Suwannee basin.

               A third contract was executed with the South Florida Water
               Management District (SFWMD) to provide additional monitoring
               effort for Florida Bay. Water quality data will be
               collected by Florida International University for the
               southwest Florida shelf. These data are needed to better
               define nutrient inputs into the Florida Bay.

               SWAMP Monitoring Coordination

               Coupled with the initiation of a new ambient water sampling
               program is the recognition and enforcement of DEP's role,
               through SWAMP, as the Statewide monitoring coordination
               agency. DEP's role as Statewide monitoring coordinator will
               improve utilization of resources, reduce monitoring overlap
               and increase sharing of water quality data. During 1993,
               DEP held six regional meetings with agencies and
               organizations that perform monitoring in Florida. Those
               meetings assisted DEP in inventorying the extent and type of
               work performed in Florida. The regional meetings culminated
               in a monitoring workshop held.in July 1993. A short course
               on water quality monitoring principles was presentedby
               staff from Colorado State University at that workshop.

               The July workshop provided the first step in forming a
               collaborative and cooperative interagency network which
               identified DEP as lead agency. From the workshop, DEP's
               SWAMP Program identified four major areas where interagency
               cooperation was needed. Interagency committees were formed
               to address: 1. Indices and Assessment Techniques; 2.
               Sampling Site Selection, Frequency of Sampling and Water
               Flow Measurement; 3. Sampling Variables and Quality




                                            26









             Assurance; and 4. Data Management and Reporting. Committees
             are at different stages of development.

             An important function of DEP as Statewide monitoring
             coordinator has been the compilation of information about
             other agencies's monitoring programs. A list of those
             programs is contained in Table 6. Included with that list
             are the general parameter groups sampled and the frequency
             of monitoring.

             Fish Tissue, Sediment, and Shellfish Monitoring Programs

             Mercury contamination in fish has been a key issue in this
             State for the past decade. An extensive inventory and
             assessment program has been developed to address the issue.
             At present DEP, in conjunction with the Florida Game and
             Fresh Water Fish Commission (GFWFC), has a program in place
             to inventory major waterbodies in the State for mercury
             contamination. Additional work is proceeding in the marine
             environment. A complete discussion of the mercury issue in
             Florida is contained in Chapter Seven: Public Health/
             Aquatic Life Concerns.

             The DEP Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section has
             oversight over the classification and management of
             shellfish harvesting areas. They have five regional field
             offices in the State. These offices are responsible for the
             monitoring of 1,237 bacteriological stations located in 57
             harvesting areas in the State's coastal and estuarine
             waters. Analysis of physical, chemical, and bacteriological
             data determines if a shellfish area or portion there of
             meets National Shellfish Sanitation Program and State water
             quality standards. Complete details of the shellfish
             assessment program are contained in Chapter Seven: Public
             Health/Aquatic Life Concerns.

             Ouality Assurance/Ouality Control


             The EPA established specific requirements for the
             development of quality assurance plans for its contractors
             as well as grantees. All Quality Assurance Project Plans
             must address 16 specific areas as outlined in EPA document
             QAMS-005/80, Interim Guidelines and Specifications for
             Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans. In Florida, DEP
             administers the in-State Quality Assurance Program and has a
             Quality Assurance Program Plan approved by EPA Region IV.




                                           27













                                .1
                 Table G. Other Agencies in Florida That PerformMonitoring. Numbers Listed with
                 Parameter Groups Represent Number of Sampling Events,per Year.



                                                                                PARAMETER GROUP
                                            Number of     Field Nutr     Clar   Bact   Phyto Oxdem    Major   Metals Tide/Flow
                                            Stations                                                    Ions


                 POLK COUNTY                     136        2,     2     2
                 LRLMD                           4          2      2     2,
                 ALACHUA CO-                     18         6      6     6        6        6    6       6
                 BREVARD CO.                     5.2        6      6     6        6             6       6
                 BROWARD CO.                     52         4      4     4        4             4
                 CORPS OF ENGINEERS              40         6      6     6        6        6            6
                 COLLIER CO. PCD                 27         4      4     4                 4
                 CY CLEARWATER                   52         12     12,   12       12       12   12
                 CY JACKSONVILLE                 88         4      4     4        4        4
                 CY ORLANDO                      81         4      4     4        4        4
                 CY TAMPA                        13                12             12
                 CY. LAKELAND                    16         4      4     4        4        4
                 DADE CO.                        51         4      4              4             4       4         4
                 CY DAYTONA                      10         2      2              2             2
                 DEP SHELLFISH                   1,237      12           12       12                                       12
                 DUVAL@CO.                       14         4      4     4        4
                 GFWFC                           144        4      4     4                              4
                 HILLSBOROUGH  CO.               85         12     12    12       12       12,  12      12
           N)    JACKSONVILLE  DPU               57         4      4     4        4        4
           03    KENNEDY SPACE CENTER            11         6      6     6        6             6       6
                 LAKE CO.                        42         4      4                       4    4
                 LOX.R. ECD                      33         4      4     4        4             4
                 MANATEE CO.                     36         12     12
                 METRO DADE                      90         12     12    12       12       12
                 MARINE RESOURCE COUNCIL         78         52           52
                 ORANGE CO.                      63         6      6     6        6             6       6
                 REEDY CREEK DISTRICT            27         4      4              4
                 SARASOTA CO.                    101        4      4     4                 4
                 SEMINOLE CO.                    58         6      6     6        6             6       6
                 SFWMD                           370        4      4     4                              4
                 SJRWMD                          212        6      6     6        6             6       6
                 SRWMD                           36         12     12    12                             12
                 SWFWMD                          21         4      4     4                      4       4
                 U. F. LAKEWATCH                 415        12     12    12                12
                 U.S.G.S.                        ill        6      6     6        6        6    6       6
                 VOLUSTA CO                      88         12     12    12       12       12
                 MYAKKA RIVER                    10         52     .52   52
                 KINGS BAY LAKEWATCH             20         12     12    12                12
                 CHARLOTTE HARBOR SWIM           14         12     12    12
                                                 4,017    < ---- Total stations known to   be in Statewide programs, other then SWAMP.

                 DEFINITIONS: Field: In-Situ    measurements (DO, temp, pH, cond.)     Nutr: Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus)
                 Clar: Water Clarity,  Secchi Depth         Bact: Bacteriology         Phyto: Phytoplankton, chlorophyll
                 Oxdem: Oxygen Demand   (BOD, COD)         Major Ions: can include Ca, Mg, Na, K, Cl, SO,


                                                         Aw                     M m dw me M                                   aw      M









             Specific program authority has been granted to DEP's Quality
             Assurance Section, through portions of Chapters 373 and 403,
             Florida Statutes (F.S.). It is the responsibility of DEP to
             define how chemical and biological data are determined to be
             scientifically sound, and to develop quality assurance
             procedures. Specific quality assurance and quality control
             requirements are outlined in Chapter 17-160, F.A.C. This
             rule stipulates that solid waste, hazardous waste, and water
             related monitoring projects be conducted under a specified
             category of Department Quality Assurance. Some of these
             categories require the completion and approval of a Quality
             Assurance Plan. A summary of quality assurance/quality
             control (QA/QC) procedures is provided in the following
             paragraphs.

             Quality assurance plans are submitted to DEP as a means of
             documenting measurement methods and sampling activities and
             protocols used to assess the quality of data obtained from
             those activities. Different types of monitoring require
             different plans. The general categories of plans are
             Comprehensive Quality Assurance Plans, Quality Assurance
             Project Plans and Research Quality Assurance Plans. The
             specific requirements for each type of plan are documented
             in DEP Publications DER-QA-001/90 and DER-QA-001/90, DER
             Manual for Preparing Quality Assurance  Plans.

             A Comprehensive Quality Assurance Plan describes all
             sampling and analysis capabilities of a public or private
             organization which are pertinent to DEP rules. This type of
             plan is required if work to be performed is to be conducted
             by a consultant hired for a DEP program that requires the
             plan, or a specific project plan is required. The plan must
             be approved by DEP's Quality Assurance Section. Once
             approval has been obtained, it becomes a reference document
             for project specific plans.

             A Quality Assurance Project Plan is written for a specific
             project. These plans are required for: 1. enforcement and
             compliance cases which require sampling and analysis;
             2. direct contracts to private and public organizations; 3.
             studies directed by the Surface Water Improvement and
             Management Act; 4. compliance monitoring; 5. wetland
             resource permits; 6. industrial and power plant pre-permit
             studies; and 7. contamination/risk assessment studies. The
             plan outlines the quality assurance criteria, sampling and
             analysis methods, and quality control measures taken to meet




                                           29









               the stated project data quality objectives. The plan must
               be approved by DEP before monitoring can proceed.

               A Research Quality Assurance Plan is required of projects
               for which the stated intent of the work is experimental and
               the methods are in development and not currently approved.
               This plan is applicable to all DEP contract research grants,
               method development studies or other research oriented.
               studies.


               DEP has written a standard operating procedure manual: DER-
               QA-001/92, Department of Environmental Regulation Standard
               Operating Procedures for Laboratory Operations and Sample
               Collection Activities. This document details the mariner in
               which samples are collected and analyzed at DEP. Public and
               private organizations and agencies can adopt the DEP
               standard operating procedure as part of their quality
               assurance procedures instead of producing their own.

               Data Management

               DEP has the authority to designate a central repository for
               State water quality data as identified in Paragraph
               373.026(2) F.S. DEP uses EPA's STORET database to store its
               surface water quality data. The Department has a full time
               staff position, STORET Coordinator, in Tallahassee dedicated
               to coordinating STORET data entry activities and providing
               technical assistance to STORET users. Additionally -the six
               original DER District offices each has an individual on
               staff who manages that District's data entry and storage
               into STORET and can provide technical assistance to local
               programs. DEP has provided training funds to the STORET
               Coordinator for the sole purpose of sponsoring workshops to
               teach other agencies' staff how to use STORET. The revised
               State Water Policy Rule, Chapter 17-40, F.A.C. will require
               that all public agencies put their data into STORET. The
               rule was approved by the Environment Regulation Commission
               in December 1993, but a rule challenge was made which
               prevented its implementation.

               To assist in the acquisition of historical data, Clean Water
               Act Section 205(j)(1) funds were used to develop COrLtracts
               with four of the five water management districts and Rookery
               Bay Estuarine Research Reserve. The contracts provided
               resources for each of these agencies to develop in-house
               computer protocols to upload both recent and historical data
               to STORET. Additionally, the St. Johns River Water



                                            30









             Management District (SJRWMD), under contract to DEP,
             performs data entry and upload for local programs.

             Volunteer Monitoring


             There are four active volunteer monitoring groups. These
             are Lakewatch/Baywatch, Florida Bream Fisherman's
             Association, the Indian River Marine Resource Council, and
             Florida Park Service Myakka Wild and Scenic River. Table 6
             contains information about sampling frequency and parameters
             for these programs.

             Each volunteer group has a different monitoring strategy.
             Lakewatch is coordinated through the University of Florida
             Center for Aquatic Plants. This program monitors 391
             Florida lakes. The program has recently become involved
             with monitoring of the Crystal River/Kings Bay system. The
             Bream Fisherman's Association performs monitoring for DEP in
             northwest Florida at 78 stations. Data obtained from the
             Bream Fisherman are uploaded to STORET and have been used
             for assessment for this 305(b) report. The Indian River
             Marine Resource Council utilizes residents living along the
             Indian River Lagoon to take in-situ measurements of lagoon
             chemistry. Since 1990, the Florida Park Service in
             conjunction with Mote Marine Lab, has operated a citizens'
             monitoring program that covers ten sites on the upper Myakka
             River. This program was initiated in response to citizen
             concerns over water quality and the discontinuance of
             Sarasota County's monitoring program.

             Fifth Year Inspection Program


             Facility operating permits are issued typically for a period
             of five years. The Fifth Year Inspection Program (FYI) was
             developed as a compliance strategy to assess the impacts of
             surface water dischargers on the aquatic environments to
             which they discharge. It provides the basis for permit
             approval, denial, or modification. Water quality and
             biology of the receiving water and effluent are examined.
             The biota are an indicator of cumulative effects of the
             discharge, while the chemistry readily documents violations
             of permit conditions or State water quality criteria. Both
             an upstream control station and below discharge impact
             station are sampled for rivers and streams. In lakes and
             estuaries, the same general principle applies with the
             addition of a second impact station because the direction of
             flow is tidal or not well defined. Representative


                                          31









               parameters include specific permit parameters and heavy
               metals, base-neutral acids, cations, nutrients and algal
               growth potential, total and fecal coliform bacteria,
               toxicity bioassays, habitat assessment, macroinvertebrates,
               periphyton, and phytoplankton.

               intensive Surveys


               In addition to the ambient monitoring and fifth year
               inspection programs, DEP also conducts intensive sur--@,eys.
               These are designed to collect basic data for use in
               developing wasteload allocations. The surveys invol,,re
               intensive sampling on relatively small areas within a basin.
               Data collected in these surveys place heavy emphasis on
               parameters used in the development of a wasteload
               allocation, including ambient and effluent data as Well as
               sufficient flow and/or tidal information to allow modeling
               of the waterbody. Copies of all intensive survey reports
               are provided to EPA Region IV.

               Applied Marine Research Programs

               DtPls Florida Marine Research Institute is charged by
               Paragraph 370.02(2)(b), F.S., with the responsibility   to
               conduct the research necessary to develop and interpret
               information for marine resource managers. Research at the
               Institute encompasses six broad interrelated program areas.
               These are marine fisheries, marine ecologyj protected
               species, marine resources enhancement, coastal production,
               and coastal and marine resource assessment.


               Marine fisheries encompasses research in the areas of
               critical-fisheries monitoring, life history studied, and
               stock assessment. Critical-fisheries monitoring is designed
               to- 1. determine abundance and recruitment of juvenile and
               subadult fish and invertebrates; 2. determine population
               abundance, migration, and dispersal of selected stock
               species; 3. obtain recreational and commercial'fisheries
               catch-and-effort data by species, gear, area, effort., and
               user; and 4. obtain the biostatistical information on
               recreational and commercial fishes needed to make acre-based
               stock assessments. Life history studies are concerned with
               identifying developmental stages of selected fish arid
               invertebrates, and determining their spawning and nursery
               areas, age at reproduction and entry into the fishery, and
               feeding strategies. Stock assessment studies are used to
               develop assessment techniques and ecosystem models. Models



                                             32









             are important tools used for supporting management
             decisions.


             The area of marine ecology encompasses ecological monitoring
             and marine animal and plant-health studies. The ecological
             monitoring program has three components: 1. inventories and
             surveys of the distribution of organisms; 2. assessments of
             natural and anthropogenic influences on habitat and marine
             communities; and 3. programs to monitor algal blooms in
             estuarine and nearshore waters. Animal and plant-health
             studies focus on providing documentation and reference
             samples of disease events. Additionally, they are useful in
             determining the distribution and levels of contaminants in
             marine organisms and the environment.

             Marine mammal and sea turtle studies comprise the protected
             species program. Research in this area includes determining
             relative abundance, distribution, migration patterns, and
             causes of mortality.

             Marine resources enhancement encompasses fish and
             invertebrate stock-enhancement studies and habitat-
             characterization and enhancement studies. Studies are
             directed towards techniques to artificially raise selected
             species and assess the cost of stocking estuarine watersz
             Habitat enhancement projects are directed toward documenting
             habitat losses and supplying coastal vegetation for
             restoration.


             Coastal production and marine resource assessment work is
             comprised of coastal-hydrography and trophic-dynamics
             studies and resource assessment. Studies are directed to
             the establishment of resource databases through the use of
             GIS and remote sensing. Databases provide information for
             an ecosystem approach to resource assessment and the
             modeling of coastal processes and production.

             Surface Water Improvement and Manacrement Act


             The Florida Legislature in 1987 passed the Surface Water
             Improvement and Management Act (SWIM), Sections 373.451 -
             373.4595, F.S. The bill directed the State to preserve or
             restore priority waterbodies by the development of
             management and restoration plans. Program oversight,
             authority, and funds are provided through DEP with
             delegation to the five water management districts for the
             selection of priority waters and development of plans



                                          33









               (Chapter 17-43, F.A.C.). Table 7 contains a list of
               approved SWIM priority waters. Those waterbodies in  bold
               have approved SWIM plans and programs have been started by
               the water management districts. Table 8 provides a summary
               of work being performed under SWIM.

               The Legislation that created SWIM required that the plans
               developed contain the following types of information: 1. a
               description of the waterbody; 2. list of governmental
               entities that have jurisdiction over it; 3. a description of
               land uses; 4. list of point and nonpoint source discharges;
               5. strategies for restoration; 6. list of research or
               feasibility studies needed to support restoration
               strategies; 7. a schedule for restoration activities; and
               8. an estimate of budget. Additionally, DEP requires that
               the plans address interagency coordination and environmental
               education.


               Other Monitoring Programs


               There are several other programs that sometimes require
               surface water monitoring. Special Project Monitoring
               includes oversight or follow-up of enforcement cases.
               Response Operating Monitoring is directed toward more
               immediate or demanding situations such as environmental or
               public health threats and complaint investigations. Water
               management district ambient monitoring networks and DEP
               compliance monitoring may require surface water sampling,
               biomonitoring and bioassessment.






















                                            34









                 Table 7. Priority Waters Designated by Water Management
                 Districts for Surface Water Improvement and Management
                 (SWIM) Plans.



                 SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WMD                ST. JOHNS RIVER WMD


                  1.  Tampa Bay                       *1. Indian River Lagoon (middle
                  2.  Rainbow River                        upper sections)
                  3.  Banana Lake                      2.  Lower St. Johns River
                  4.  Crystal River/Kings Bay          3.  Lake Apopka
                  5.  Lake Panasoffkee                 4.  Upper Oklawaha River
                  6.  Charlotte Harbor                 5.  Middle St. Johns River
                  7.  Lake Tarpon                      6.  Lake George Basin
                  8.  Lake Thonotosassa                7.  Halifax River
                  9.  Winter Haven Chain of Lakes      8.  Nassau River
                                                       9.  St. Mary's River
                 SOUTH FLORIDA WMD                    10. Palatlakaha River
                 *1. Lake Okeechobee/Kissimmee        11. Lower Oklawaha River
                      River                           12. St. Augustine
                 *2. Biscayne Bay                     13. Florida Ridge
                 *3. Indian River Lagoon              14. Wekiva River
                 *4. Everglades/East Everglades       15. Orange Creek
                      /Everglades Holey Land          16. Upper St. Johns River Basin
                      Rotenberger
                  5. Upper Kissimmee Chain of
                       Lakes                          NORTHWEST FLORIDA WMD
                  6. Florida Keys                      1.  Apalachicola River
                                                       2.  Apalachicola Bay/St. George
                                                             Sound
                 SUWANNEE RIVER WMD                    3.  Lake Jackson
                  1.  Suwannee River                   4.  Deer Point Lake
                  2.  Santa Fe River                   5.  Pensacola Bay
                  3.  Coastal River /
                        (Steinhatchee River)
                  4.  Alligator Lake
                  5.  Aucilla River
                  6.  Waccasassa River


                 *Named in SWIM statute as priority waterbodies.
                 Bold-SWIM plan is approved.



















                                                      35












              Table 8. Summary of Work Performed by SWIM Projects.

              South Florida Water Management District


              Lake Okeechobee Protection and Restoration: $15.98 million
              1.  Identifying impacts of nutrient loads and lake stage management on the lake's living
                    resources and allowing completion of the Lake Okeechobee Ecosystem Study.
              2.  Improving the accuracy of pollution load reduction estimates and meeting target nutrient
                    loading criteria required by the SWIM Act and State Water Policy.
              3.  Restoring wetlands and controlling exotic plants.
              4.  Enforcing State water quality standards at inflow structures and other tributary inflows.
              5.  Completing development of and implementing Best Management Practices to protect water quality.
              6.  Reviewing the lake's water level regulation schedule.

              Florida Everglades Protection and Restoration: $300,000
              1.  Controlling exotic plants and stormwater runoff.
              2.  Addressing mercury contamination.
              3.  Implementing structural and operational changes to improve freshwater flow regimes.
              4.  Monitoring of water quality and water level.
              5.  Increasing support for Everglades protection through public education.
         a%   Indian River Lagoon (southerly part) Protection and Restoration: $3.65 million
              1.  Managing stormwater discharges in watersheds adjacent to the Lagoon.
              2.  Restoring nursery fisheries habitat in mosquito control impoundments.
              3.  Developing pollution load reduction goals for basin management.
              4.  Reviewing effectiveness of water quality standards for seagrass protection and water quality
                    monitoring.
              5.  Restoring biological productivity in the St. Lucie Estuary by control of sediments.
              6.  Assessing septic tank impacts on the lagoon.
              7.  Conducting public education and community involvement programs.

              Biscayne Bay Protection and Restoration: $15 million
              1.  Restoring sheetflow to mangrove wetlands.
              2.  Eliminating sewage sources to stormdrains and retrofiting of stormwater treatment systems.
              3.  Monitoring water and sediment quality and identifying priority stormwater discharge problems.
              4.  Implementing agricultural runoff Best Management Practices.
              5.  Protecting seagrasses and other submerge"' habitat.
              6.  Developing water quality and hydrological models to assist in formulating resource management
                    actions.
              7.  Conducting public education programs.





                 M    m      m             M     -=     M












               Table 8. (Continued).

               Southwest Florida Water Management District


               Tampa Bay Protection and Restoration: $19.6 million
               1.  Restoring wetland and seagrass habitats.
               2.  Removing nonpoint sources of pollution and setting goals for pollution load limits.
               3.  Protecting freshwater flows to Bay.
               4.  Monitoring water quality and habitat.
               5.  Conducting public education.
               6.  Supporting overall bay management in combination with the TBRPC Agency on Bay Management and Tampa Bay
                     National Estuary Program.

               Lake Thonotosassa Protection and Restoration: $2.25 million
               1. Controlling both point and nonpoint sources of nutrient inputs.
               2. Restoring wetland habitat.
               3.  Protecting the quality of the drinking water supply for the City of Tampa.
               4.  Enhancing recreational fisheries of Hillsborough County's largest lake.

               Crystal River Protection and Restoration: $970,000
               1. Controlling excess nutrient inputs.
               2. Improving water quality with stormwater controls and assessing septic tank pollution
                     sources.
               3. Protecting manatees.

               Charlotte Harbor Protection and Restoration: $515,000
               1. Removing nonpoint sources of pollution and setting goals for pollution load limits.
               2. Protecting freshwater flows to Harbor.
               3. Water quality monitoring.
               4. maintaining public awareness and support for Harbor protection efforts supporting overall
                     Harbor management in combination with local governments within the watershed.

               Banana Lake Protection and Restoration: $3.77 million
               1. Completing follow-up protection of watershed and tributary water quality to safeguard SWIM and local
                   government resources spent restoring the Lake.













              Table 8. (Continued).

              St. Johns River-Water Management District


              Indian River Lagoon Protection and Restoration:, $10.3 million.
              1.  Restoring wetland.and seagrass habitats.
              2.  Establishing pollution load limits and removing nonpoint sources of pollution..
              3.  Managing freshwater flows to Lagoon.
              4.  Monitoring water quality to evaluate effectiveness of controls and identify priority new
                    protection measures.
              5.. Conducting public education to increase.awareness and support for Lagoon protection efforts.
              6.  Implementing the Indian River-Lagoon National Estuary Program.
              7.  Maintaining intergovernmental working relationships, and oversight needed to protect the estuarine
                    system.

              Lower St. Johns River Protection and Restoration: $500,00.0
              1. Managing agricultural runoff.
              2. Establishing pollution load limits.
              3. Monitoring water quality to evaluate effectiveness of controls and identify priority new
                    protection measures.
              4. Conducting public education to increase awareness and support, for Lagoon protection efforts.
         CO
              Lake Apopka Protection and Restoration: $20 million
              1. Enforcing agricultural discharge limits to the Lake.
              2. Establishing pollution load limits.
              3. Implementing large scale marsh restoration project.
              4. Conducting wetland demonstration project.

              Upper Oklawaha River Basin Protection and Restoration: $1 million plus
              1.  Restoring the historic Oklawaha River and flood plain wetlands at Sunnyhill farm would cease
                    after completion of Phase 1.
              2.  Establishing pollution load reduction targets.
              3.  Enforcing local go"Vernment regulatory programs.
              4.  Restoration projects on the Oklawaha River would not be initiated for lands.already purchased for
                    that purpose.
              5.  Upper Oklawaha Basin Board activities; this organization is an effective
                    coordination point and clearinghouse for local government _and WM-n participation.












              Table 8. (Continued).

              Northwest Florida water management District


              Apalachicola River and Bay Protection and Restoration: $1.2 million
              1. Participant in Florida's initiative with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alabama, and
                    Georgia in negotiations over Georgia's request for additional water withdrawals. SWIM supports
                    analyses of resource protection needs and provides other information and coordination for
                    protecting the State's water rights.
              2. Freshwater needs study of the bay required by Florida Legislature.

              Lake Jackson Protection and Restoration: $3.92 million
              1. Cooperative local, State, and federal regional stormwater retrofit activities.
              2. Sediment cleanup and stormwater management.
              3. Wetland restoration and protection.

              Suwannee River Water Management District


              Suwannee River Protection and Restoration: $120,000
         U)   1.  Maintaining water quality and biological monitoring networks.
              2.  Establishing pollution load limits.
              3.  Enhancement of local comprehensive plans to protect the Suwannee River basin.
              4.  Staffing for the Suwannee River Coordinating Committee.
              5.  Implementation of the Suwannee River Task Force Recommendations.
              6.  Interagency coordination with Soil Conservation Service and the Department of Environmental
                    Protection for water quality protection.
              7.  Previous investment of SWIM funds for monitoring and continuance of the River monitoring program.

              The Suwannee River Water Management District has five other SWIM plans in effect. SWIM funds assist in
              implementing a water quality and biological monitoring network, development of waterbody pollution load
              reduction goals, wetland restoration, erosion control, analysis of land cover, and environmental
              education.









               Chapter Two: Assessment Methodology and Summary Data

               Assessment Methodolo


               For the 1994 reporting cycle, a new waterbody delineation
               technique was introduced. Previous 305(b) reports were
               based on an assessment of 1,600 REACHES. These were
               approximately 5 mile lengths of river or 5 square mile
               sections of estuaries or lakes. only major waterbodies were
               assessed due to the resolution limitations imposed by the
               EPA RF2 REACH file. EPA recently introduced an updated
               REACH file, RF3, and Florida has utilized this improved
               mapping capability along with a USGS defined watershed
               delineation technique. The result is that Florida now
               utilizes 4,400 watersheds for assessment rather than 1,600
               REACHES. The USGS spent four years identifying Florida's
               watershed boundaries on USGS topographic maps and dicritizing
               the linework with ARC/Info. The USGS technique delineated
               approximately 5 square mile watersheds. Unfortunately,
               South Florida (subregion 0309) was not included in tile
               USGS's watershed delineation. Watersheds for this area were
               adapted from delineation work performed by the South Florida
               Water Management District. They are much coarser in
               resolution with the result that each watershed represents
               about 50 rather than 5 square miles. With the addition of
               South Florida's watersheds, waterbody coverage across
               Florida is complete. Figure 1 (page 15) compares the change
               in assessed miles for different waterbody types between the
               1992 and 1994 305(b) reports.

               New terminology is being introduced with the 1994
               assessment. The term REACH is no longer used, but is
               substituted with waterbody. In general, for streams,   each
               watershed encompasses what was a single stream REACH. Thus
               the terms REACH and watershed refer to close to identically
               the same stretch of stream. Some change has occurred for
               the lake and estuary REACHES. In general the old REACH
               structure was retained. However, some estuarine areas were
               subdivided based on bridge crossings (e.g. the;Indian River
               Lagoon near Cape Kennedy).

              .The estimation of assessed mileages and areas of lakes and
               estuaries was based on ARC/Info analysis. Stream mileages
               were based on ARC/Info length analysis of EPA's RF3 traces
               Errors were introduced into the estimation for large! rivers,
               such as Apalachicola and St. Johns, whose REACHES were
               represented as left and right banks. Total mileages of


                                            40









              these waterbodies were erroneously doubled. When a mileage
              was not obtainable for a stream, a length of 5 miles was
              assigned. Lake and estuary areas were measured utilizing
              GIS techniques in ARCView with the EPA RF3 file. Lakes and
              estuaries with unknown areas were assigned areas of 1 square
              mile and 5 square miles, respectively.

              The status of Florida's surface waters was assessed by
              analyzing available, recent (1970-1993) STORET water quality
              data through the use of a DEP stream Water Quality Index, a
              DEP lake/estuary Trophic State Index and screening level
              exceedances (see 305(b) Technical Appendix Report for a
              detailed description of indices and discussion of assessment
              technique). To facilitate the analysis, STORET water
              quality sites were assigned to their respective Florida
              waterbody. Water quality data from approximately 4,000
              STORET stations representing 1,500 out of 4,440 watersheds
              were used to calculate water quality indices.

              To su pplement the quantitative STORET water quality
              information, a qualitative Nonpoint Source Water Quality
              Assessment (NPS) Survey questionnaire was sent, in 1994, to
              city, state, and federal agencies who collect surface water
              quality data. The questionnaire requested information on
              nonpoint sources of pollution, resulting pollution problems,
              and exact problem locations (identified on county maps).
              one hundred and fifty agencies responded and identified
              potential problems in 940 additional waterbodies. In total
              2,440 waterbodies were assessed. A more complete
              description of the NPS assessment is contained in
              Appendix A.

              After the water quality determinations were established for
              each waterbody (based on the index values and results in the
              NPS survey), professional judgment was used to determine if
              the assessment was correct. Waterbody classifications were
              modified, if necessary, based on information from District
              personnel or by the findings of special water quality
              reports, DEP bioassessments, or DEP wasteload allocation
              studies. Watersheds for which there was STORET data
              collected during the last five years (1989-1993) were
              classified as monitored. When NPS information and older
              STORET data (before 1989) were used the classification was
              changed to evaluated. When insufficient STORET data existed
              for the index classification to be reliable and no
              information was available from the qualitative NPS survey,
              the classification was changed to unknown.



                                           41









               EPA has revised its criteria for determining the status of
               waters as documented in Appendix B of the 1994 305(b)
               guidelines. Table 9 is a summary of EPA's suggestions for
               making use support determinations. It identifies different
               assessment techniques (biological assessments, toxicant
               exceedances, fishing bans, evaluative methods, etc..) and the
               number of watersheds which utilized each assessment
               technique.

               when possible, causes and sources of nonsupport of use for
               watersheds were identified. Tables containing areas and
               mileages of nonsupport for each cause and source are
               included by waterbody type in the Chapters on Rivers and
               Streams, Lakes, and Estuary and Coastal Water Quality
               Assessment. Those tables identify the source of datil;
               whether it was from the Nonpoint Source Assessment or
               STORET. An effort was made to integrate information from
               the NPS assessment into the determination of causes and
               sources of nonsupport, Difficulties were encountered with
               this approach for watersheds which were identified in the
               NPS assessment as fair, because the area associated with a
               specific cause of nonsupport was not identified. Watersheds
               ranked as fair represented 13% of the assessed watersheds.
               For the NPS data, total area/mileages affected could only be
               determined for watersheds characterized as poor.

               Water Quality Summary

               The percentages in the following summary tables and figures
               are based on the mileage of waterbodies for which there is a
               Florida waterbody designation. Agencies that collect water
               quality data in Florida and store the information in STORET
               are identified in Figure 3. DEP collected 26% of the data
               followed by the USGS, 16-*., GFWFC, 916, Hillsborough County
               Environmental Protection Commission, 6%, and Florida water
               management districts and other state and county agencies,
               4201.


               Figure 4 identifies and compares the percent of sampled area
               of Florida surface waters either monitored, evaluated, or
               unknown. Estuaries have the largest percentage of monitored
               areas and rivers the lowest. A much larger percentage of
               rivers areas did not have any type of data associated with
               them when compared to lakes and estuaries.






                                              42







                   Table 9. Use Support Determinations for 1994 305(b). Report.




                                                                                                                             Used      Number of
                                                                  Supports         Partial             Does Not              For       Watersheds Comments
                                                                                   Support             support               1994      Assessed
                   Assessment of Use Support
                   All Uses                                                                                                                            Use not supported if no
                      Evaluate point or nonpoint                  none             partial             not.support           yes        940              monitoring data.
                        source that could interfere.
                   Aquatic Life                                                                        definite              yes          69           Macroinvertebrate     diversity.
                      Biological assessment and                   none             some
                        modification of community.
                   conventional                                                                                                                        Indices and exceedances of
                      Pollutant exceeds criteria.                 0-10%.           11-25%-             26-100%               yes       1515              screening levels rather
                                                                                                                                                            than % violations.

                      Lakes- DO, pH, temperature,                 ----             ----                ----                  yes        356            Trophic State Index, but also
                        exotic species, siltation.                                                                                                       listed parameters

                      Toxics-violation of acute or                none             ----                violation             yes        109            Evaluate STORET metals data
                        chronic toxicity in last 3        yrs.                                                                                           for last 3 years.
                   Drinking Water                                                                                                                      Not used.
                      Drinking water criteria.                    mean<crit.       ----                mean>crit.            no           0
                      Drinking water supply                       none             one 30 day          >30 days of           no           0            No closures
                        closures or advisories.                                    advisory            advisories

                   Fish/shellfish Consumption
                      Advisories/bans in effect.                  none             restrict            no consumption        yes          0            Did not effect overall use
                                                                                   consumption                                                           support if other conditions
                                                                                                                                                          indicate use support.
                   Recreation Use                                                                                                                      Not used.
                      Bathing area closures.                      none             one week            >one week             no           0
                      Lakes-algal blooms, turbidity,              ----             ----                ----                  yes        356            Evaluated with Trophic
                                                                                                                                                         state Index.
                        siltation, macrophytes,
                            aesthetics.

                                                                  ----             ----                ----                  yes        356            Evaluted with Trophic
                      Lakes-tropic status.                                                                                                               state Index.

                      Pathogens-exceedance      of                0-10%,           11-25%-             26-100W               yes        983            Used exceedances of medians
                                                                                                                                                         rather than %- violations.
                        fecal coliform criteria.










                                 OTHERS                                      DEP
                                    25%                                      26%









                                                               - -----------


                    Hillsborough Co
                          6%




                                                            ............... . . . . . . . .


                                                              ..........
                                                                                USGS
                                                                                 16%6
                                                                .... ...... ....

                                                              ...............
                                       'WMD                ... ..... ........ ....... ...
                                        18%                G.. ame & Fish
                                                               9%



              Figure 3. Percentage of Assessed Water Quality Data Collected by Various Florida
              Agencies. WMD Refers to Water Management Districts, Game & Fish to the GFWFC, and
              Others Includes County, Local, and Federal Agencies and Governments.
                                        WD






















                                                                      77


                                        80
                                                                                                                                          E3 MONITORED


                                                                                                                                         0 EVALUATED
                                        70-1-11
                                                                                                                       60

                                                                                                                                         0 U N KNOWN


                                                                     ............
                                        60-Z

                                                                                         47


                                  Uj
                                        50-Z
                                                                                                        41





                                                                        .......                    ...
                                        40-
                                                                        .......                          ....
                                  LL
                                                                        ......                          .......
                                                                        .......                          ......
                                  0



                                        30 -

                                  a.

                                                         14
                                        20-Z                                                          . .......
                                                                                                         .....            32
                                                                                                 .........  ......

                                                                                                                                      8


                                                                        .......                       . .....
                                                                        .......                         .....
                                        10-Z                            ......

                                                                                                   ......  .......



                                                                                                                                           IBM
                                                             9
                                         0
                                                       RIVERS                          LAKES                       ESTUARIES


                                Figure 4. Comparison by Waterbody Type of Different
                                Assessment              Methodologies.
                                              Y9

                                                                                               45









               Figure 5 compares support of designated use as a percentage
               of assessed miles/area by waterbody type. Florida lakes
               have a much lower percentage of waterbodies meeting their
               use than rivers or estuaries (42% of lakes meet their use
               versus 65% and 63% for rivers and estuaries, respectively).
               This is due to the fact that Florida's two largest lakes
               (Lake Okeechobee and Lake George) account for almost half of
               the assessed lake surface area and these waterbodies only
               partially meet their designated use. On average, 64%- of
               river miles and estuarine areas fully support their
               designated use. More complete details of causes and sources
               of nonsupport are given in Chapters on Rivers and Streams,
               Lakes, and Estuary and Coastal Water Quality AsseSSME!nt.

               Trend Analysis


               Water-quality trend analysis was performed on 12 water
               quality parameters, plus the overall stream Water Quality
               Index (WQI) and the Trophic State Index (TSI), for 467
               waterbodies. This accounts for only about one-tenth of the
               total number@of waterbodies. The time frame for the
               analysis is from 1984-1993. To identify trends, a non-
              .parametric correlation analysis (Spearman's Ranked
               Correlation) was used to analyze the ten year trend of the
               annual STORET station parameter and index medians for each
               waterbody. The number of stations analyzed for each
               waterbody varied. A more complete description of the
               methodology is contained in the Technical Appendix.

               Stream trend analysis utilized the trend information from
               eight water quality parameters. These were the WQI,
               bacteria, turbidity, suspended solids, BOD, dissolved
               oxygen, Secchi depth, nitrogen, and phosphorus. Lake and
               estuary trend analysis focused on four trophic state
               parameters. These were chlorophyll, Secchi depth, nitrogen,
               phosphorus, and the TSI.

               The overall trend of each waterbody was determined by
               comparing the number of improving water quality parameters
               to the number of degrading water quality parameters. Some
               waterbodies showed strong trends. For example, the Wekiva
               River had five water quality parameters and the Water
               Quality Index indicating a degrading trend. Overall trend
               designation for this waterbody was worse. Lake Tohopekaliga
               had four water quality parameters in addition to the Trophic
               State Index indicating improved water quality. Overall




                                            46











                                                        70-,/             65

                                                                                                                                                        63


                                                                                                                                                                            BYES


                                                        60-                                                                                                                 0 PARTIAL


                                                                                                                                                                            El NO



                                                        50-


                                                                                                                  42






                                                        40-
                                                                                                                    ....... ...... ...




                                           U-
                                           0                                                                                                              ..... ..... . . . . .
                                           I--
                                           z                                                                         39
                                           w            30-
                                           L)
                                           W
                                           w
                                           0-
                                                                                                                                                           33

                                                                                                                                  19


                                                        20-
                                                                              27                                                 ...
                                                                                                                           ..........

                                                                                                                           ..........
                                                                                                                           .......... .......
                                                                                                                           .......... ......
                                                                                                                           ......I.... .......
                                                                                                                           .......... .......


                                                                                                                               ...... ......
                                                                                                                           ..................

                                                                                                                           ...............



                                                        10-
                                                                                                                                                                         4








                                                        0
                                                                        RIVERS                                   LAKES                           ESTUARIES


                                     Figure S. Support                                  of Designated                        Use        of Florida Waterbodies
                                    by Waterbody Type.


                                                                                                                  47








                   trend classification was better. If a waterbody displayed
                   no trends or only one parameter showed a trend., the overall
                   trend was classified as no change. Because of nonSyStematic
                   monitoring data and the simplicity of the trend analysis
                   technique, only fairly drastic changes in water quality are
                   detected. The analysis is not sensitive to subtle changes
                   as would be expected from nonpoint source impacts.

                   Figures 6 and 7 display a Statewide summary of' the.water
                   quality trend analysis for Florida's rivers, lakes and
                   estuaries. Table 10 lists types of waterbodies and trends
                   observed as percent changes in number of waterbodies. The
                   results from these figures and the table indicate that the
                   majority of Florida's waterbodies are maintaining their
                   water quality. Waterbodies classified as better or
                   improving generally outnumber worse or degrading ones by a 5
                   to 1 margin.


                   Table 10. Trend Analysis for 1984-1993 STORET Datia.



                                        Percent of Waterbodies
                   Water Quality      River     Lake    Estuary      Total          Percent
                       Trend                                         Number of      of Total
                                                                   Waterbodies      Number



                   Better                24       23       26          113             24
                   No Change             72       72       68          333             71
                   Worse                  4        5        6           21              5


                   Total Number
                   of Waterbodies      285        86       96          467



                   Two areas of Florida are showing improvements due to
                   increased pollution controls. The Orlando area in the
                   vicinity of Lakes Howell, Jessup, and Harney, and the
                   Econlockhatchee River has improved because of diversion of
                   sewage discharge from a regional wastewater treatment plant
                   from the first two lakes. The Hillsborough Bay area in
                   Tampa also shows significant improvement in several water
                   quality parameters, probably due to better wastewater
                   treatment and improved point source controls. There are 21
                   waterbodies with worsening trends; however there were no
                   area wide trends similar to the improving trends. Causes
                   may be attributed to silvaculture operations and increased
                   land development.


                                                       48





















                                                80
                                                                                                             72





                                                                                                                  ...........


                                                                                                                                 ...........
                                                70-
                                                                                                                                 . ....... ....
                                                                                                                                 .......... .....
                                                                                                                                 x
                                                                                                                                 . ... ......
                                                                                                                                 ...................
                                                                                                                                 ........... .......
                                                                                                                                 ...................
                                                                                                                                 ........... ......
                                                                                                                   72
                                                                                                                                 ........... .......
                                                                                                                                 .... .......
                                                                                                                                 ...................
                                                                                                                                 ........... .......
                                                                                                                                 ............ .......
                                                                                                                                 ........... ......

                                                                                                                                 ........... ......
                                                                                                                                 ...................
                                                                                                                                 ........... .......
                                                                                                                                 ...................
                                                                                                                                 ........... .......
                                                                                                                                 ...................
                                                                                                                                 ........... ......
                                                                                                                                 ...................
                                                                                                                                 ........... .. -
                                                                                                                                 ............ .......
                                                                                                                                 ........... ......
                                                                                                                                 .......... .......
                                                60-                                                                                                        13 RIVER
                                                                                                                                 ...................
                                                                                                                                 ...................

                                                                                                                                 ............ .....
                                                                                                                                 ........... ......
                                                                                                                                 ..... . .......
                                                                                                                                 ..... .... ... .
                                                                                                                                       .......             0 LAKE
                                                                                                                                 ............ .......
                                                                                                                                 ........... .......
                                                                                                                                 ...................
                                                                                                                                 ........... ......
                                                                                                                                 ...................
                                                                                                                                 ........... ......
                                                                                                                                 ...........
                                                                                                                                 ..................

                                                                                                                                 .............
                                         co
                                                                                                                                 ........... .......
                                                                                                                                 ........... ......
                                                                                                                                 ...................
                                                                                                                                 ..................
                                                                                                                                 ...................
                                                                                                                                 ........... ......
                                                                                                                                 ...................
                                         LU     50-                                                                                                        E3 ESTUARY
                                                                                                                                 ........... ......
                                                                                                                                 ...................

                                                                                                                                 ............
                                                                                                                                 .......... .
                                                                                                                                 .... ......
                                                                                                                                 ...................
                                         0
                                                                                                                                 ... .......
                                                                                                                                 ........... ......
                                                                                                                                 ...........
                                                                                                                                 ..... . .....-
                                                                                                                                 ...........-
                                                                                                                                 .. ..............
                                                                                                                                 ........... .. --
                                                                                                                                 ....... ...
                                         of
                                                                                                                                 ...................
                                         w
                                                                                                                                 ....... ......
                                                                                                                                 ...................
                                                                                                                                 ...........
                                                                                                                                 ....... .... .....-
                                                                                                                                 ............ .......
                                                                                                                                 ... ..... ......
                                                                                                                                 .. ........ .. ....
                                                                                                                   . ............
                                                                                                                                 ........ .......
                                                                                                                                 ........... ......
                                                                                                                                 ...................
                                                40-
                                                                                                                                 .... ......
                                                                                                                                 ............ ......
                                         U-
                                                                                                                                 .......... .......
                                                                                                                                 .......... ......
                                                                                                                                 ............ ......
                                                                                                                                 .......... ......
                                         0
                                                                                                                                 .......... ..
                                                                                                                                 ........... ......
                                                                                                                                 @..........-....
                                                                                                                                 ........... ......
                                                                                                                                 ............ .......
                                                                                                                                 ........... ......
                                                                                                                                 ............ .......
                                                                                                                                 ............ .......
                                                                                                                                 ...........
                                                                                                                                 ........... ....
                                                                                                                                 ....... .......
                                         z                                                                                             .......
                                                                                                                                 ...........-
                                                                                                                                 ....... .......
                                                                                                                                 ...........
                                                                                                                                 -......... .
                                         w                                                                                       ...........
                                                                                                                                 ...................
                                                                                                                                 ...........
                                                                                                                                 ............ .
                                                                                                                                 ........... .... .
                                                                                                                                 ...................
                                                                                              26
                                                                                                                                 .......... .... .
                                                                                                                                 ............ .......
                                                                                                                                 ...........
                                                                                                                                 ........... .....
                                                                                                                                 ............ ......
                                                                                                                                 ........... .....
                                         LU     30-                  24
                                                                                                                                 ............ .....
                                                                                                                                 . ......... ......
                                                                                              .............                      .....
                                                                                                                                 .. ....... ......
                                         iL
                                                                                                                                 ...........
                                                                                              ...........                        .......... .......
                                                                                              ........... ...                    ........... ......
                                                                                              ....... ...                        ............ .......
                                                                                                                                 ........... ......
                                                                                                                                 ..........
                                                                                              ........... ....                   .......
                                                                                              ........... ....                   . ... ....
                                                                                              .......                            ...I....... ......
                                                                                              .......                            .....
                                                                                              ............ ....
                                                                         . . . . . ......     ::::
                                                                                              :.: . .. ...                       ...... .......
                                                                         . . . ....... ..
                                                                                                                                 ............. .......

                                                                                                                                 ........... ....
                                                                                                                                 ............ ......
                                                                                                                                 ........... ......
                                                                                              ............ .......               ........... ......
                                                                                              ................
                                                                                              ........... .......
                                                                                              ...................
                                                                                              ............ ......
                                                                                              ............ .. ...
                                                20-
                                                                                              ........... .......
                                                                                              ...... ......
                                                                                              ...... .......                     .......... .......
                                                                                              .....                              ........... ......
                                                                                                                                 ........... .......
                                                                                                                                 ........... ......
                                                                        23                                                             .......
                                                                                              ............ ... ....

                                                                                              ............ ...........
                                                                                              -.....                             . . ....
                                                                                              ... ........

                                                                                              .... ......
                                                                                                                                 . . . . . . . .........
                                                                                                                                 ....  ......                              6
                                                                                              ...................
                                                                                              ............ ......
                                                                                                                                 ............
                                                                                              ...................
                                                                                                                                 ............ ......
                                                                                              ......... .......
                                                10-                                                                                                     4
                                                                                              ............. ......
                                                                                              ............ ......
                                                                                                                                 . . ....                               ....
                                                                                              ............ .. .
                                                                                                                                 .... .....                             .........
                                                                                                                                                                        ........ ....
                                                                                                                                                                        . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                              ............ .....                 .. ... .....
                                                                                              ............ ........
                                                                                              ........... .......                ... ... ......
                                                                                              ...........
                                                                                              ........ .......                                               . . . . . . . .
                                                                                              ............. . ....
                                                                                                                                 ............ ......
                                                                                              ............
                                                                                                                                                             5
                                                                                              .....                              ............ ..
                                                                                              ..........
                                                                                              ............
                                                  0-1                                                                            @ - .'.                                           I
                                                                    BETTER                               NO CHANGE                                     WORSE
                                                                                              WATER QUALITY TREND


                                     Figure 6. Ten Year Water Quality Trend Analysis for Florida
                                     Waterbodies (1984-1993).



                                                                                                                    49
































                            This page left blank intentionally.



































                                                                    0








             10 year water quality trend
             M Better
             =No change
                   Worse



















                Figure 7. Locations of Water Quality Trends in Florida Waters (1984-1993).



                                            50











             Maps


             The cover map of this report displays the 1992-1993
             designated use support of Florida surface waters. This map
             is derived from the use support analysis conducted for this
             report. The waterbodies are color coded according to the
             following scheme: light blue represents good overall
             quality  (meets use), dark blue represents threatened overall
             quality  (but still meets use), yellow represents fair
             overall  quality (partially meets use),. red represents poor
             overall  quality (does not meet use), and black indicates the
             unknown  quality of Florida waterbodies.

             Section  303(d) Waters


             Section  303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to
             identify, establish a  priority ranking, and develop total
             maximum daily loads for their waters that do not achieve or
             are not expected to achieve water quality standards. The
             303(d) list is being prepared by DEP's Point Source
             Evaluation Section. This list will be a subset of the 26
             waterbodies which have been identified as SWIM priority
             waterbodies. The 303(d) list will be sent to EPA as a
             separate document and when the final list becomes available,
             the waterbodies will be entered into the EPA computer
             database, the Waterbody System.


























                                           51








                Chapter Three: Rivers and Streams Water Quality,
                Assessment


                Desictnated Use Support

                Rivers and streams in Florida are classified as: Class I,
                drinking water, Class II, shellfish harvesting and
                propagating, Class III, recreation and wildl   ife, Class IV,
                agricultural use, and Class V, industrial. There is only
                one Class V waterbody: Fenholloway River.

                Table 11 summarizes overall designated use support of rivers
                and,streams. The State's change in assessment technique
                from REACHES to watersheds has increased the number of
                assessed river miles by about 4,000 miles. River miles
                identified as fully supporting use had a Water Quality Index
                value of 44 or less. Partially supporting use was defined
                as a WQI of 45-59 and nonsupport was defined as a WQI of 60
                or greater. Approximately 6551. of the river miles assessed
                supported designated use. About 8% of assessed river miles
                did not support use. River miles identified as threatened
                were classified as such based on the 1994 Nonpoint Source
                Assessment. They are listed in Table 11 as evaluated.


                Table 11. Overall Designated Use Support Summary.

                Watprbody Type: Rivers and Streams (sizes are in miles)




                                                Assessment Category

                Degree of Use Support         Evaluated    Monitored      Total

                Fully Supporting                1,116          4,378      5,495
                Supporting But Threatened       2,259              0      2,259
                Partially Supporting            1,139          2,093      3,232
                Not Supporting                     342           554          895
                Not Attainable                       0             0           0



                Total Size Assessed             4,856          7,025      11,881
                Not Assessed                         0             0           0







                                               52









              Table 12 separates category of support or nonsupport by
              designated use; examples are aquatic life support, swimmable
              waters, etc. The majority of river miles in Florida are
              classified as Class III: support recreation and wildlife.
              Use support of river miles designated for recreation and
              wildlife is divided almost equally between full support and
              partial support. Waters were not specifically evaluated for
              fish consumption advisories.

              Causes and Sources of Nonsupport of Designated Use


              For each waterbody that does not fully support its
              designated use, causes of,.nonsupport (e.g., nutrients,
              dissolved oxygen problems, etc.) are identified and sources
              (e.g., municipal point source effluents, agricultural
              runoff, etc.) are identified. The cause information is
              based primarily on exceedance of water quality screening
              levels for each waterbody, professional judgment, and the
              results of the NPS qualitative survey. The source
              information for point sources is based on professional
              judgment and for nonpoint sources it is based the results of
              the NPS survey. Also note that the causes and sources are
              further delineated as major or moderate/minor impacts.
              Single cause/source of problems within a waterbody are
              identified as major impacts, while multiple causes/sources
              are listed as moderate/minor impacts. Descriptions of the
              source and cause categories are contained in Appendix A.

              Relative Assessment of Causes


              Table 13 identifies miles of river not fully supporting use
              by specific causes. Causes that affected at least 10%@ of
              river miles were nutrient enrichment, turbidity, bacteria,
              and low dissolved oxygen. The Nonpoint Source Assessment
              identified additional causes and sources, but mileages could
              not be determined for them. Table 13 identifies the source
              of data used to make assessment judgments. Mileages of
              nonsupport were determined from either quantitative or
              qualitative data. Quantitative data were obtained from
              STORET and qualitative data were obtained from the Nonpoint
              Source Assessment.













                                           53















               Tab .le 12. Individual Use Support Summary Table.

               Waterbody Type: Rivers and Streams        sizes are in miles)


                                                         Supporting
                                                            slit       Partially        Not             Not            Not
               Use                         Supporting    Threatened     Supporting Supporting       Attainable       Assessed

               Overall Vse Support              5,495       2,258        3,232           895             0             7,652
               Aquatic Life Support             5,495       2,258        3,232           89S             0             7,652
               Swimmable                        5,495       2,258        3,232           895             0             7,652
               State Defined:
                 1 Drinking Water                 124           22          182            23            0                 27
                 2 Shellfishing                     51          29             0            0            0                197
          Ln     3 Recreation-Vish-Wildlife 5,305           2,208        3,050           846             0             7,428
                 4 Agriculture                      50           0            5.7           0            0                  0
                 5 Industrial                       10           0             0           26            0                  0











               Table 13. Total Sizes of Waters Not Fully Supporting Uses
               by Various Cause Categories. NPS is Qualitative Data
               Obtained from the Nonpoint Source Assessment and STORET
               Refers to Quantitative Data from the STORET Database.


               Waterbody Type: Rivers and Streams (sizes are in miles)


               Cause Categories            Major Impact         Moderate/Minor
                                                                     Impact
                                                            Total       NPS STORET
               Nutrient Enrichment              0             809       72   737
               Bacteria (high fecal
                 and total coliform counts)     0             558       65   493
               Sediment (erosion and
                 deposition)                    0              95       95      0
               Oil                              0              56       56      0
               pH                               0             194       26   168
               DO                               0             871       90   781
               Flow                             0              63       63      0
               Odor                             0               5       5       0
               Total Suspended Solids           0             355        0   355
               Algal Blooms                     0              55       23     32
               Aquatic Weed                     0              56       56      0
               Turbidity                        0             358        0   358
               Habitat Modification             0              78       78      0
               Fish Kill                        0              57       57      0
               No Swim                          0               0       0       0
               No Fish                          0               9       0       9






























                                                55










                 Relative Assessment of Sources


                 Table 14 identifies sources such as specific facilities or
                 activities that contributed to river miles not supporting
                 designated use. The majority of the water quality problems
                 in rivers were caused by activities under the categories of
                 agriculture, construction, urban runoff, land disposal, and
                 hydromodification/habitat modification. The land disposal
                 category includes septic tanks, landfills, and land
                 application of wastewater effluent. These activities
                 affected about 80!@ of the total assessed river miles.
                 Municipal and industrial point sources were relatively small
                 contributors; total miles affected were 1,132 out of 13,605.



                 Table 14. Total Sizes of Waters Not Fully Supporting Uses
                 Affected by Various Source Categories.

                 Waterbody Type: Rivers and Streams (sizes are in miles),



                 Source Categories                 Major Impact       Moderate/Minor
                                                                           Impact

                 Industrial Point Sources                0                    546
                 Municipal Point Sources                 0                    586
                 Agriculture                             0                 2,419
                 Silviculture                            0                 1,181
                 Construction                            0                 21,081
                 Urban Runoff/storm Sewers               0                 2,028
                 Resource Extraction                     0                 1,133
                 Land Disposal                           0                 1,914
                 Hydromodification/                      0                 1,717
                   Habitat Modification




                 Use Attainability Analysis     of the  Fenholloway River

                 The Fenholloway River is presently classified        as Class V,
                 Industrial, The reason for this classification is-the
                 discharge from a pulp mill, Buckeye Florida, L.P. As
                 required by the Federal Clean Water Act, every three years
                 states must review their water quality standards and
                 criteria; a process known as triennial review. In 1987 EPA
                                                                             e a Use
                 disa proved the Fenholloway's classification, becaus
                    -p
                 Attainability Analysis (UAJ@,) had not been performed.as part



                                                   S6









              of the triennial review process. This study is required for
              waterbodies that cannot sustain a healthy population of
              shellfish, fish and wildlife, or support recreational
              activities. DEP is presently performing the UAA. Under
              Federal law, EPA had 90 days to begin actions to reclassify
              the river, but chose to wait for the completion of the UAA
              and the State's recommendations.


              Use Attainability Analysis is an assessment of the factors
              that prevent a waterbody from meeting beneficial uses.
              Physical, chemical, biological, and economic factors are
              considered. Several different studies have been conducted
              as part  of the UAA. They included:

                   1.  A Fenholloway River and Gulf of Mexico study to
                       determine the impact of the pulp mill on these
                       waterbodies and to establish targets for water
                       q@ality that would restore beneficial use to the
                       river.


                   2.  Water quality models to predict how changes in
                       quality and location of discharge from the mill
                       would improve water quality.

                   3.  An evaluation of process modifications that would
                       improve the quality of mill discharge.

                   4.  A survey of existing uses was conducted: such as
                       recreation and the fishery.

                   S.  An evaluation of options to increase flow in the
                       Fenholloway River was conducted. This included
                       relocation of the mill's well field, restoration of
                       wetlands in San Pedro Bay, and wastewater disposal
                       through deep well injection or spray irrigation.

              Several  effects of the mill's discharge have been
              documented. Low dissolved oxygen, high BOD, and high
              specific conductance for a fresh water have been the factors
              identified as causing biological impacts within the river
              and Gulf. These factors have resulted in reduction of
              numbers of species of plants and animals and the abundance
              of individuals in both the river and Gulf when compared to
              similar waterbodies in Florida. Color, dissolved organic
              carbon, and nutrients have caused alterations in the
              intensity and quality of light needed for seagrass growth in




                                            57









              the Gulf. A net loss of 9 square miles of seagrasses has
              occurred because of these factors.


              Dioxin is another issue that is being addressed through the
              UAA. In the late 1980s, EPA found concentrations of dioxin
              in the plant's wastewater ranging from 10 to 27 parts per
              quadrillion. Fish tissue tested contained dioxin in
              concentrations varying from non-detectable to 20 parts per
              trillion. Based on these results, a health advisory
              recommending no consumption of fish from the Fenholloway
              River was issued by the State. More recent data collected
              as part of the UAA, indicated that dioxin concentrations in
              freshwater fish were 1 to 3 parts per trillion. Fish and
              crabs from the Gulf had concentrations below detection
              levels. A probable reason for the reduction in tissue
              burdens of dioxin has been a process change at the mill
              implemented in 1990. However, the State does not plan to
              lift the fish consumption advisory.

              Over 130 different' options to improve the quality of the
              mill's discharge were evaluated. Three scenarios have been
              developed. Scenario A recognizes that it may not be
              possible to reclassify the river to Class III, fishable-
              swimmable. But, waters of the Gulf of Mexico are subject to
              Class III criteria. The objective of this scenario is the
              reduction of color levels of the mill's discharge by 50% to
              allow restoration of seagrasses. The estimated cost to
              accomplish this objective is $13 million.

              Scenario B evaluated options for making the greatest
              improvements in wastewater quality. Chlorine free process
              options were included; though they are not currently
              economically feasible at this mill. Extensive process
              modification, in effect rebuilding the mill, would result in
              up to 80% reductions in oxygen consuming compounds and
              reductions of 85% in color, 80% in chlorinated organics and
              30% in specific conductance. Capital costs for this
              scenario range from $160 to $300 million. Even with the
              plant upgrades, model results indicate that dissolved oxygen
              levels in the river would not meet Class III criteria.


              scenario C recogn izes that there is little assimilative
              capacity in the river at the discharge, because the majority
              of its flow comes from the mill's discharge. The greatest
              dilution of waste would be achieved at the mouth of the
              river simply because of the volume of water available. A
              pipeline to transport waste to the estuary was evaluated.



                                            58









              Estimated costs of this scenario are $40 million. Models
              predicted that dissolved oxygen would meet criteria most of
              the time. One potential problem with this scenario is that
              the upper river may be dry as much as 30'-. of the time.

              At present, DEP is still evaluating the results of the UAA.
              The mill has continued to investigate methods of increasing
              oxygen concentrations. A formal recommendation has not been
              made to EPA.


              River Restoration and Rehabilitation


              Upiper Oklawaha River SWIM Project

              The Upper Oklawaha River basin is 638 square miles in area.
              It extends from Lake Apopka north to State Road 40 near
              Ocala. At the turn of the century, the Oklawaha River was a
              slow moving river varying in width from 30 to 500 feet, with
              an average depth of 3 feet.

              The southern portion of the basin is composed of a series of
              interconnected lakes. At present, most of the flow between
              lakes is regulated through control structures. The northern
              portion of the basin is a lake and riverine system.

              Beginning in 1870, dredging activities were undertaken to
              create canals to connect lakes and create a navigable river
              channel. Under pressure from local farming interests,
              Congress in 1917 approved activities to drain portions of
              the river flood plain. A lock and dam was constructed at
              Moss Bluff. The result of this action was that the original
              river channel was abandoned from Starkes Ferry to Moss Bluff
              by redirecting flow into a canal. The canals and adjacent
              levees were enlarged as part of the U.S. Army Corps of
              Engineers (Corps) Four River Basin project in the 1970s.
              other modifications to the basin were the construction of:
              1. the Apopka-Beau Clair Canal and its lock and dam; 2. a
              dike system to drain 20,000 acres of marsh around Lake
              Apopka; 3. the Dora Canal between Lakes Dora and Eustis; 4.
              Bunell Lock and Dam between Lakes Estes and Griffin; and 5.
              the Yale Canal and levee system that drained 7,000 acres of
              the Emeralda Marsh. The primary benefits of these
              modifications were navigation and flood control. Lake
              levels could also be stabilized to ensure water storage for
              drought years. The draining of marsh made available highly
              productive fertile farmland.




                                           59


These activities resulted in declines in water quality and
losses of fish and wildlife habitat. Stabilization of lake
levels has prevented the flushing of nutrients and sediments
with the result that the lakes have become euthrophic.
Agricultural pumpage and runoff from muck farms have added 
additional nutrients and pesticides.

SWIM rehabilitation plans for the basin are centered around
wetland restoration. Large tracts of drained marsh land
have been purchased through SWIM by the St. Johns River
Water Management District. Marsh tracts include sites near 
Lakes Apopka and Harris, Emeralda Marsh on Lake Griffin,
Sunny Hill Farm between Starks Ferry and Moss Bluff, and 
Oklawaka Farm between moss Bluff and Silver River. Complete
details of the Lake Apopka marsh-lake restoration are
discussed in Chapter Four: Lake Water Quality Assessment.

Emeralda Marsh is adjacent to Lake Griffin. A portion of
this marsh will be used as a filter for the lakes: Lake 
Griffin flow-way 1 and flow-way 2. Water will be moved from 
the lake through the flow-wats, then back to the lake. At
present flow-way 1 has been built, but not filled, because 
lake levels are too low. Flow-way 2 is still in the planning stage.

Planned River restoration work for the Sunnyhill Farm,
between Old Starks Ferry and the Moss Hill Levee, will 
reestablish flow through the original 7 miles of river
channel. At present, the river has been diverted to a
canal. Locating and cleaning of debris from the channel
have taken place. The canal will not be filled in with 
dirt. During high water conditions, flood waters can be 
diverted to the canal. The river channel still needs to be
dredged and interior ditches and divides removed to allow
water to flow into it.

The farm lease on the 4,400 acre Oklawaha Farm tract expired 
in July 1994. Plans for this farm land tract include
restoration to wetland habitat.

The final restoration project underway is the assessment of 
water levels in the chain of lakes in the south portion of
the basin. Current regulatory schedules prevent natural
fluctuations of lake level. New schedules being developed
will allow a greaer range of water levels to improve water 
quality and meet environmental flood control and navigation
interests. Once alternate schedules are developed, public


				60








              workshops will be held to obtain citizen input. The final
              step in implementation of the new schedules will be to
              obtain Corps approval.

              Kissimmee River SWIM Project


              The Kissimmee River originates on the southern outskirts of
              the City of Orlando. It is part of the Lake Okeechobee-
              Everglades drainage and has a drainage area of 3,054 square
              miles. The upper reaches of the river are composed of
              several tributaries and lakes which send flow south to Lake
              Hatchineha. The river proper originates as an outlet of
              Lake Hatchineha. It flows south to Lake Kissimmee; the
              channel in this region is all that is left of the natural
              stream. The stream from Lake Kissimmee south to Lake
              Okeechobee was channelized between 1965-1971. Originally 99
              miles in length, the river is now the 56 mile long C-38
              Canal. Channelization was undertaken for flood control
              purposes, navigation, and to drain marsh for farmland.
              Approximately 40-50,000 acres of flood plain disappeared.

              The loss of wetlands and river oxbows removed the river's
              natural filtering capacity for nutrients. Subsequent
              development of land for improved pasture and dairies has
              inc.reased nutrient loads via runoff to the river. The
              coupled effect of these actions increased nutrient loads to
              Lake Okeechobee and ultimately the Everglades.


              Several efforts were started in the 1980s to restore the
              Kissimmee River. A Coordinating Council was established in
              1983 to examine options for restoration in a manner that
              would protect and revitalize natural systems. Other
              projects performed were a demonstration restoration of
              oxbows and marshes, discharge tests to simulate the impact
              of flood conditions on the weir system, and a three year
              physical modeling study.

              In 1990 the South Florida Water Management District
              completed an evaluation of restoration plans and recommended
              the Level II Backfilling Plan. This alternative requires
              that 29 continuous miles of canal be filled in and 11 miles
              of new river channel be excavated. The objective is to
              restore some of the river's natural meander pattern though
              levees and structural modifications may be included to
              reduce flooding outside the historical flood plain. The
              restoration is to proceed in phases over a 15 year period.
              This will allow incremental funding and acquisition of land.


                                           61









               In November 1990, Congress directed the Corps to perform a
               feasibility study of the recommended backfilling plan. In
               September 1991, the Corps completed their draft study and
               endorsed the backfill plan. Additionally, a second project,
               Upper Basins Work Project was recognized as feasible. This
               project will add 100,000 acre feet of seasonal. water storage
               by raising lake levels and will provide a more natural
               continuous flow of water. Estimates of total cost for both
               projects are $513 million. The SFWMD and the Corps have
               agreed to a 50/50 cost sharing. To date, a large part of
               the drained flood plain has been purchased and a test
               section of 1,@000 feet of channel has been filled.


               Upper St. Johns River Project


               The upper St. Johns River basin consists of a series of
               interconnected lakes and wetlands. It extends from the
               Fort Drum Marsh north to Lake Poinsett. Total area of the
               basin is over 1 million acres.


               In the early 1900s, major dredging and hydrologic
               modification projects were undertaken. The Fellsmere Grade
               and Fellsmere Main Canal were constructed across flood plain
               marsh to connect the towns of Fellsmere and Kenansville and
               provide drainage. Many other private canals followed; many
               of them cut through a low ridge separating the St. Johns
               River marshes from the Indian River Lagoon estuarine system.
               By this action, large amounts of fresh water were diverted
               from the St. Johns River to the Indian River and Atlantic
               Ocean. More dikes were constructed and pumps installed
               (accelerating through the 1950s and 1960s) to meet private
               flood protection. The result of all these actions was the
               draining of extensive flood plain acreage. Land was then
               available for citrus, cattle and row crops. From an
               original acreage of 400,000, the 100 year flood plain was
               reduced in extent by 62% and the annual flood plain by 42%.
               The remaining wetlands were further degraded by alterations
               in hydrology and nutrient enrichment from agricultural
               pumpage of runoff.

               Floods in the 1940s convinced Congress and the State of the
               need for flood control. In 1948, Congress authorized the
               Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and the
               Florida Legislature created the Central and Southern Florida
               Flood Control District. A General Design Memorandum was
               completed by the Corps in 1962 with construction started in
               1966. The plan called for the reduction of flood stages in



                                             62









              the upper reaches of the basin by the divertion of water
              from the St. Johns River to the Indian River, via the C-54
              canal, during major storm events. Downstream of C-54, water
              was diverted to reservoirs west of the river valley. By
              1970, the C-54 Canal system was fully operational and upland
              reservoirs were near completion. The project was halted and
              suspended in 1974 based on a technical review of the
              environmental impact statement for the project. In 1977,
              sponsorship of the project was transferred to the St. Johns
              River Water Management District. A further evaluation and
              redesign of plans took place. A new General Design
              Memorandum was prepared and released by the Corps in 1985.
              Construction of the new project began in 1988.

              The restoration project for the upper St. Johns River was
              designed with two primary objectives. The first was to
              reestablish the natural hydrologic regime in existing
              marshes and restore agricultural lands to marsh to improve
              water quality. The second major environmental objective was
              to reduce the flow of fresh water to the Indian River
              Lagoon.

              The project area contains 150,000 acres and extends for
              about 75 miles from the Florida Turnpike in southern Indian
              River County to Lake Washington in central Brevard County.
              The design calls for a semi-structural approach to water
              management and includes over 100 miles of flood protection
              levees, 6 gated spillways, and 15 smaller water control
              structures, culverts, and weirs. The project includes
              construction of four marsh conservation areas and three
              water management areas. The purpose of the marsh areas is
              to temporarily retain flood water, provide for long term
              storage and water conservation, and to restore and preserve
              river flood plain. Water management areas retain flood
              waters from agricultural lands. They can also provide water
              for reuse for farm irrigation. The project is scheduled for
              completion in 1995. When finished, more than 125,000 acres
              of wetland will have been restored by reinstating the
              natural hydrologic cycle. This will allow water to move as
              sheetflow across the marsh rather than enter a canal. An
              added benefit will be the improvement of water quality in
              the chain of lakes which make up the upper St. Johns River.








                                           63










               Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint/Alabama-COOBa-Talla@oosa
               Rivers Comprehensive Study


               The Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint/Alabama-Coosa-
               Tallapoosa Rivers (ACF/ACT) Comprehensive Study was
               initiated in 1992 by a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between
               the Governors of the States of Florida, Alabama, and Georgia
               and the Assistant Secretary of the Army. The purpoSE! Of the
               Comprehensive Study (Comp Study) is to define the extent of
               water resources, to describe the water resource demands on
               the basins, and to evaluate alternatives which. utilize the
               available resources to the benefit of all user groups. The
               Comp Study will evaluate long-term water resources
               availability and needs within the two river basins. When
               completed the study will provide the Governors of the three
               states with the information needed to develop mutually
               agreeable plans for the allocation of water resources.

               The study area encompasses portions of the states of
               Florida, Georgia, and Alabama and covers 42,000 square
               miles. It is composed of two major river drainage basins:
               the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint and the Alabama-Coosa-
               Tallapoosa.

               The Chattahoochee River originates in the Blue Ridge
               Physiographic Province in north Georgia (north of Atlanta)
               and for part of its length forms the boundary between
               Georgia and Alabama. It flows south for 436 miles before
               merging with the Flint River at the Lake Seminole Reservoir
               to form the Apalachicola River in Florida. For most of its
               length, the Chattahoochee has been hydrologically altered
               and regulated by the construction of locks and dams and
               reservoirs used for water supply, hydropower, and
               navigation.

               The Flint River originates in the Piedmont Plateau south of
               the City of Atlanta. It flows 212 miles in a southerly
               direction till its confluence with the Chattahoochee River
               at Lake Seminole. The lower Flint River flows through an
               area of karst topography. Some damming and impoundment of
               the Flint has occurred, but it still flows as a relatively
               unregulated river.

               The last control structure on the ACF system is the Woodruff
               Dam located at the Lake Seminole Reservoir. Lake Seminole
               is functionally the headwater of the Apalachicola River.
               The Apalachicola flows south 113 miles to Apalachicola Bay.


                                             64









              For most of its length it is classified as an outstanding
              Florida Water. Because of the river's connection to the
              southern Appalachians and Piedmont through the Flint and
              Chattahoochee Rivers, it exhibits unique biological
              characteristics for Florida. Apalachicola Bay is an
              important fishery resource for the State of Florida.
              Approximately 90% of Florida's harvestable oysters come from
              this bay.

              The Coosa River originates in western Georgia from the
              confluence of the Etowah and Oostanaula Rivers near Rome,
              Georgia. It flows approximately 2SO miles southwesterly
              into Alabama till its confluence with the Tallapoosa River
              to form the Alabama River. All three rivers that comprise
              the ACT drainage basin have been hydrologically altered by
              the construction of locks and dams and reservoirs used for
              public water supply, hydropower, and navigation.

              The Comp Study resulted from conflicts between various water
              user groups, states, and federal agencies within these two
              drainage basins. Beginning in 1986, municipalities in the
              Atlanta area contracted with the Corps to obtain water
              supplies from Corps facilities located within the system.
              In 1989, the Corps began preparation of a Post Authorization
              Change (PAC) report and environmental assessment to address
              reallocation of water storage from hydropower to water
              supply at Carters Lake and Lake Allatoona, impoundments
              locatedon tributaries to the Coosa River, and Lake Sidney
              Lanier, an impoundment of the Chattahoochee River in north
              Georgia. Alabama's Congressman Bevill requested the Corps
              to develop a conceptual plan for a comprehensive study which
              would address short and long-term water resources. In
              February 1990, the Corps presented the conceptual plan to
              Congressman Bevill. In May 1990, the Corps submitted the
              final reallocation report. Proposed water reallocations
              were set at 2 million gallons per day from Carter Lake and
              11.S million gallons per day from Lake Allatoona. The State
              of Alabama filed a lawsuit against the Corps challenging the
              proposed reallocation alleging that the Corps violated
              Alabama's water rights and that the Corps showed bias
              favoring the State of Georgia. Alabama further alleged that
              the Corps had not fulfilled the requirements of either the
              National Environmental Policy Act or its own regulations
              regarding coordinated development of water management and
              allocation plans. The State of Florida subsequently
              intervened in the litigation, because of perceived potential
              impacts from reductions in water quantity and quality on the



                                           65









               Apalachicola River and Bay system. Florida has alleged that
               the Corps's actions were in violation of the Coastal Zone
               Management Act.

               An agreement was reached in 1991 between the Corps and the
               States of Alabama and Georgia, under which Georgia withdrew
               its Section 404 permit request for a West Georgia Recrional
               Reservoir and agreed to participate in a comprehensive study
               of the two basins. The Corps agreed to cease processing the
               reallocation report. A draft plan of study was produced
               during the latter half of 1991 with a final plan of study
               agreed to by all three states and the Corps in January 1992.
               In the same month, the three state Governors and the
               Assistant Secretary of the Army signed the MOA which
               provided the foundation for working together as partners in
               addressing water resource issues. As part of the MOA, the
               parties agreed to the following: 1. the Corps would withdraw
               the PAC report; 2. current withdrawals of water may continue
               and be increased to meet reasonable demands, however,
               written notice must be provided if they are increased by
               more than 10 million gallons per day or new withdrawals
               greater than 1 million gallons per day initiated; 3. the
               Corps would operate the federal reservoirs to maximized
               water resource benefits; 4. all parties would support the
               study and contribute monetary and non-monetary support; 5.
               the establishment of a means to resolve future disputes over
               the comp study and water resources of the ACF/ACT basins;
               and 6. the lawsuit filed by Alabama was assigned inactive
               status.


               The study has a multi-level management structure where the
               four principal parties are equal partners. The management
               structure is composed of the Executive Coordination
               Committee, Technical Coordination Group, Legal Support
               Group, Technical Review Panels, Technical Support Groups,
               and Interest Groups. The Executive Coordination Committee
               (ECC) is composed of four members, one from each state
               appointed by their respective governor and the Mobile
               District Engineer. The responsibilities of this committee
               are to define the water resources issues to be reviewed and
               to manage the overall study effort. This committee appoints
               the members of the Technical Coordination Group MG). The
               function of this group is to provide inter and intrastate
               coordination, recommend technical content, and oversee work
               performed by the study. The Legal Support Group is composed
               of four representatives. The purpose of this group is to
               provide legal expertise in support of the study effort. The



                                            66









              Technical Review Panel is appointed by the TCG as needed to
              provide technical peer review of work produced by the study.
              Each state or federal Technical Support Group is composed of
              individuals designated by the ECC member to provide
              technical information during the course of the study.
              Interest Groups include representatives of local
              governments, private industry, special interest groups, and
              private citizens.

              The study is organized around three broad categories of
              concerns or study elements. They are water resources
              availability, water demand, and comprehensive management
              strategy. Water resources availability includes
              determinations of the quantity and quality of surface and
              ground water supplies.

              Water demand is further categorized into describing and
              quantifying the water needs for agriculture, environment,
              Apalachicola River and Bay, hydropower, industry, municipal,
              navigation, and recreation. Apalachicola River and Bay are
              of special concern to Florida. Studies have been initiated
              to describe and quantify the fresh water and nutrient needs
              of the Apalachicola Bay needed to maintain historic
              productivity and diversity of that estuary and to describe
              the linkage and correlation between the bay's productivity
              and the river.


              The purpose of the comprehensive management strategy element
              is to provide information with which to make decisions about
              water resources within the basin. There are two components
              to this element. First is the Basinwide Management Program
              which will develop a range of water management strategies to
              guide future water management decisions. Second, the
              Institutional Framework and Coordination Mechanism is an
              analysis of existing institutional frameworks with the
              objective of recommending a coordination mechanism for
              future management of water resources.













                                           67








                Chapter Four: Lakes, Water Quality Assessment.

                There are approximately 7, 712' public lakes in Florida with a
                surface-area greater than or equal to.10 acres.    Of the.
                total, 356 had water quality data associated with thE@m and
                aft. additional 81 were assessed with the NPS survey. They
                represent a total area of 1,940 square miles.. These-are the
                lakes assessed in this report. Water quality data are not
                c*olleCted for private lakes in Florida.

                i4ithin Florida, there. are- many different governmental units
                that address the issues of lake water quality, restoration
                and rehabilitation and management. EPA, DEP, GFWVC, water
                management districts, and local and county governments are
                all key players. Frequently, work proceeds as a partnership.
                af@ local, fe@deral, and state- governments with costs shared
                by all patties.

                Desi.cfhAted..Use _Suppdr,

                Table 15 lists designated use support for lakes. Lakes,in
                Florida are designated either Class' I (public drinking water
                supply) of Class III (support wildlife or recreational use).
                Better than half of the total lake area either partially
                supports or does not support designated use classification.


                table 15i Overall Designated Use Support Summary.

                Waterbody Ty-pe: takes (sizes are in square miles)


                                               Assessment Category

                Degree of Use Support       Evaluated      monitored       Total

                Fully Supporting               213            494          707
                Supporting But Threatened      100              0          100
                Partially Supporting             53           714          767
                Not Supporting                   34           332          366
                Not Attainable                     0            0             0



                Total Size Assessed            400          1,540         1,940
                Not Assessed                       0            0             0





                                              68









              This should not be viewed as if a large number of lakes in
              Florida do not support their designated use. The main
              reason for this is the dominance in total area by Lakes
              Okeechobee, George, and Apopka. All of these lakes are
              degraded.

              For the 1994 305(b) reporting cycle, through the watershed
              assessment technique, about 250 smaller lakes were assessed.
              In general, these smaller lakes had good water quality.
              Even though the number of lakes increased by a factor of 3,
              the actual increase in assessed area was only 30*-..

              Table 16 lists lake use support by classification; Class I,
              II, III, IV, or V. The large area listed as partially
              supporting and not supporting for drinking water is because
              of Lake Okeechobee. Slightly less than half of the total
              lake area assessed fully supported Class III classification;
              which is support of recreation, fish, and wildlife.


              Causes and Sources of Nonsupport of Desicrnated Use


              Determinations of causes are based on exceedances of water
              quality screening levels for each waterbody, professional
              judgment, and the results of the NPS survey. The source
              information is based on professional judgment for point
              sources and the results of the NPS survey for nonpoint
              sources. Descriptions of the source and cause categories
              are contained in Appendix A. Causes and sources are further
              delineated as major and moderate/minor impacts. Single
              cause or source of problems within a waterbody are
              identified as major impacts. For waterbodies with multiple
              sources or causes, each individual cause or source is
              identified as a moderate/minor impact.

              Relative Assessment of Causes


              Table 17 lists causes of nonsupport for lakes and the total
              lake area affected. Major causes of nonsupport in lakes
              were algal blooms, turbidity/total suspended solids, and
              nutrients. All causes were identified as moderate/minor
              impacts, because more than one cause was identified in a
              watershed. Total areas of nonsupport listed in Table 17
              were further separated out by data source; whether it was
              quantitative or qualitative. Quantitative data were
              obtained from STORET and qualitative data were obtained from
              the Nonpoint Source Assessment.




                                           69















               Table 16. Individual Use Support Summary.

               Waterbody Type: Lakes (sizes are in square miles)



                                                        Supporting
                                                          But         Partially       Not          Not           Not
               Use                           Supporting Threatened    Supporting Supporting     Attainable    Assessed

               Overall Use Support             707        100           766           366           0            124
               Aquatic Life Support            707        100           766           366           0            124
               Swimmable                       707        100           766           366           0            124
               State Defined:
                 1 Drinking Water                64         1           399           190           0              0
          -j     2 Shellfishing                   1         0              0            0           0              0
                 3 Recreation-Fish-Wildlife    642        100           367           176           0            124
                 4 Agriculture                    0         0              0            0           0              0
                 5 Industrial                     0         0              0            0           0              0












               Table 17. Total Sizes of Lake Waterbodies Not Fully
               Supporting Uses by Various Cause Categories. NPS Refers to
               Qualitative Data Obtained from the Nonpoint Source
               Assessment and STORET Refers to Quantitative Data from the
               STORET Database.


               Waterbody Type: Lake (sizes are in square mile)



               Source Categories Major Impact       Moderate/Minor Impact

                                                     Total NPS     STORET
               Nutrient                0              206     0      206
               Bacteria                0                27    0        27
               Sediment                0                0     0        0
               Oil                     0                0     0        0
               pH                      0                68    2        66
               DO                      0                2     0        2
               Flow                    0                0     0        0
               odor                    0                0     0        0
               TSS                     0              105     0      105
               Algal Blooms            0              345     0      345
               Aquatic Weed            0                0     0        0
               Turbidity               0              325     0      325
               Habitat                 0                0     0        0
               Fish Kill               0                0     0        0
               No Swim                 0                0     0        0
               No Fish                 0                0     0        0





























                                                71


Relative Assessment of Sources

Table 18 lists square miles of lakes not supporting use by
different categories of sources. The majority of water
quality problems in lakes were caused by agriculture, urban
runoff, and municipal and industrial point sources. Again,
multiple sources impacted one waterbody, this all impacts
were classified as moderate/minor.

Table 18. Total Sizes of Waters Not Fully Supporting Uses
Affected By Various Source Categories.

Waterbody Type:	Lakes	   (sizes are in square miles)


Source Categories			Major Impact			Moderate/Minor
										   Impact

Industrial Point Sources		0					255	
Municipal Point Sources			0					323
Agriculture					0					989
Silvaculture				0					37
Construction				0					77
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewer		0					397
Resource extraction			0					62	
Land Disposal				0					143
Hydromodification				0					60


Clean Lakes Program

The Clean Lakes Program established partnerships between 
federal, state and local governments to identify, classify,
protect, and restore those significant lakes which are 
publicly owned. Authority for this program was granted to 
the State through Section 314 of the Clean Water Act of
1977, 40CFR 35 Subpart H, February 5, 1980. Authority was
granted to DEP from the State through Section 403.0165, F.S.
and Chapter 17-104. F.A.C. The State considers any public 
lake potentially eligible for the Clean Lakes Program.

The history of the Clean Lakes Program and Florida's
involvement is important to understanding state activities
under this program. The program began in 1975 under Section



					72









                  314 of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act
                  Amendments (P.L. 92-500) and is administered by the EPA.
                  From 1975-1978, $35 million in research and development
                  grants were used to demonstrate that lake restoration was
                  possible. Nationally, approximately $93 million was
                  directed to the program through the year 1985. Of all the
                  EPA regions, Region IV received the smallest share of money
                  (approximately $3.7 million). Florida received
                  approximately $2.5 million from EPA Region IV prior to 1985,
                  or 65% of the Region's share. Florida has received less
                  than $500,000 since 1985.

                  Lake Jackson restoration projects, from October 1976 through
                  October 1981, received almost two-thirds of the total
                  funding received by the Florida Clean Lakes Program. The
                  remaining $1.1 million was distributed among other projects
                  as listed in Table 19.



                  Table 19. Florida Clean Lakes Projects.



                  Diagnostic/Feasibility Studies


                  PROJECT NAME                                 PERIOD        FEDERAL SHARE


                  Lake Lawne                                8/90 -  12/93       $ 100,000
                  Lake Hollingsworth                        6/91 -   11/92           40,000
                  Lake Munson                               6/89 -   9/94            40,000
                  Lake Jackson                              6/89 -   9/91           172,909
                  Lake Maggiore                             1/81 -   8/82            70,000
                  South Lake                                10/80-   10/81           72,987
                                                                                $   495,896
                  Restoration Proiects


                  PROJECT NAME                                 PERIOD        FEDERAL SHARE
                  Lake Eola                                 9/79 -   9/82       $ 217,000
                  Lake Jackson                             10/76 - 10/81         1,807,432
                  Lake Apopka                               6/76 - 6/81             143,900
                                                                                $2,168,332

                  Lake Water Ouality Assessments


                  PROJECT NAME                                 PERIOD        FEDERAL SHARE
                    Florida Lakes Bioassessment             9/91 - 9/93         $    60,000
                    /Ecoregionalization Proposal
                  Travel                                    9/91 - 9/93                2,000
                  Crescent Lake                             2/89 - 9/90             100,000
                  Lake Classification                       2/81 - 12/82             97,558
                                                                                $   259,558





                                                        73









               In 1977, Section 403.615, F.S. was passed, establishing a
               program for the Florida Department of Environmental
               Regulation to assist in the restoration of the State's water
               resources. The legislature intended that this program would
               handle grants provided through the Federal Clean Lakes
               Program. Chapter 17-104, F.A.C., Administrative Procedures
               for the Water Resources Restoration and Preservation Program
               (WRRP), was implemented shortly thereafter to fulfill the
               legislature's directive. A trust fund was established to
               help fund the program.

               originally, a section of six to nine positions was
               established,to administer the program's responsibilities.
               However, reduction of Clean Lakes grant monies resulted in
               the transfer of positions to DEP's hazardous waste effort.
               The positions continued to be funded by the WRRP trust fund .
               Since 1985, the program has been administered by a single
               individual with technical assistance provided by the
               Stormwater/Nonpoint Source Management Section. There have
               been several attempts to resurrect this once-active water
               resources restoration program. However, due to a number of
               factors, particularly establishment of the Surface Water
               Improvement and Management Program and limited Clean Lakes
               Program funding, the program was maintained on only a
               part-time basis. The major regular funding source for the
               program, transfer of excess funds from the Pollution
               Recovery Trust Fund, was suspended.

               In recent years the Clean Lakes Program has consisted of
               little more than soliciting grant proposals from water
               management districts and local governments for lake
               diagnostic studies and improvement projects and submitting
               them to EPA. If funded, the Department provided management
               of the contracts and served as the liaison between EPA and
               the contractors. Lack of Federal Clean Lakes Program
               funding has severely limited success of and support for the
               program.


               Five Year Work Plan, 1992 to 1997


               Those who have been involved with the Clean Lakes Program
               and have tried to develop a more comprehensive Florida lake
               management program believe that such a program is necessary
               to coordinate and integrate past, ongoing, and planned lake
               management, monitoring, and water quality assessment-
               activities in Florida. Besides improving coordination of



                                            74









              lake management efforts, a Florida lake management program
              would provide positive media coverage for the Department.
              Heightened public awareness generally translates into
              increased funding which could be applied to improving
              Florida's many lakes. It appears that the State is heading
              in this direction. However, the details of exactly how a
              Florida lake management program would function are
              undecided. Therefore, this workplan is necessarily general
              in that regard. However, it lays the groundwork for
              Florida's Clean Lakes Program to become more actively
              involved in the State's surface water and watershed
              management programs.

              This five year workplan is divided into four subject areas:
              Lake Water Quality Assessments; Phase I Lake
              Diagnostic/Feasibility Studies; Phase II Lake Restoration
              Projects; and Coordination, Staffing and Funding Plans.

              Lake Water Ouality Assessment


              Assessing lake water quality is particularly important
              because it is the cornerstone upon which management
              decisions are made. This section describes the programs in
              Florida which provide lake water quality data and the
              activities which are underway or planned which will improve
              the State's capabilities in this regard.

              In February 1980, EPA issued Clean Lakes Program regulations
              requiring states to conduct a lake classification survey in
              order to remain eligible for continued Section 314 funding.
              Florida complied with that requirement by publishing the
              technical report, A Classification of Florida Lakes, in
              February 1983. In that report, the condition of 788 lakes
              was assessed. The information in the report was used to
              develop the Florida Lake Classification and Prioritization
              Project, final report in August 1983, which has helped to
              guide the State's Clean Lake Program activities.

              In recent years, contracts were executed with water
              management districts and planning councils to provide a one
              time water quality monitoring of the State's smaller lakes.
              Additionally, the Florida Lakewatch Program has volunteers
              conducting water quality monitoring on 391 lakes throughout
              Florida. This information is expected to be valuable for
              future Clean Lakes Program planning, diagnostic and
              restoration efforts, and production of the 1996 305(b)
              report.



                                           75









               Florida's 1988 Nonpoint Source Assessment, which was
               prepared to fulfill the State's responsibilities under the
               federal 319 program, has been transferred to the
               Department's GIS. The assessment, which contains
               information concerning the condition of the State's lakes
               and the sources of pollution which affect them, was then
               updated through GIS and provided new nonpoint source data
               for the production of this 1994 305(b) water quality
               assessment. The updated NPS survey will also provide!
               additional data for the Clean Lakes Program.

               The Department is steadily increasing its GIS capabilities.
               Florida soon will be using GIS to target watersheds with
               special management concerns, evaluate management
               alternatives, monitor the results of specific management
               initiatives and generally maximize the effectiveness of
               watershed management efforts. It is anticipated that the
               State in the near future will use GIS to extract specific
               lake data as well as build and overlay individual map
               coverages that contain information such as land use, soil
               types, point and nonpoint pollution sources, permitting
               activities, water quality data, and location and types of
               infrastructure including stormwater management facilities
               and political boundaries. It will be possible to subject

               various lake and watershed management initiatives and
               data to trend analysis to determine the effectiveneS,13 Of

               programs. Other GIS options are to model or predict the
               out come of alternative management strategies.

               DEP's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program has an
               important support role in the Clean Lakes Program. One of
               the initiatives of the SWAMP Program is to use biolo(ical
               assessments to supplement more traditional physio-chemical
               monitoring. Biological assessments measure the structure
               and function of resident aquatic biota and as such are one
               indicator of environmental quality. Biological communities
               are capable of detecting the effects of both episodic and
               cumulative pollution events and habitat alteration. This
               makes them particularly important indicators of nonpOint
               sources of pollution; the primary source of pollutant
               loading to Florida's surface waters, especially lakes.

               Ecoregions, initially developed at a relatively broad scale
               (Omernik, 1987), have been used by several states to develop
               biological criteria, set water quality standards, or develop
               nonpoint source lake management goals. However, for many
               parts of the country, these large ecoregions were of


                                              7.6









              insufficient detail for perceived State resource management
              needs. In.response to this problem, several projects were
              initiated in Florida and a number of other areas (Alabama,
              Mississippi, Iowa, Oregon, Washington, and the middle
              Appalachians) to further delineate ecoregions, define
              subecoregions, and identify sets of reference sites for each
              subecoregion. Delineation work was performed at a greater
              level of resolution (1:100,000 to 1:250,000) in
              collaboration with state resource management agencies, EPA
              regional offices, the EPA Environmental Research Laboratory
              in Corvallis, Oregon, and EPA contractors.

              Similar to the ecoregion mapping, but tailored to a specific
              purpose, a map of summer total phosphorus in lakes was
              compiled for the upper Midwest states of Wisconsin, Michigan
              and Minnesota (Omernik et al., 1988). The lake regions
              depicted on this map indicated where combinations of lake
              characteristics and causal and integrative landscape
              phenomena resulted in regional differences in expectations,
              attainable quality, interrelationships, and mosaics of
              landscape characteristics associated with lake quality.
              Although considerations must be made of other issues and
              problems in addition to eutrophication, it is this type of
              framework that is necessary to allow regional calibration of
              lake management decisions in Florida.

              In 1989, EPA published an innovative strategy to quantify
              biological monitoring. This strategy consists of two
              separate but interrelated components which are: 1.
              establishing standardized bioassessment protocols (i.e.,
              document entitled Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in
              Streams and Rivers-Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish,
              EPA/444/4-89-001); and 2. determining appropriate
              ecoregional reference sites (i.e., Regionalization as a Tool
              for Managing Environmental Resources, EPA/600/3-89/060).
              Using this national guidance as a basis for improving the
              Department's biological monitoring program, two 3 year
              contracts were approved in 1991 to modify the EPA Rapid
              Bioassessment Protocols for use in Florida. As part of
              those contracts, work was begun to subregionalize the major
              ecoregions of the state so that appropriate ecoregional
              reference sites could be established for the bioassessments.


              originally, it was intended that the two contracts begun in
              1991 would cover Florida's streams, lakes, and estuaries.
              However, the task proved too ambitious and was subsequently
              divided into three separate initiatives. The first, which



                                            77









               is being accomplished under the 1991 contracts, is for the
               State's streams and rivers. Lakes and estuaries are the
               second and third initiatives, respectively. The Department
               received approval from EPA on October 27, 1992 to use
               $60,000 of the Clean Lakes Program Lake Water Quality,
               Assessment Grant to begin Florida's lakes ecoregion/
               bioassessment initiative. An alternate funding source will
               be pursued for the estuarine project.

               The workplan for the State's Clean Lakes Bioassessment/
               Ecoregion Lake Water Quality Assessment (LWQA) initiative is
               similar to the major tasks identified in the streams and
               rivers project. The lakes' ecoregion workplan will benefit
               from information already obtained in the streams/riVers
               contracts, including: 1. bioassessment standard operating
               procedures for sampling; and 2. existing geographical
               analyses conducted using maps, databases, and basin reports
               to produce overlays of regional patterns of ecological
               significance.

               The major tasks which are proposed for the lakes,
               bioassessment/ecoregion workplan include:

                    1. Conducting a workshop involving experts in lake
                       management and monitoring to clarify project
                       objectives and develop detailed scopes of services
                       for the project contracts.

                    2. Serving as a test state for the lake bioassessment
                       protocols now being developed by EPA and developing
                       indices of biotic structure, function, and
                       community balance for the State's lakes.

                    3. Evaluating historic lake monitoring data such as
                       that compiled in the 305(b) report to determine its
                       applicability to the project.

                    4. Evaluating current lake water quality assessment
                       data obtained through 1990 205(j)(1) contracts with
                       the State's water management districts, University
                       of Florida's Lakewatch program, and South Florida
                       Regional Planning Council.

                    5. Defining the ecoregions and subregions of Florida
                       with regards to lakes.





                                            78









                   6. Identifying appropriate reference lakes within the
                      ecoregions.

                   7. Assessing the reference lakes using proposed
                      standardized bioassessment protocols.

                   8. Revising the lake ecoregion boundaries as necessary
                      based on the reference lake bioassessment data.


              Biomonitoring has broad implications for lake management.
              Benefits expected include: 1. characterizing the extent and
              severity of point and nonpoint source impairments;
              2. targeting and prioritizing lakes (and their watersheds)
              for remedial or preventive management programs;
              3. evaluating the effectiveness of current and future Clean
              Lakes and other lake management projects; 4. determining use
              attainability; and 5. developing biocriteria that relate to
              regional water quality goals. The Lakes Bioassessment/
              Ecoregion Project is expected to require 36 months to
              complete. Adequate funds are not available to complete all
              the proposed work. A fiscal year 1993 Clean Lakes Program
              LWQA grant application was developed and submitted for this
              purpose.

              The State's Clean Lakes Bioassessment/Ecoregion Project will
              be closely coordinated with the EPA Lake Bioassessment
              national effort with oversight from the EPA contractor,
              Tetra Tech, Inc. DEP has a representative on the Lake
              Bioassessment Reference Conditions Subgroup who will help
              integrate this project into the national lake bioassessment
              effort.


              Phase One Lake Diagnostic/Feasibility Studies

              There were two Phase one studies funded during the present
              five year work plan. These projects are summarized in the
              following paragraphs.

              The Lake Lawne project was completed December 31, 1993 with
              submission of a final report that included data analysis,
              development and evaluation of alternative management
              strategies, ranking of restoration programs, and an
              evaluation of project benefits. Additional work was
              included that identified and described lake and watershed
              natural and socioeconomic characteristics from secondary
              sources. The federal cost of this project was $100,000.
              Several monitoring elements were part of the project.



                                           79









               Sediment sampling work was performed. Stormwater and
               routine lake water quality monitoring were completed for
               three storm events and a one year sampling program,
               respectively.

               A grant of $80,000 was awarded for both Lake Munson and Lake
               Hollingsworth for the period of 6/1/89 to 6/30/94. The
               final report for the Lake Munson project was receivedon
               August 28, 1992. It has been approved by the Department and
               forwarded to EPA Region IV. Unfortunately, the Lake
               Hollingsworth component of the workplan has not fared. so
               well. The Hollingsworth study was undertaken with the
               understanding that the $40,000 initially provided by EPA was
               to help support only the first year of work and that
               additional Federal Clean Lakes funds would be providE!d in
               subsequent years to help complete the project. The City of
               Lakeland anticipated an eventual cost sharing of 70% federal
               to 30% local as implied in the Clean Lakes Manual. Instead,
               EPA has chosen not to provide any additional funding for
               this project. This decision results in EPA sharing -just 19%
               of the estimated costs of the project. The original
               contract between the DEP and the City of Lakeland for Lake
               Hollingsworth strictly limited the City's obligations to
               what could be accomplished in the first year given the level
               at which the project was funded by EPA. Provisions were
               included in the agreement to extend the contract when
               supplemental EPA funds became available to complete the
               work. The remaining work is being completed at the City's
               own expense. However, the City appears committed to the
               effort and entered into an agreement with the Department on
               November 13, 1992 to continue the project. The project is
               scheduled to be completed by December 1994. A quality
               assurance  audit was performed to ensure that the data which
               have been  collected thus far are reliable.


               Phase Two  Lake Restoration Prolects


               There are  no Phase Two projects currently underway in
               Florida.   Phase Two projects must qualify for funding   based
               on recommendations from a satisfactorily completed Phase One
               Diagnostic/Feasibility Study (or a study addressing
               essentially the same criteria). Consequently, only a few
               Phase Two projects are possible in Florida during the five
               year planning period through September 1997. Proposed
               projects are discussed below:





                                             80









                   1. Lake Munson Sediment Removal Project. Phase One
                      study completed in August 1992. The success of
                      this project depends upon the City of Tallahassee
                      and Leon County first scheduling and completing a
                      number of stormwater management improvements in the
                      Lake Munson watershed. Considerable progress has
                      been made,, but much work remains to be done. The
                      project is still an excellent candidate for Phase
                      Two Clean Lakes funding which will likely be
                      pursued during the five year planning period.

                   2. Lake Lawne. Phase One study was completed in
                      December 1993. Phase Two work is dependent on a
                      consensus being reached between the City of Orlando
                      and Orange County regarding the importance of
                      restoration of this waterbody and the sharing of
                      responsibilities. At the present time, future
                      restoration work is of a higher priority for the
                      County then the City, but that is subject to
                      change.

                   3. Lake Hollingsworth. Phase One study presently
                      underway and is expected to be completed by
                      December 1994. It is too soon to predict if the
                      Phase One study will lead to a decision to include
                      this lake for a Phase Two project. The City of
                      Lakeland has begun a $150,000 pilot project to
                      determine the feasibility of dredging the lake.
                      The City plans to direct revenue generated from a
                      local sales tax increase to the project in 1996.

                   4. Lakes Tarpon, Thonotosassa, Panasoffkee, and the
                      Winter Haven Chain are being studied under the SWIM
                      Program with watershed management and lake
                      restoration recommendations being developed. DEP
                      anticipates that these SWIM lakes can qualify for
                      Phase Two funding.

                   5. Lake Jackson. Phase One study completed in
                      September 1991. The only in-lake activity
                      recommended by this study was the routine
                      harvesting of macrophytic plants, which does not
                      qualify for Phase Two funding. Additional
                      recommendations were made by the study that pertain
                      to watershed management activities. These
                      activities are beyond the scope of the Phase Two
                      program. Consequently, no Phase Two work is



                                            81









                       anticipated for Lake Jackson during the five year
                       planning period.

               Coordination, Staffing, and Funding Plans

               It is anticipated that the emergence of a lake management
               program in Florida will require extensive coordination
               between the Clean Lakes Program, the State's Surface Water
               Ambient Monitoring Program, growth management interests,
               local governments, the State's five water management
               district's and their adopted SWIM plans! and activist groups
               .such as the Florida Lake Management Society and Florida
               Lakewatch. This coordination will be accomplished through
               established communications networks, administration of
               contracts, and a -more visible, active and informative role
               for the program at meetings and conferences. A fiscal year
               1993 LWQA grant application for travel money will be
               submitted for this purpose. It is anticipated that
               additional federal grant money will be sought for travel
               during the five year planning periodand that this grant
               money will be matched by the salary/frin
                                                       ge and indirect
               costs of the State's Clean Lakes Program coordinator
               position for the periods during which travel is conducted.

               There have been instances in the past in which Florida   has
               not been given sufficient notice to develop project
               proposals.. There has also been insufficient guidance from
               EPA with regards to the criteria by which project proposals
               are judged. Adequate notice and guidance is essential for
               Florida to do more to generate interest in the program,
               obtain good project proposals, prioritize its projects, and
               submit them in a timely and appropriate manner. The State
               intends to coordinate and communicate more closely with EPA
               in order to overcome these problems.

               EPA has long sought the appointment of a full time Clean
               Lakes Program Coordinator in Florida rather than someone who
               has to balance the responsibilities of the Clean Lakes
               Program with other professional obligations. The State
               recently dedicated one-half of an Environmental Specialist's
               time to the Clean Lakes Program. This level of commitment
               will enable the State to better explore the potential of the
               program.

               The most serious problem the Clean Lakes Program faces at
               this time is a lack of revenue. Tight budgets at the
               federal, state, and local levels have all reduced the



                                            82









              availability of funds for lake management purposes. There
              is no simple solution to this problem. The Clean Lakes
              Program has never been a priority program within EPA as
              evidenced by the zero funding continually requested in EPA's
              own budget requests to Congress. If EPA expects the State
              to make a major commitment to staffing or funding for lake
              management, EPA must lead by example. The State will
              attempt to access the Water Resources Restoration and
              Preservation Trust Fund, the Pollution Recovery Trust Fund,
              and SWIM budgets to pursue Clean Lakes Program projects.
              General revenue will be used as match for grants to cover
              salaries, fringe, and indirect costs for grant matches.
              Local governments will be encouraged to become involved. If
              sufficient benefits can be demonstrated for the Program
              through these means, the Department may eventually be able
              to approach the State Legislature to seek a budget for the
              program. The State desires to obtain as much federal money
              as possible to improve Florida's lakes. To this end, the
              State will pursue all avenues to obtain necessary matching
              funds.


              Summary


              This workplan should enhance Florida's existing lake
              management, monitoring, and water quality assessment
              programs. The State is attempting to improve relations with
              its federal and local partners in the Program through better
              communications and contract management. It is anticipated
              that increased dispersion of Clean Lakes Program information
              through workshops, publications, and conferences will
              generate an increased awareness and interest within Florida
              for the program. Florida's lakes bioassessment/ecoregion
              initiative is expected to play a prominent future role in
              the program as will GIS. EPA's commitment to funding the
              Clean Lakes Program will become an increasingly important
              element as the plan is implemented. It is hoped that this
              plan will encourage EPA to increase support and funding for
              Florida's lake management program.

              Trophic Status/Impaired and Threatened Lakes


              The trophic status of lakes was determined by the Trophic
              State Index. The index is described in the methodology
              section of Chapter Two and in the Technical Appendix. This
              index was also used to indicate use support, such that: high
              TSIs (above 70) are rated as eutrophic and not supporting
              use; a TSI range of 60-70 rates lakes as mesotrophic and



                                           83








               partially supporting use; and TSIs below 60 are oligotrophic
               and fully supporting use. These determinations approximate
               a poor, fair, and good water quality classification,
               respectively, relative to that which would be expected
               without anthropogenic impacts. Table 20 presents the
               trophic status of significant publicly owned lakes arid  the
               range of lake water quality values which correspond to   the
               three trophic conditions. Some. modifications in water
               quality assessments were made when information. from special
               reports or professional judgments contradicted the
               statistical analyses. Table 20 also shows that the majority
               (258) of lakes are oligotrophic, while 55 ate mesotrophic,
               and 43 are eutrophic.

               The large percentage of lake area only partially meeting use
               is caused by Florida's two largest lakes, Lake Okeechobee
               and Lake George, which constitute more than half of
               Florida's lake surface area. A third large lake, Apopka, is
               rated poor, not meeting its use, and is hyper-eutrophic.

               Most of Florida's lakes are shallow solution depressions,
               which are generally well-mixed. Where they occur in
               nutrient poor, sandy soils, they can be quite oligotrophic.
               However, where a nutrient source is available, they can
               become enriched quickly due to their shallowness and warm
               temperatures in Florida. Agricultural runoff, urban
               stormwater, and historical WWTP discharges are the
               predominant nutrient sources causing problems for Florida
               lakes. Many WWTP discharges have been removed from 'lakes in
               the past decade.

               Most lakes are required to meet Florida Class III water
               quality criteria. Lakes or reservoirs used for drinking
               water must meet higher Class I criteria. In the Statewide
               as.sessment, lakes are counted as impaired by having -a TSI
               value of greater than 60 (see Trophic Status section,
               above). See Tables 15, 16, 17 and 18 for summary
               information on designated use support and causes and sources
               of nonsupport.












                                             84













             Table 20. Trophic Status of Significant Publicly Ow           ned Lakes.




                                                                            Median Parameter Value


                                                 Lakes in                                               Secchi
                                    Trophic         Each         Chlorophyll Nitrogen Phosphorus Depth
             Use Classification Condition Trophic Class               Ag/l        mg/l       mg/l         m        TSI

                                                 Number    Area
                                                       (square miles)




          oo Meets use             Oligotrophic 258        712         4         0.66       0.02          1.6       42

             Partially  meets
              use                  Mesotrophic      55     764        24         1.36       0.07          0.7        63

             Does not meet use     Eutrophic        43     366        71         2.41       0.13          0.4        78











               Control Methods


               Permitting practices and nonpoint controls for lakes do not
               differ from those described in Part Five of this report.
               The State has enacted growth management legislation which
               requires cities and counties to submit comprehensive plans
               which address pollution control methods for significant
               surface waterbodies in their jurisdiction.

               Removal of point source discharges or reduction of their
               impacts has been one of the most important means of reducing
               and preventing lake degradation. The majority of point
               source discharges were municipal wastewater treatment
               plants. The removal and reduction of discharges from many
               of these plants took place in the 1970s and 1980s, though
               there are still places where municipal discharges remain to
               be phased out.

               As the point source issue has been addressed, the State has
               turned its attention to control of nonpoint source
               pollution. Stormwater retrofits, Be 'st Management Practices
               (BMPs), and the creation and restoration of wetland marshes
               as filters are ways of reducing nonpoint source
               contributions to lake loadings. The Dairy Rule in effect
               for the Lake Okeechobee drainage utilizes several of these
               techniques. That rule requires specific guidelines and BMPs
               which restrict dairy pollution in the basin.

               As part of the SWIM plan, pollution load reduction goals
               (PLRGs) must be identified. These are estimated reductions
               in pollutant loadings needed to preserve or restore waters
               to meet applicable State water quality standards. Interim
               PLRGs are a first step. These are best judgement estimates
               of load reductions that will result from planned corrective
               actions. PLRGs and interim PLRGs have been developed for
               several of the SWIM waterbodies. Most PLRGs are aimed at
               reducing nutrient loadings, particularly phosphorus. The
               process requires the development of internal and external
               nutrient budgets to determine allowable or controllable
               reductions in loadings. Rules can then be drafted to
               establish a means to meet those loading reductions.
               Examples of site specific PLRGs are discussed in the
               following Section on Lake Restoration and RehabilitaLtion
               programs.








                                            86











              Lake Restoration and Rehabilitation


              There are several programs in place within the State
              directed to restoration, management, or rehabilitation of
              lakes. Table 21 provides a summary of lake rehabilitation
              projects performed by state and federal agencies. Acreages
              listed represent total lake areas where a specific technique
              was used. Because projects take more than one year to
              complete, some of the projects listed in Table 21 have been
              in progress or portions of their management plan completed
              before 1992. Acreages of plants controlled by herbicides or
              mechanical harvest include both lakes and rivers. Many
              local and county agencies'and governments have their own
              restoration programs. These were not included in Table 21.
              At present, there are no federally funded Clean Lakes
              Program restoration projects.

              DEP's Bureau of Aquatic Plant Management and the U.S. Army
              Corps of Engineers cooperate to manage aquatic plants in
              Florida's public waters. For the purposes of this program,
              public waters are defined as those with boat ramps. There
              are approximately 450 public lakes and navigable rivers
              eligible for state and federal aquatic plant management
              monies. of this number, on average, 350 are managed each
              year for aquatic plants.

              From $5-7 million is spent each year controlling aquatic
              plants. This money is spent primarily for the control of
              exotics: waterhyacinth, waterlettuce, and hydrilla.
              Management of native plants is limited to boat ramps and
              boat trails.


              Herbicides provide the longest and most selective control of
              waterhyacinth, waterlettuce, and hydrilla. The common
              herbicides used are: diquat, endothall, glyphosate,
              fluridone, and 2,4-D. Control with herbicides is temporary,
              but effects can last from several months to as long as two
              years.


              Biological controls have been researched for about 30 years.
              Fifteen organisms, mostly host specific insects, have been
              released to control invasive exotic plants. For example,
              Alligatorweed was once one of the worst weeds in Florida.
              After the release of three insects, alligatorweed is now
              only occasionally a problem. At least a dozen biological
              controls have been released to control waterhyacinth,




                                           87









               Table 21. L    ake Rehabilitation Technique,s.



               Waterbody Name                   HUC Code          Technique Used                                   Acres Affected
                                                                                                                   Work in Work
                                                                                                                  Progress Complete


               Game and Fresh Water Fish Coiz=ission
               Derby Lake                       03100101          Fish reconstruction                                                23
               (Tenoroc)                                          (Installed aerators & feeders)

               Lake Jackson                     03090101          1. Water control structure completed                            1,0-21
               (Osceola Co.)                                      2. Muck removal                                   1,021

               Lake Tohopekaliga                03090101          Mechanical harvest of aquatic                                 18,810
                                                                    vegetation (34 acres)

               East Lake Tohopekaliga           03090101          Drawdown/muck removal completed 1990                          11,968

               Lake Talquin                     03120003          1. Drawdown                                                   10,208
                                                                  2. Revegetation                                               10,208

          CO Merritts Mill Pond                 03130012          1. Drawdown                                                      203
          00                                                      2. Revegetation                                                  203

               Corbetts Pond                    03090202          1. Dredged                                                         15
                                                                  2. Shoreline resloping and clearing                                15
                                                                       of brush from fish refuges

               Lake Hunter                      03100205          1. Water fluctuation structured replaced                           '99
                                                                  2. Nuisance vegetation removal                                     99

               Crystal Lake                     ;03100101         1. Experimental stormwater detention                               30
                                                                       pond created
                                                                  2. Habitat improvement                                             30

               Alligator Chain of Lakes         03090101          1. Tussock removal from Lakes Coon                                 34
                                                                       and Center
                                                                  2. Revegetation with eelarass                                      34
                                                                       and bulrush


               Lake Monroe                      03080101          1. Revegetation                                                 9,4,07
                                                                  2. Creel studies









              Table 21.      (Continued).



              Waterbody Name                   HUC Code        Technique used                                 Acres Affected
                                                                                                              work in    work
                                                                                                             Progress Complete


              Middle Lake                      03100207        1. Mechanical harvest of tussocks                               215
                                                                    (40 acres)

              Clear Lake                       03090101        1.  Drawdown                                                    358
                                                               2.  Grass carp renovation                                       358
                                                               3.  Revegetation                                                358

              DEP Bureau of Aquatic Plant Management
              345 waterbodies for 1992                         1.  mechanical harvest (1992)                                   646
              338 waterbodies for 1993                         2.  Herbicide (1992)                                         45,280
                                                               3.  Mechanical harvest (1993)                                   513
                                                               4.  Herbicide(1993)                                          45,950

              Surface Water Improvement and Management Plans

           CO Lake Apopka                      03080102        1.  Marsh flow-way/wetland creation              5,000          900
                                                               2.  Stabilization of near-shore                30,671
                                                                     sediments/revegetation
                                                               3.  Rough fish harvest                         30,671
                                                               4.  Reduce external nutrient non point         30,671
                                                                     source control loads

              Lake Griffin                     03080102        1.  Marsh flow-way constructed/
                                                                     not operational
                                                               2.  PLRG

              Harris Chain of Lakes            03080102        Revised regulation structure
                                                                 schedule

              Lake Jackson                     03120003        1.  Hydraulically dredged 1990                                 4,000
               (Meginnis Arm)                                  2.  Revegetation of dredged area                 4,000
               (Fords Arm)                                         (3 acres)
                                                               3.  Completion of stormwater pond                4,000
                                                                   (100 acres)
                                                               4.  Acquisition of land on shoreline                           1,500
                                                                     and watershed










             Table 21. (Continued).



             Waterbody Name                 HUC Code        Technique Used                               Acres Affected
                                                                                                         Work in   Work
                                                                                                         Progress Complete


             Lake Okeechobee                03090201        1. External reduction of nutrients -         448,000
                                                                 pollution load reduction goals   (PLRG)
                                                            2. Reduction of Point and non-point          448,000
                                                                 source pollution
                                                            3. Exotic eradication in littoral zone

             Banana Lake                    03100101        1. Hydraulic dredging                                        342
                                                            2. Littoral zone revegetation                    342
                                                            3. Removed point sources                                     342
                                                            4. Retrofit storm Drains                         342
                                                            5. PLRG                                          342

             Lake Tarpon                    031002-06       1. Revegetation
                                                            2. Retrofit storm drains
                                                            3. PLRG
          110                                               4. Mechanical harvest of macrophytes
          C
             Lake Thonotosassa              03100205        1. Remove point sources                          819
                                                            2. Revegetation                                              819
                                                            3. Biological control of Hydrilla                819
                                                            4. Partial drawdown                                          819
                                                            5. PLRG                                          819


             Lake Panasoffkee               03100208        Control of Hydrilla                             4,460

             Upper St. Johns River          03080101        1. Floodplain reconstruction                 145,000
               Basin - Lakes Sawgrass/                      2. PLRG
               Winder/Blue.Cypress                          3. Reduction of flood stages in lakes

             Winter Haven Chain of Lakes    03100101        1. Stormwater retrofit/alum injection            336
                                                                 (Lake Cannon)
                                                            2. Mechanical harvest                              30           5
                                                            3. Stormwater retrofit
                                                            4. Swale demonstration
                                                            5. PLRG
                                                            6. Remove point source









              waterlettuce, and hydrilla. Most only stress the plant so
              acres controlled are impossible to determine.

              The Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission is responsible for
              managing, protecting, and conserving the wild animal life
              and freshwater aquatic life of Florida. The GFWFC uses lake
              restoration techniques to revitalize sport fisheries in
              Class III waters. The Agency spends approximately $1
              million per year on restoration.

              The GFWFC performed its first lake restoration in 1971 with
              the drawdown of Lake Tohopekaliga. The effort was a success
              and resulted in a five-fold increase in numbers of
              largemouth bass and increased the economic value of the
              fishery by approximately $6 million.

              Since then, the GFWFC has undertaken more than 30 projects
              with a success rate of over 90'1. Before 1989, work was
              funded through outside sources. After 1989, an increase in
              the cost of a freshwater fishing license generated revenue
              that was directed to lake restoration/fisheries habitat
              improvement.

              Some examples of techniques and their results follow. Lake
              Griffin was drawn down in March of 1984 in an effort to
              consolidate sediments, promote growth of aquatic plants, and
              improve the fishery. Sport fish responded well to the
              drawdown. A twenty-fold increase in abundance of largemouth
              bass was found compared to predrawdown populations. Lake
              Stone in Escambia County was lowered 11 feet in the winter
              of 1970 and again in the summer of 1979 to control submerged
              plants and stimulate the sport fishery. Results were a
              reduction in submerged vegetation and an increase in total
              fish weight from 54 pounds to 181 pounds per acre.

              The SWIM Act of 1987 required the State's five water
              management districts to identify priority waterbodies in
              their districts for restoration and/or preservation and to
              submit plans for these restoration/preservation activities.
              SWIM Plans for the following lakes have been adopted: Deer
              Point Lake, Alligator Lake, Banana Lake, Lake Tarpon, Lake
              Panasoffkee, Lake Thonotosassa, Lake Apopka, Lake Jackson,
              Lake Griffin and Upper Oklawaha River, Lake Okeechobee,
              Winter Haven Chain of Lakes, and the Everglades Water
              Conservation Areas (which are large impounded marsh areas).





                                           91








               Restoration and rehabilitation efforts are well undey way at
               several of these lakes. Enough work has been accomplished
               that tangible improvements are measurable. Following- are
               highlights of on-going activities at some of Florida's most
               severely polluted lakes.

               Ten years ago Banana Lake was a severely degraded waterbody.
               Regulatory actions and rehabilitation efforts in the past
               decade have changed that. In 1987, the City of Lakeland's
               wastewater effluent was diverted from the lake to an old
               settling pond. Mean chlorophyll a levels decreased from 220
               Ag1l to 120 Ag1l following diversion. An hydraulic dredging
               of bottom sediments was completed in 1991. Complete removal
               of bottom sediments to sand bottom was performed.
               Additionally, an inflow canal, Stahl Canal, was regraded and
               revegetated. Mean chlorophyll a levels have decreased
               further to 85 Ag1l. Fishery improvements have been
               documented. Some of the fishery goals may have already been
               achieved, such as 200 lbs/acre of fish biomass in thiB
               littoral zone.  On the negative side, hydrilla has started
               to expand into the lake.

               Lake Apopka is the third largest lake in Florida and also
               considered one of the most polluted and degraded. Until the
               mid-1950s, Lake Apopka was a sand bottomed lake that
               supported a sport fishery widely known for trophy fish.
               Alterations of the lake's hydrology by the construction of
               the Apopka-Beauclair Canal started the decline. External
               loadings of nutrients from point sources and muck farms
               located along the lake's periphery have contributed to blue-
               green algal blooms, The blooms reduced water clarity which
               in turn 'reduced light input to aquatic vegetation. As
               plants and algae died they contributed to the development of
               a mucky organic bottom, replacing sand.

               Four major steps have been initiated to restore LakE! Apopka.
               The first is the reduction of external loads through
               pollution load reduction goals. The largest source of
               nutrients to the lake comes from agriculture (muck farms).
               Consent Orders have been signed with major agricultural
               interests directing them to reduce their discharges of water
               into the lake. Farms will have to construct and maintain
               water detention treatment systems to prevent discharges of
               untreated agricultural stormwater. Best estimates are that
               a 65-75% reduction in phosphorus loadings will be achieved
               as these Orders are implemented.




                                             92









              The SJRWMD has purchased land around the lake for
              construction of marsh flow-ways. A demonstration 900 acre
              marsh has been completed. The final marsh will be 5,000
              acres in extent. The marsh acts as a filter to remove
              nutrients and sediment. Lake water is pumped through the
              marsh and then returned to the lake. Comparison of water
              before and after treatment in the marsh shows dramatic
              improvement in clarity. It is expected that as much as 33
              tons of phosphorus will be removed. Complete termination of
              agricultural activities in the marsh flow-way areas will
              result in a 20-301; decrease in phosphorus loadings to the
              lake.


              To further remove nutrients from the lake, gizzard shad are
              being harvested. Shad waste returns nutrients to the water
              column. These fish also consume zooplankton leaving the
              algal populations unchecked with resultant algal blooms.

              The fourth and final means of reducing nutrients is by
              wetland restoration. Moveable breakwaters are planned to
              help stabilize the near shore sediments. The expectation is
              that the breakwaters will reduce resuspension of sediment.
              Revegetation with native aquatic plants is also anticipated.

              Lake Okeechobee is the State's largest lake. The lake is
              part of a larger hydrologically altered system including the
              Kissimmee River and the Everglades. Wetland drainage areas
              south of the lake (Everglades Agricultural Area) have been
              diked and drained for agricultural land. Lake Okeechobee
              supplies drinking water, irrigation water, and is a major
              inflow source for the Everglades. The lake is presently
              phosphorus enriched, fueling algal blooms.

              To address the nutrient problems, pollution load reduction
              goals were developed that required a 40% reduction in
              phosphorus loadings. As part of the SWIM Legislation,
              limitations were set forth that required reductions in
              tributary loadings to the lake to achieve that reduction.
              The DEP Dairy Rule and BMPs were developed to enforce
              effluent discharges from dairy lands. Reduction was to be
              achieved by the collection, storage, and land application of
              waste and nutrient-laden runoff from high intensity usage
              areas (milking barns, feedlots, etc.). A total of 49
              dairies came under jurisdiction of this rule. A Dairy Buy-
              Out Program was also established for farmers unable or
              unwilling to comply with the Dairy Rule. Under this program
              the State paid farmers approximately the same amount of



                                            93








              money to stop milk production as would have been expended to
              construct BMPs on their land. The SFWMD supplemented.the
              State payment to the extent necessary to bring total payment
              to $602 per cow based on herd size between June 1986 and
              June 1987. The Buy-Out applied a deed restriction tc. the
              property prohibiting future use as a dairy or animal feeding
              operation. The Buy-Out did not purchase the land or cows,
              but rather facilitated their relocation. Eighteen dairies
              participated in the Buy-Out Program and one additional was
              purchased with SFWMD's Save Our Rivers Program. A total of
              14,039 cows were relocated at a combined cost of over $8
              million to the State and the SFWMD. Of the 30 remairLing
              dairies, 29 have impleT@ented BMPs and construction is under
              way at the thirtieth. Sixteen dairies now meet the FLverage
              annual off-site total phosphorus limit of 1.2 mg/l. Prior
              to implementation of the rule only four dairies met this
              limit.


              The SFWMD established a Works of the District Program to
              provide a framework for the permitting of non-dairy uses
              within the lake's basin. Activities covered under this
              program include horse, hog, chicken, and goat farms, urban
              stormwater, golf courses, sugar cane growers, and nursery
              and sod farms. Under this program, users are required to
              meet specific off site phosphorus concentration limits. if
              monitoring data indicate that there is greater than a 5006
              probability that the average annual off site discharge
              concentration will not be met, the landowner is required to
              take corrective actions to bring discharges into compliance  .

              Activities undertaken in this basin have resulted in reduced
              loadings within the tributaries. Measurable changes in lake
              phosphorus concentrations have not yet been seen.
              Considering the area of the lake and the amount of nutrients
              that are stored in its sediments immediate changes are
              probably not realistic.


              Acid Effects on Lakes


              During the previous decade, it has become apparent that many
              lakes in Florida are acidic, soft water lakes. The majority
              of these lakes are clustered in two geographic areas: the
              Trail Ridge in the northeast peninsula and highlands of the
              Panhandle region west of the Apalachicola River. The Trail
              Ridge area is a relict shoreline from the last sea level
              rise.





                                            94








                The majority of acidic soft water lakes are seepage lakes.
                They receive most of their water from runoff, rainfall, and
                baseflow from the surficial aquifer. Soils in the areas of
                these lakes are typically sandy, non-calcareous, and poorly
                buffered. While limestone underlies most of Florida, lakes
                4n the Trail Ridge and highlands occur well above these
                _L
                formations. Additionally a confining layer of non-
                calcareous clays may be present between the lake bottom and
                limestone.


                Because these lakes were sensitive to further acidification,
                a number of studies were conducted to determine if
                acidification was occurring and to characterize the water
                quality and biota. Crisman et al. (1980) determined that
                over a 20 year period the mean pH of lakes in the Trail
                Ridge had declined 0.5 units. Paleo-ecological studies,
                conducted earlier in the decade, and current studies
                indicated that the acidity of five Florida lakes had
                increased (Sweets et al., 1990). A study of historical
                chemistry changes in acidic soft water lakes found that a
                loss of acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) had occurred in
                four of seven lakes, suggesting acidification. Canfield et
                al. (1990) found that fish species diversity begins to
                decline at a pH of 5.0. Fish diversity in studied lakes
                declined approximately 600-. across a pH range of 5.0 to 4.5.
                Fish number and weight were also significantly correlated to
                pH and alkalinity.

                Both pH and alkalinity data were available for 338 lakes.
                Of the 338 lakes, only 28 had median pHs less than or equal
                to 5.0. In contrast almost half of the total number of
                assessed lakes had median pHs greater than 7.0. Many of the
                States's lakes are eutrophic and it is not uncommon under
                those conditions to find high pH. Table 22 lists the number
                and area of lakes assessed for acid effects. The criteria
                used to determine if lakes were potentially vulnerable to
                acidification, were an alkalinity of 10 mg/l as CaC03
                coupled with a pH of 5 or less. *Too little data have been
                collected to make determinations of causes of low pH.
                Though it appears, that with the exception of a few
                documented lakes, low pH to a large extent may be a natural
                occurrence.














                                             95








                Table 22. Lakes Assessed for Low pH and Alkalinity.




                                       Number of Lakes        Area
                                                          (square miles)


                Assessed for Acidity        338              1,812.5
                Potentially Vulnerable       28                 30.6
                  to Acidity




                Trends in Lake Water Quality


                Trend analysis of Florida lakes (for the 1984-1993 time
                period) shows that for Florida lakes with trend information,
                62 are maintaining their overall quality, 21 are improving
                and 3 are declining (Table 23). Figure 7 (page 50) displa,@s
                the location of lakes exhibiting trends. However, 269 (76*-.)
                lakes did not have sufficient data for trend analysis (See
                Chapter Two of Part III for a further description of the
                trend analysis technique).


                Table 23. Water Quality Trends in Lakes (1984-1993).




                                                          Area
                Trend          Number of Lakes       (square miles)


                Improving           21                     166
                Declining            3                      59
                No Trend            62                     716
                Unknown            269                     764




                The reason for water quality improvements in the majority of
                lakes was due to the diversion of wastewater treatment plant
                effluents. This was  most obvious in the Orlando area where
                Lakes Howell, Jessup, and Harney all showed improving
                quality due to the removal of wastewater effluent from the
                headwaters of these lakes. All of these lakes exhibited



                                              96









              serious water quality problems before diversion of
              discharges from wastewater treatment plants. On the other
              hand, the lakes which show degrading TSI trends generally
              supported designated use and had good water quality. For
              these lakes, causes of degradation were increased pollution
              loads from nonpoint sources (agricultural runoff, urban
              runoff, and septic tank leachate).

              Volunteer Monitoring of Lakes


              Florida Lakewatch is a program developed by the University
              of Florida for the purpose of monitoring Florida lakes.
              Special attention is given to water quality monitoring and
              the distribution of scientifically sound lake management
              information. Lakewatch provides educational material to
              volunteers regarding their lakes and provides a vehicle for
              interaction between the public and government agencies.

              The program consists of a cooperative effort between Florida
              citizen volunteers and the University of Florida. Sampled
              lakes are located in 17 different counties. The program is
              partially funded through a contract with the Florida
              Department of Environmental Protection. In return, data are
              provided to the DEP for use in water quality assessments.
              Samples are collected by citizen volunteers and delivered to
              the University for analysis and data processing. During
              1993, a total of 393 lakes were sampled. Most monitoring
              was performed on a monthly basis with the exception that a
              few lakes were only sampled either four or six times during
              the year. In that same year, volunteers were trained on 91
              lakes. Of that number, 47 were new lakes to the program and
              44 replacement lakes.

              A study conducted by the University in 1991 compared data
              collected by professional biologists and citizen volunteers.
              There were no significant differences between values for
              total phosphorus, total nitrogen, and chlorophyll a. There
              were significant differences for Secchi depth values at 11
              lakes with an average variation of 0.9 ft.

              Additional activities,have been added to the program as it
              has developed over the years. Florida Lakewatch personnel
              sampled the abundance of aquatic macrophytes in over 170
              lakes from 1991 to 1993. Supplemental water quality data
              were added to the 1993 Lakewatch report for over 190 lakes.
              Additional parameters included pH, total alkalinity,
              specific conductance, color, chloride, iron, silica,



                                           97









               sulfate, calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium. The
               report is available from DEP. Results for individual lakes
               are available upon request.

               The Trophic State Index for each lake was calculated by DEP.
               Results for all monitored lakes for 1993 are included as
               Appendix B of this report. Table 24 lists eutrophic lakes
               (those with TSIs above 70) sampled by the Lakewatch ]Program.













































                                            98








               Table 24. Lakewatch Lakes with High TSI Values. NS Means
               Not Sampled.




                                                            Year
               Lake Name          County       1990    1991   1992     1993


               .Beauclairre       Lake          88      86     88      88
               Dora East          Lake          83      81     83      83
               Dora West          Lake          79      79     83      80
               Hunter             Polk          78      78     83      80
               Picciola           Lake          71      71     80      74
               Griffin            Lake          71      76     80      77
               Wauberg            Alachua       70      74     77      74
               Rose               St. Lucie     70      71     54      53
               Gulf Shores West   Lee           NS      82     71      49
               Blue  2            Polk          NS      81     75      62
               East  Rocks        Lee           NS      76     60      62
               Haines             Polk          NS      76     71      77
               Lawsona            Orange        NS      75     69      60
               Floy                             NS      75     NS      61
               Wauberg            Alachua       NS      75     77      74
               Jessup             Seminole      NS      74     83      84
               May                Lake          NS      72     66      37
               Bethel             Volusia       NS      72     55      52
               Smart              Polk          NS      71     73      NS
               Conine             Polk          NS      71     75      NS
               Spring             Orange        NS      70     63      63
               Flora              Polk          NS      70     74      74
               Fauna              Polk          NS      70     66      64
               Big Bass           Polk          NS      70     71      75
               Bivens Arm         Alachua       NS      NS     78      86
               Davis              Orange        NS      NS     75      84
               Lorraine           Lake          NS      NS     74      63
               Fannie             Polk          NS      NS     73      63
               Boca Cove          Polk          NS      NS     72      75
               Shipp              Polk          NS      NS     72      75
               Little Bass        Polk          NS      NS     72      74
               Gaskins Cut        Polk          NS      NS     72      74
               Richmond           Orange        NS      NS     71      67
               Newnan             Alachua       NS      NS     NS      86
               Johnson Pond       Alachua       NS      NS     NS      82
               Sanibel R.         Lee           NS      NS     NS      79
               Trout              Lake          NS      NS     NS      77
               Lochloosa          Alachua       NS      NS     NS      76
               Murex              Lee           NS      NS     NS      70









                                               99









               Chapter Five: Estuary and Coastal Assessment

               Florida has over 8,000 miles of coastline, second in length
               only to Alaska. The west coast alone contains almost 229.- of
               the U. S. Gulf coast estuarine acreage. Florida's estuarine
               resources are some of the nation's most diverse and
               productive. Florida has many different estuarine systems
               along its coasts. There are embayments, low and high energy
               tidal salt marshes, lagoons or sounds behind barrier
               islands, vast mangrove forests, coral reefs, oyster bars,
               and the tidal segments of the large river mouths.

               The Atlantic coast of Florida from the mouth of the St.
               Mary's river to Biscayne Bay is characterized as a high
               energy shoreline. Bordering this shoreline are long
               stretches of barrier islands, behind which are high salinity
               lagoons. Though a length of 3SO miles, there are only 18
               river mouths and inlets along this stretch of coast.
               Biscayne Bay spans the transition from high to low energy
               shoreline.


               At the southern end of Florida is Florida Bay and the Ten
               Thousand Islands area. This area is dominated by mangrove
               islands fronting expansive freshwater marshes on the
               mainland. The two systems are interconnected by many tidal
               creeks and natural passes. Historically, freshwater inflow
               into this area was primarily from sheet flow across the
               Everglades.

               Florida's west coast has low relief; the continental shelf
               extends seaward for many miles. Unlike the east coast,
               there are numerous rivers, creeks, and springs which
               contribute to the development and maintenance of estuarine
               habitat.


               Generally, estuaries on the west coast are characterized as
               well-mixed systems with classical broad salinity gradients.
               Often these systems are located behind low energy barrier
               islands or at the mouths of rivers which discharge into salt
               marsh or mangrove fringed bays.

               The area comprising the Big Bend from the Anclote Keys north
               to Apalachee Bay is characterized by low energy marsh
               shoreline. It does not conform to the classical definition
               of an estuary though the flora and fauna are typically
               estuarine. Many of the freshwater rivers and streams




                                            100









              feeding this shoreline are either spring runs or receive
              significant portions of their discharge from springs.

              The Panhandle from Apalachee Bay west to Pensacola Bay is
              characterized by high energy barrier islands. The shoreline
              fronting the Gulf of Mexico is typically sand beach.

              Coastal and estuarine major habitat type varies moving north
              to south in the State. Salt marshes dominate the coastal
              landscape from Apalachicola Bay to Tampa Bay and from the
              Indian River Lagoon north to the Georgia-Florida boundary.
              West of Apalachicola Bay estuaries have few salt marshes.
              The southern Florida coast is dominated by mangrove forests.
              About 6,000 coral reefs are located from the City of Stuart
              on the Atlantic coast south and west to the Dry Tortugas.
              Seagrasses are most abundant from Tarpon Springs to
              Charlotte Harbor.


              Estuaries are an important ecological and economic resource.
              Unfortunately, many of them have been impacted by
              anthropogenic activities. Population growth and associated
              development pressures are one of the causes fueling their
              deterioration. Approximately 75*-. of new residents to
              Florida choose coastal locations for their new homes (Haddad
              and Harris, 1985). This section provides an overview of the
              existing condition of the resource.


              Desicrnated Use Support


              Estuarine and coastal areas in Florida are classified as
              Class II (shellfish harvesting and propagation) and Class
              III (recreation and wildlife). Table 25 lists the total
              area and degree of use support of estuarine areas.

              Support or nonsupport of use was determined from the Trophic
              State Index. If the TSI was 49 or less waterbodies met use
              and were designated in support. A TSI of 50-59 was
              classified as partial support. Those waterbodies in
              nonsupport of designated use had TSIs greater than or equal
              to 60. Areas not assessed did not have data available to
              make a use support determination.

              Approximately half of the estuarine area supports designated
              use. Areas listed as threatened presently support use
              designation, but may not in the future. They were
              identified as threatened from the 1994 Nonpoint Source
              Assessment and are listed in Table 25 as evaluated.




                                           101








                 Table 25. Overall Designated Use Support Summary.

                 Waterbody Type: Estuaries (sizes are in square miles)



                                                         Assessment Category

                 Degree of Use Support             Evaluated Monitored Total

                 Fully Supporting                        501      1,427     1,928
                 Supporting But Threatened               402          0       402
                 Partially Supporting                    358        857     1':)-09
                 Not Supporting                           28        139       .167
                 Not Attainable                            0          0         0



                 Total Size Assessed                   1,290      2,417    3 707
                 Not Assessed                              0          0         0




                 Table 26 lists use support by waterbody classification.
                 Approximately half of the area of watersheds evaluated and
                 classified for recreational use fully supported that
                 designation.

                 Causes and Sources of Nonsupport of DesigMated USeB

                 Assessment of causes of nonsupport of designated use is
                 based on exceedances of water quality screening levels for
                 each waterbody, professional judgment, and the results of
                 the NPS qualitative survey. The identification of source of
                 nonsupport was based on professional judgment for point
                 sources and for nonpoint sources the NPS survey.


                 Relative Assessment of Causes


                 Table 27 lists the areas of estuaries not fully supporting
                 use and identifies causes of-nonsupport. Total areas of
                 nonsupport were determined from both quantitative and
                 qualitative data. The portion of total areas attributable
                 to each data type is identified in Table 27 as STORET
                 (quantitative) and NPS (qualitative). All causes were
                 classified As moderate/minor impacts. This designation is
                 used when there are multiple causes of nonsupport for the
                 same area of estuary. Problems that affected the greatest
                 estuarine area were total suspended solids and nutrient
                 enrichment.




                                                  102












             Table 26. Individual Use support Summary,

             Waterbody Type: Estuaries (sizes are in square miles)


                                                                supporting
                                                                  But           Partially         Not           Not         Not
                                                supporting      Threatened      supporting   Supporting     Attainable    Assessed
             Use                                                                    1,209         167           0           347
             overall Use support                   1,928          402
             Aquatic Life Support                  1,928          402               1,209         167           0           347
                                                   1,928          402               1,209         167           0           347
             Swimmable                                                                  1.1         0           0              0
             1 Drinking Water                           0            0
                                                   1,020          161                 508           28          0           108
             2 shellfishing                                                           700         140           0           234
             3 Recreation-Fish-wildlife               908         241
                                                        0            0                  0           0           0              0
             4 Agriculture                              0            0                  0           0           0              0
             5 industrial











                  Table 27. Total Sizes of Waterbodies Not Fully Supporting
                  Uses by Various Cause Categories. NPS is Qualitative Data
                  Obtained from the Nonpoint Source Assessment and STORET
                  Refers to Quantitative Data from the STORET Database.

                  Waterbody Type: Estuary (sizes are in square miles)


                  Cause Categories                     Major Impact         Moderate/Minor
                                                                               Impact
                                                                        Total    NPS  STORET



                  Nutrient Enrichment                         0           244     0     244
                  Bacteria (high fecal                        0           19      0      19
                    and total coliform  counts)
                  Sediment (erosion and deposition)           0            7      7       0
                  Oil                                         0            0      0       0
                  pH                                          0            0      0       0
                  DO                                          0           45      7      38
                  Flow                                        0            0      0       0
                  Odor                                        0            0      0       0
                  TSS                                         0           472     C@    472
                  Algal Blooms                                0           11      0      11
                  Aquatic Weed                                0            0      0       0
                  Turbidity                                   0           32      0      32
                  Habitat Modification                        0            0      0       0
                  Fish Kill                                   0            0      0       0
                  No Swim                                     0            0      0       0
                  No Fish                                     0            0      0       0


































                                                      104











              Relative Assessment of Sources


              The total size of estuarine waters not fully supporting use
              and sources of nonsupport are listed in Table 28. The most
              important sources, as determined by size of area impacted,
              were urban runoff, construction, land disposal, and
              hydrologic modification.


              Table 28. Total Sizes of Waters Not Fully Supporting Uses
              by Various Source Categories.

              Waterbody Type: Estuaries (sizes are in square miles)


              Source Categories             Major         Moderate/Minor
                                                             Impact



              Industrial Point Sources        0               337
              Municipal Point Sources         0               386
              Agriculture                     0               632
              Silviculture                    0               235
              Construction                    0               985
              Urban runoff/Storm sewers       0               857
              Resource extraction             0               438
              Land disposal                   0               866
              Hydromodification               0               717




              Eu trophication,


              Consistently low surface dissolved oxygen concentrations are
              not common in the database for Florida estuaries. Three
              small bay areas exhibited consistently low dissolved oxygen
              levels, less than 4 mg/l as a five year average. These were
              Bayou Grande in the Panhandle and Whittaker and Hudson
              Bayous in west central Florida. These bays receive drainage
              from uraban areas. There are Florida estuaries with
              depressed dissolved oxygen concentrations in bottom waters;
              however, there is little data in STORET to determine the
              extent or trends in bottom dissolved oxygen concentrations.
              one reason for this is that diurnal dissolved oxygen
              measurements are usually not taken during routine
              monitoring. Limited data collected in Sarasota Bay
              indicated that in some areas of the bay dissolved oxygen



                                           105









               levels dropped below 4 ppm (State criteria) during the
               night. The evening dissolved oxygen sag observed for
               Sarasota Bay may be more representative of Florida's
               estuarine waters.


               Alcral Blooms


               In general, algal blooms are a more prevalent problem in
               Florida estuaries than low dissolved oxygen concentrations.
               The 1994 Nonpoint Source Assessment noted that about 40% of
               the estuarine areas experience some algal bloom problems.
               The majority of these estuarine areas do not have persistent
               algal bloom problems. The highest recent annual chlorophyll
               a concentration, found from a review of 150 estuarinE@
               watersheds, was 18 Ag1l in Judges Bayou in Pensacola Bay.
               The median chlorophyll a value of for all watersheds was 7
               Ag1l. These calculations were based on a five year average
               (1989-1993) of STORET data.


               The water quality of Florida Bay has been greatly affected
               by algal blooms. Blooms were first noted in the late 1980s
               and continue to the present. Blue-green algae,
               Synechococcus spp., and diatoms, are the primary floral
               components of the bloom. Large areas of the bay have a
               chalk green to pea-green color. Phytoplankton blooms have
               comprised a cumulative coverage of over 600 square miles of
               the bay since November 1991. Blue-green algal blooms have
               occurred primarily in the eastern and southern portions of
               the bay. Diatoms have dominated on the western side.
               Turbidity has also increased on the western side as a result
               of erosion of shallow banks exposed by seagrass die off. In
               some areas sediment comprises a substantial portion of the
               algal bloom. Historically, algal blooms in this estuary
               were a limited seasonal event, but now they occur almost
               year round.

               Red tide blooms have been and continue to be a periodic
               occurrence in coastal and estuarine waters. A bloom of
               Gymnodinium breve which resulted in the closing of shellfish
               beds was reported from September 1992 to January 16, 1993.
               The bloom occurred as a patchy distribution in the nearshore
               waters of the Gulf coast from Pinellas to Collier Counties.










                                           106







              Habitat 'Modifications and Changes in Living Resources

              Habitat Modification


              Total estuarine wetland acreages for emergent intertidal
              vegetation are listed in Table 33 in Chapter Six: Wetlands
              Assessment. In summary, information in that table can be
              divided approximately as 347,000 acres of saltmarsh, 660,000
              acres of mangrove, 179,500 acres of tidal flats and 3,065
              acres of reef (Field et al., 1991 and National Wetlands
              Inventory, 1984). Estimates of total acreages vary between
              different authors. Subtidal habitat composed of seagrasses
              constitutes 2.26 million acres (Orth et al., 1991). More
              than 99% of that acreage is located along the Gulf Coast.

              Loss of fisheries habitat is a problem in Florida's
              estuaries. Table 29 summarizes changes in estuarine
              fisheries habitats for selected estuaries located in
              peninsular Florida. That table is based on comparisons of
              Landsat data and aerial photographs for the 1940s and 1950s
              to those from the mid-1970s through the mid-1980s. North
              Biscayne Bay was examined for the time period from 1925 to
              1976.


              The increase in mangrove acreage for Charlotte Harbor was
              most probably from the expansion of mangroves into tidal mud
              flats. Total wetland acreage did not change, but rather
              mangrove acreage was gained and tidal flat acreage lost.
              Salt marsh was lost through development of the estuary.
              Construction of canals diverted fresh water away from the
              salt marshes. The diversion of fresh water allowed for
              saltwater intrusion. Mangroves were able to colonize the
              the more saline marsh. Seagrass losses were attributed to
              dredging of channels, altering of estuarine circulation
              patterns, and increasing turbidity. Additional losses of
              oyster reef and tidal mud flat occurred. Total acreages
              lost were 318 for oyster reef (-39%) and 8,483 for tidal mud
              flats (-76%). (Harris et al., 1983)

              Losses of mangrove habitat in Lake Worth were attributed to
              replacement by an exotic, Australian Pine, urbanization
              which included the construction of seawalls, and residential
              and commercial housing. Salt marsh was replaced by
              residential housing and a lake. (Harris et al., 1983)






                                          107


Table 29. Summary of Fisheries Habitat Alterations for Select Florida Estuaries.


Estuary					Seagrass			Mangrove		Saltmarsh			Mangrove/Saltmarsh
(Baseline Year-Evaluated Year)	Acres Lost/%		Acres Lost/%	Acres Lost/%		Acres Lost/%

Indian River				-2,115/-30%			-11,305(4)		----				----
(1943-1984)										/-86%
Charlotte Harbor				-24,464/.29%		+5,107/+10%		-3,704/-51%			----
(1945-1982)			
Tampa Bay					-62,224/-81%		----			----				-10,99/-44%
(1890-1980)						
Ponce Leon Inlet (1)			-74/-100%			----			----				-855/-19%
(1943-1984)
St. Augustine Inlet (2)			0				----			----				-1,445/-20%
(1952-1984)
St. Johns Inlet (3)			0				----			----				-4,242/-36%
(1943-1984)
Lake Worth					-4,110/-96%			-1,881/-87%		-130/100%			----
(1940-1975)
Little Manatee River			/-35%				----			----				/-7%	
(1950-
North Biscayne Bay			-9,217/-43%			312,899/-82%	----				----
(1925-1976)		
Florida Bay					-63,000			----			----				----
(1987-1990)


Notes:
(1)	7 miles of coastal segment with inlet at center point.
(2)	8 miles from North side of St. Augustine Inlet to St. Johns Co.
(3)	Starting at inlet for 3.5 miles either side and 10 miles upstream.
(4)	76% of mangroves are located in impoundments; habitat is not accessible to fish.
NP - 	not present

Sources of Information

Ponce de Leon Inlet, St. Augustine Inlet, St. John Inlet, Indian River, and Tampa Bay: Durako, M. J., M. D.
	Murphy, and K. D. Haddad. 1988. Assessment of Fisheries Habitat: Northeast Florida. FDNR.
Charlotte HArbor and Lake Worth: Harris, B. A., K. D. Haddad, K. A. Steidinger, and J. A. Huff. 1983.
	Assessment of Fisheries Habitat: Charlotte Harbor and Lake Worth, Florida. FDNR.
Biscayne Bay, Harlem, P. W. 1979. Aerial Photographis Interpretation of the Historical Changes in Northern
	Biscayne Bay, Florida: 1925 to 1976. Sea Grant Tech. Bull. 40. Univ. Miami., Coral Gables, Florida.
Florida Bay: John Hunt. FDEP. personal communication.









             Northern Biscayne Bay, the area from Broad Causeway to south
             of Rickenbacker Causeway in Miami, has been rapidly
             developed. The area of developed land increased 81% from
             1925 to 1975. The categories of developed land included
             buildings, roads, canals, agriculture, forested timber, and
             spoil islands. Losses of habitat were attributed to bottom
             disturbance from dredge and filling activities, bulkheading,
             construction of sand and spoil beaches, land created by
             fill, and a general trend toward increasing turbidity.
             Total land area in this basin has increased. Mangrove
             shorelines were once common in this estuary, but are now
             essentially nonexistent. They have been replaced with
             bulkheads. Total shoreline has increased from bulkheading
             and fill activities. (Harlem, 1979)

             The great loss of mangroves in the Indian River Lagoon is
             the result of mosquito impoundments removing access to these
             areas by fish (Durako et al., 1988). A key component of
             restoration plans for this lagoon is to install culverts so
             that water can flow in and out of the impoundments for at
             least part of the year.

             Habitat loss in the northeast Florida estuary, identified as
             Ponce de Leon Inlet, was to a large extent attributed to
             construction of the Intra-coastal Waterway. For the Ponce
             de Leon Inlet area, an estimated 412 acres of wetlands were
             covered with dredged spoil prior to 1943 (Durako et al.,
             1988). The development of the Intra-coastal Waterway has
             been a major contributor to habitat loss throughout Florida.

             St. Augustine Inlet lost the greatest amounts of fishery
             habitat in the area that was dammed and converted to a
             freshwater lake, Guano Lake (Durako et al., 1988). What was
             once a productive marshland and juvenile fish habitat was
             destroyed.

             Dredge and fill activities accounted for the greatest loss
             of habitat at St. Johns Inlet. Additional losses occurred
             before 1943, but were not quantifiable. (Durako et al.,
             1988) what was once productive marsh has been filled by
             spoil material.

             For Florida in general, dredge and fill and construction
             activities have eliminated a significant proportion of
             fishery habitats in estuaries. Seagrasses have been
             affected by declines in water quality. The four main water
             quality factors contributing to their decline are: 1.



                                          109









               eutrophication that causes algal growth which shades the
               beds; 2. turbidity from runoff; 3. dredging and/or boating
               activities; and 4. increased freshwater inflows that change
               salinity regimes. One recent noteworthy success has been
               documented for Tampa Bay. Comparison of aerial photographs
               from 1982 and 1988 indicated that an approximate 10%
               increase in seagrass coverage had occurred. All areas of
               the bay with the exception of Old Tampa Bay showed an.
               increase. A second analysis performed on 1990 photographs
               showed that further increases in seagrass area had occurred
               (Coastal Environmental, Inc., 1993).


               Less information is available about estuarine habitat
               changes for systems located in the Panhandle. However, it
               has been estimated that only 5-10% of historical seagrass
               beds remain in the Pensacola Bay System (NWFWMD, 1991).

               To improve the State's capability to assess habitat changes,
               DEP's Marine Research Institute has joined with the National
               Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to participate
               in the NOAA Coastwatch Change Analysis Program. The program
               objective is to monitor changes in coastal fishery habitats
               and other wetlands that influence the coast using a
               combination of satellite imagery and aerial photography. At
               present, only Florida Bay is being examined, but plans are
               to include all of South Florida during 1994.


               Fish and Shellfish Resources of Florida


               It has been estimated that over 90% of commercially
               important and 70% of recreationally important species in the
               Gulf of Mexico are estuary dependent during some part of
               their life. Habitat is thus important to the continued
               viability of Florida's fishery. Both the commercial and
               recreational fisheries are important economic resources for
               the State.


               In 1983, the Florida Legislature enacted legislation that
               created the Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC). 'The MFC is
               comprised of seven members appointed by the Governor and is
               responsible for managing Florida's marine resources.
               Regulations produced by this body cover gear specifications,
               size limits, bag limits, protected species and fishing
               seasons. To draft a regulation, public hearings are held
               before draft proposals or regulations are made. After
               publication of draft regulations, a final public hearing is
               held before the rule becomes final. The MFC then sends the



                                           110









              rule to the Governor and Cabinet for review where it may be
              approved or disapproved, but not amended. Once approved,
              fishery regulations are enforceable laws.

              The MFC is responsible for Florida waters. On the east
              coast waters of the State extend 3 nautical miles and on the
              west coast generally a little more than 10 miles. Florida
              waters are bounded by federal waters, identified as the
              Exclusive Economic Zone, out to 200 nautical miles. The
              11contiguous zone" identified on NOAA navigation maps is the
              dividing line between State and federal authority.
              Shoreward of this line State rules apply; oceanward federal
              rules apply. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council
              regulates federal waters on the east coast. Federal waters
              on the west coast are regulated by the Gulf of Mexico
              Fishery Management Council. Both Council's regulations are
              reviewed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and
              approved by the Secretary of Commerce before becoming
              effective.


              The act of the legislature that created the MFC dictated
              that the primary concern of conservation and management
              efforts should be to maintain the health and abundance of
              marine fisheries resources. Additionally, management
              measures should be based on the best available information;
              this includes biological, sociological, and economic. Since
              its inception, the MFC has enacted regulations for 40
              important species of finfish, 6 shellfish, and 100
              ornamental fish species. Enforcement of saltwater
              regulations is by DEP's Florida Marine Patrol. In the upper
              reaches of estuaries or tidal portions of rivers, the Marine
              Patrol's jurisdiction may overlap with that of the Game and
              Fresh Water Fish Commission. Other responsibilities of DEP
              include the enhancement of communication between the MFC and
              general public, improvement of fishery habitat, and
              performance of marine research. In federal waters, NMFS
              enforces conservation laws. The Coast Guard is responsible
              for the enforcement of NMFS management plans.

              As of January 1, 1990, a valid saltwater fishing license was
              required to take marine fishes for noncommercial purposes
              with legally specified exemptions. An amount not more than
              2.50-. of the generated fees is deposited into the Marine
              Fisheries Commission Trust Fund, which is used to fund the
              MFC and to finance marine research projects. Another 2.50-.
              of the fee is deposited into the Save Our State
              Environmental Education Trust Fund to be used for aquatic









                education purposes. An additional 50-. of the fee is set
                aside for administration of the law. The remaining 9001 of
                the fees are distributed between marine research, fiSheries
                enhancement, habitat restoration, construction of artificial
                reefs, and law enforcement.

                The commercial fishery regulated by the MFC, recorded an
                estimated total landings for 1992 of 171,159,194 pounds of
                firifish and shellfish. Of that total, 128,774,910 pounds
                were collected from the Gulf of Mexico coast with the
                remainder from the Atlantic coast. Of the total poundage,
                61.3% were finfish, 0.611 clams arid scallops, 80-. blue crabs,
                11.9*-. stone crabs, 3.101 oyster, 12.1% shrimp and 2.990- spiny
                lobster. From 1953 to 1992, commercial poundage of finfish
                and shellfish collected from coastal fisheries has ranged
                between 163 to 215 million. The time period from the late
                1960s to about 1980 was one of declining catches. Total
                landings rose again in the 1980s. Unfortunately, the total
                pounds of fish caught does not reflect the amount of time,
                effort, distance traveled, and number of trips made by
                fishermen. It is not the best indicator of fishery trends,
                but is frequently the only fishery statistic readily
                available.


                The estimated dockside value of commercially harvested
                seafood was over $227 million. Economically significant
                commercial species (value of each catch over $3 million)       for
                Florida are: spiny lobster; pink, rock, brown, and white
                shrimp; stone and blue crabs; red and yellowtail grouper;
                black mullet; oysters; yellowfin tuna; and swordfish.

                Trends for individual species showed mixed results. Recent
                trend information was only available for red drum, spotted
                seatrout, black mullet, and snook. For red drum, a general
                state-wide increase in abundance of juveniles and subadults
                has occurred since 1987. Analysis of angler catch rate for
                the period 1980-1986 indicated a period of relative
                stability in juvenile red drum abundance. Angler catch
                rates increased to a peak in 1988 then dropped in 1989,      but
                were still higher than the earlier part of the decade.       The
                increase in juvenile and subadult fish abundance is probably
                attributable to reduced fishing pressure brought about by
                the introduction of regulations in 1985 and closure of the
                fishery to commercial interests in 1988.

                Spotted seatrout are collected commercially largely by gill
                or trammel net. These methods are not selective. For every



                                               112









              1 pound of spotted seatrout caught 9 pounds of other species
              are taken. Since the implementation of quotas in November
              1989, commercial fishermen are now targeting spotted
              seatrout. Quotas were implemented with the intent of
              reducing fish mortality by imposing a spawning potential
              ratio of 20%. For the recreational fishery, the legal
              minimum size at which this species could be collected was
              increased and the bag limit set at ten fish.

              Prior to the implementation of management of the fishery by
              quotas, total commercial landings of spotted seatrout had
              been declining since the early 1960s. Roughly 3.8 million
              pounds were collected in 1965 compared to 1.6 million pounds
              in 1985.


              For the three years prior to the quota, commercial landings
              of spotted seatrout averaged about 1.5 million pounds for
              the entire state. After the implementation of a quota,
              landings declined to an average of 995,409 pounds, roughly a
              31% reduction. Corresponding to the decrease in landings
              has been a 24*-. reduction in number of trips taken to catch
              spotted seatrout. Early indications are that the quotas
              have been effective in reducing fishing pressure on this
              species.

              Total commercial landings for black mullet for the west
              coast of Florida in 1992 were 17.7 million pounds. That was
              10.6% less than 1991 and 18.81 less than the average of the
              previous five years. East coast landings for 1992 amounted
              to 2.3 million pounds. That was 11.5% lower than the
              average of the previous five years.

              Since 1950, there has been a gradual decrease in total
              annual landings of black mullet. Superimposed on this trend
              is a short term cycle of declining and increasing landings
              that lasts about eight years. The short term cycle may
              explain the recent downward trend in total landings of black
              mullet. At least for the west coast of Florida, the recent
              declines are similar to the bottom of cyclic declines noted
              during 1982-1984 and 1974-1976.

              Snook abundance (number of individuals) declined in Florida
              during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Abundance remained
              low, but stable through the mid-1980s. A slow increase
              began in the mid-1980s and continued to at least 1990. This
              delineation of a trend was based on data from the Naples-
              Marco Island area and the Palm Beach-Jupiter Inlet area.



                                           113









               Regulation of the snook fishery formally began in the summer
               of 1983. Management of this fishery has included seasonal
               closure of the fishery and size limits. The imposition of
               increased regulation may have had the effect of increasing
               abundance. Because of the long life span of this SPE!cies,
               up to 19 years, this trend should be regarded as a first
               estimate requiring more data.

               Several programs are in place to measure the extent of
               participation in the recreational fishery in the State. DEP
               has two recreational marine fishery statistical data
               collection efforts. The first is directed at on-site
               surveys of saltwater fishing areas to obtain information on
               site usage and physical attributes. The second is directed
               to interviewing anglers to collect information such as their
               fishing method, time spent fishing, bait used, and what they
               caught. Another means used to track the number of
               recreational anglers in the State is by documenting the
               number of licenses sold for individuals, boat or pier
               fishing, and spiny lobster and snook stamps. Individual
               licenses are printed 20 to a sheet. The first and eleventh
               ones have a survey card attached which asks for name., phone
               number, and address of the angler. Survey cards are
               forwarded to DEP's Marine Research Institute.


               The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service operates a National
               Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
               Recreation project. Data collected every five years include
               number of participants in hunting, fishing, or wildlife-
               associated recreation, number of days spent doing that
               activity, expenditures, and information on the individuals
               socioeconomic background. Data are collected by phone
               surveys followed by detailed in-person interviews with
               active hunters and anglers.

               Everglades National Park and Biscayne Bay National Park
               monitor gamefish harvest. The Everglades Park program was
               started in 1958, but has only been under continuous Park
               Service control since 1972. Data are collected from guided
               and non-guided recreational fishing trips. Information
               obtained includes number of people participating, hours
               fished, what and how many fish were caught, and location
               where fish were caught. Biscayne Bay Park surveys anglers
               to obtain information on method and hours spent fishing,
               species of fish, number and size of fish, and number of
               people in fishing party.




                                            114











             The National Marine Fisheries Service maintains several data
             collection programs pertaining to recreational fishing. The
             Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey was
             established to develop a reliable database to estimate the
             impact of recreational anglers on marine resources and to
             formulate and evaluate fishery management plans and
             regulations. Started in 1979 for the Atlantic and Gulf
             coasts, updates are made bimonthly. Telephone surveys and
             on-site surveys are used to collect data on locations
             fished, what was caught and how many, size of catch, and
             state and county of residence. Analysis of data from this
             program indicates that for the Gulf of Mexico region, west
             Florida is responsible for 500-. to 700-. of recreational-
             fishing activity. For the south Atlantic region, east
             Florida accounts for over 50% of angler trips and harvest.
             Other data collection programs maintained by NMFS are
             directed towards either select habitat types, classes of
             fish, or modes of fishing. These include the Gulf of Mexico
             reef fish fishery, charterboat surveys, billfish tournament
             sampling program, and non-tournament billfish sampling
             program.

             Three long-term monitoring programs were begun by DEP in
             1984. These included recreational catch and effort
             statistics, trends in relative abundance of pre-fishery
             recruits, and commercial catch and effort data. In 1985,
             with funding provided by a Sport Fish Restoration federal
             grant, DNR's Marine Research Institute formulated a
             fisheries-independent monitoring program. Funds became
             available from special State appropriations in 1988. From
             these funds, the Marine Fisheries Independent Monitoring
             Program was created. The program is now partially supported
             by funds from the sale of saltwater fishing licenses.

             This program targets juvenile fishes and select
             invertebrates. Routine monitoring began in Tampa Bay and
             Charlotte Harbor in the spring of 1989 and in the Indian
             River Lagoon in the fall of 1989. In 1992, sampling began
             in the Choctawhatchee Bay/Santa Rosa Sound system. With the
             completion of sampling in 1992, the program has four
             complete years of data for Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor
             and three years of data for Indian River Lagoon.

             The program is designed to be a multi species monitoring
             program in which data are analyzed for all species
             collected. Using this approach, relationships among species
             can be determined for an entire estuarine system. One



                                          115









               benefit of this approach is that it will allow the
               characterization of juvenile fish habitats within an
               estuary.

               The program uses two primary sampling strategies. A
               stratified-random sampling performed in the spring and fall,
               because these are the principle recruitment periods in
               estuaries, and a fixed stations network sampled monthly.
               Sampling gear and methods used are identical between regions
               and sampling strategies.

               Data from this program provides valuable information on fish
               ecology and life history, fish growth, health of the estuary
               system, and recruitment timing, location, and magnitude.
               Data have been used for the production of stock assessments
               for blue crab, mullet, red drum, and spotted seatrout.
               Information collected will aid in the development of better
               fishery management practices and regulations.

               Example of Estuarine Habitat Modification: Florida B@jy

               Florida Bay is an important key link between the Everglades
               and Florida Keys system. Since about 1987, a series of
               catastrophic events have occurred in Florida Bay. These
               events have led to extensive habitat losses and decli nes in
               the region's fishery. A general description of the extent
               of the resource is helpful in understanding the magnitude of
               the problem.

               Florida Bay is located between Cape Sable and the Florida
               Keys and opens to the west into the Gulf of Mexico. It was
               added to Everglades National Park in 1950. It encompasses
               about 849 square miles of shallow marine and estuarine
               waters. Of that area, 695 square miles are within
               Everglades National Park. Average bay depth is 3 feet.
               Shallow carbonate mud banks divide the bay into separate
               basins, restrict water circulation, and attenuate the Gulf's
               lunar tidal cycle.

               Fresh water enters the bay in the northeast from Taylor
               Slough, as overflow from the C-111 Canal, and as shE@et flow
               generated by local rainfall. The amount and timing of local
               rainfall controls water conditions within the bay. Salinity
               can oscillate from brackish to hypersaline. Restricted
               circulation results in environmental and biological
               gradients along a southwest to northeast transect. It was
               estimated by Zieman et al. (1989) that seagrasses covered



                                            116









              more than 800-. of the bay area within the boundaries of
              Everglades National Park.

              There are at least 100 species of fish and 30 species of
              crustaceans that spend at least part of their life in the
              bay. The bay contains critical juvenile nursery habitat for
              many economically and ecologically important species.
              Temporary residents that use the seagrass beds as a nursery
              include spotted seatrout, redfish, snook, tarpon, snappers,
              and grunts. Important shellfish species include pink
              shrimp, blue crabs, and spiny lobsters. Blue crabs that
              grew up in Florida Bay and were tagged there have been found
              as far north on Florida's coast as Apalachee Bay near
              Tallahassee. The first government fishing regulations to
              control the methods, species, and locations of fish were
              enacted in 1951. Concern over declines in catches and rate
              of catch of spotted seatrout and other gamefish in the 1970s
              prompted Everglades National Park to enact bag limits.
              Since December 1985, the harvest of fishery resources within
              the areas of the bay lying within Everglades National Park
              has been limited to recreational fishermen.


              A massive die off of seagrasses has been occurring in
              Florida Bay since 1987. By 1990, approximately 63,000 acres
              of turtle grass (Thalassia) had died. More recent estimates
              are that as much as 100,000 acres have been lost (J. Hunt,
              personal communication). Total losses of seagrasses do not
              include any increases from recovery or shifting of species.

              Mangroves have also been dying at a rapid rate. The die off
              began in 1991 on islands within the bay. It has since
              extended to the mainland and other islands.


              As discussed in the Section on Algal Blooms, extensive algal
              blooms have been occurring in Florida Bay. Rather than
              being a limited seasonal event, they are evolving into an
              almost year round feature. Blooms of blue-green algae first
              started in the fall of 1991 after a large seagrass die off.
              They dissipated during February 1992 and reappeared in
              October 1992. Nutrients from decayed vegetation and the
              added effects of defoliation from Hurricane Andrew have
              likely fueled the blooms. A completed seven year study of
              coral reefs of the Florida Keys indicates that parts of the
              reef are dying, possibly from smothering by benthic green
              algae.





                                          117









               The die off of seagrasses and algal blooms have impacted
               other components of the Florida Bay ecosystem. In the areas
               covered by blue-green algal blooms, an extensive die off of
               sponges is occurring. Dead sponges were first obser-,),ed in
               February 1992. They have been found from Everglades
               National Park to Marathon in the Keys. In some areas;
               mortality is 1000-.. The causal agent of the die off is
               unknown.


               The pink shrimp requires seagrass beds as a critical
               juvenile habitat. Harvest of pink shrimp has decreased from
               an average of 10 million pounds per year before die off to
               less than 5 million pounds. Harvests have gone as low as 2
               million pounds. The economic loss to the pink shrimp
               fishery is estimated at $10 million. (J. Hunt, personal
               communication)

               The sponge-hardbottom community is critical habitat for
               juvenile spiny lobster. Recent surveys have revealed a 5096
               to 70% reduction in juvenile lobster abundance when
               comparing pre to post algal bloom data. So far, adult
               lobsters have not been affected. Thedockside value of the
               commercial lobster fishery is about $24 million with
               additional income coming from the recreational industry.
               The long-term effects of this decline are not known. (J.
               Hunt, personal communication)

               The habitat loss and fishery problems experienced by the bay
               have their basis in the extensive hydrological modifications
               that have taken place in portions of the bay's watershed.
               The effects of these modifications have been exacerbated in
               recent years by a lack of hurricanes to remove sediment and
               organic matter, very high water temperatures in the summers
               and falls of 1987, 1988, and 1989, and higher than normal
               salinities. More than two decades ago, water was diverted,
               from sheet flow across the Everglades, into a channelized
               flow. The created C-111 canal was linked to the flood
               control system in 1969. Recent droughts and land use
               changes in South Florida have reduced the discharge of fresh
               water from that canal. The rainy season in southern Florida
               is summer. By October, under non-hydrologically modified
               conditions, Taylor and Rock Sloughs would have high water
               levels and be delivering large quantities of fresh water to
               the bay. Instead, water is now diverted to agriculture. As
               a result, the bay does not receive the needed pulse of fresh
               water. without dilution from fresh water, salinity in the
               estuary does not fluctuate as it has in the past.



                                            118









              Salinities in bay waters as high as 70 ppt have been
              recorded (Continental Shelf Associates, 1991).


              Pollution Load Reduction Goals


              The SWIM legislation of 1987 required that pollution load
              reduction goals be established for SWIM priority
              waterbodies. A PLRG is an estimated reduction in pollutant
              loadings needed to preserve or restore beneficial uses of
              receiving waters. The ultimate goal being that water
              quality of the receiving water meet State water quality
              standards. PLRGs provide benchmarks toward which specific
              strategies can be directed.

              There are interim and final PLRGs. Interim goals are best
              judgment estimates of pollutant load reduction that will
              result from specified corrective actions. Final PLRGs are
              goals needed to maintain water quality standards. Both
              point source and nonpoint source loads must be considered in
              the development of PLRGs.

              A joint DEP and water management district work group set up
              recommendations, guidelines, and a schedule to develop
              regional water management plans that included PLRGs.
              Recommendations of this work group were incorporated into
              revised State Water Policy, Chapter 17-40, F.A.C.
              legislative inaction and two rule challenges have prevented
              the rule from being approved. Work is still proceeding on
              the development of PLRGs for SWIM waterbodies. At present,
              preliminary nutrient budgets have been developed for Crystal
              River/Kings Bay, Sarasota Bay, Indian River Lagoon, and the
              Tampa Bay system. Preliminary numbers for only stormwater
              were developed for Indian River Lagoon. An overview of
              loading estimates developed for the other three systems is
              contained in the following paragraphs.

              The Crystal River/Kings Bay system receives a substantial
              amount of its discharge from springs. Thirty springs make
              up the Crystal River Spring group and account for a large
              portion of the estimated 916 cubic feet per second flow of
              water from Kings Bay to the Gulf of Mexico (Rosenau et al.,
              1977). Preliminary estimates of nutrient loadings indicate
              that as much as 94% of the nitrogen and 84% of the
              phosphorus enters the bay through spring discharge. Rough
              estimates are that as much as 180 tons of nitrogen are
              discharged into the bay from the springs per year.




                                           119









               The substantial input of nutrients from spring dischZLrges
               makes it necessary to look outside the immediate bay area
               for ways to reduce nutrient loadings. Studies were
               conducted by the Southwest Florida Water Management District
               (SWFWMD) to determine sources of nutrients within thE!
               spring's recharge area. Important nitrogen sources were
               determined to be septic tank effluent, golf course
               fertilization, residential turf fertilization, sewagE!
               effluent disposal, and to a lesser extent beef cattle
               production.

               For Sarasota Bay, approximately 50*6 of all nitrogen and
               phosphorus loadings come from stormwater runoff and 251-. from
               direct atmospheric deposition. The remaining 2511 loading is
               divided between groundwater inputs to tributaries, septic
               tanks, and point sources. Residential stormwater runoff is
               believed to contribute up to 3001 of total nitrogen loads.
               Fertilizers used on lawns are the primary source of this
               loading. Septic tanks are a significant source in areas of
               the bay where they are concentrated. For Roberts Bay, it
               has been estimated that they contribute 27% of the total
               nitrogen load. (Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc., 1992)

               An interim nutrient budget has been prepared for Tampa Bay.
               Estimates were made of nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended
               solids loadings entering the bay. For the entire bay, the
               three major contributors of nitrogen were nonpoint Source
               discharges (421-.), atmospheric deposition (28%) and
               wastewater treatment plants (12!@). Phosphorus loadings to
               the bay were provided by fertilizer shipping facilities
               (54%), wastewater treatment plants (14%) and nonpoint source
               discharges (16%). Total suspended solids loadings were
               provided almost exclusively by nonpoint source discharges
               and to a much lesser extent by industrial di'schargers.

               The greatest contributions by geographic area of Tampa Bay
               for nitrogen loadings were Hillsborough Bay, Middle Tampa
               Pay and Old Tampa Bay, in that order. Most of the bay's
               phosphorus loadings come from Hillsborough Bay.

               Sources and the amount of their contribution to local
               loadings varies by section of the bay. Preliminary data
               suggest that Lower Tampa Bay receives the bulk of its
               nitrogen and phosphorus from Middle Tampa Bay with secondary
               inputs from atmospheric deposition and nonpoint source
               discharges. Middle Tampa Bay appears to receive its
               nitrogen and phosphorus loads (in order of amount) from



                                            120









              Hillsborough Bay, nonpoint source discharges from the upper
              Little Manatee River, and nonpoint sources in Middle Tampa
              Bay's lower watershed.

              Hillsborough Bay has consistently been classified as having
              poor water quality. Preliminary data indicate that it acts
              as an exporter of nutrients to other portions of the bay.
              Within Hillsborough Bay, most of the nitrogen and phosphorus
              loads come from within bay industrial sources and combined
              point and nonpoint discharges in its upper watershed.
              Primary industrial contributors were activities associated
              with the processing and shipping of fertilizer, and Hooker's
              Point Wastewater Treatment plant. Additional sources were
              mining activities in the upper watersheds of two
              tributaries: Hillsborough River and Alafia River.

              Historically, Old Tampa Bay has been classified as having
              poor water quality. Most of the nutrient loadings to this
              portion of Tampa Bay came from domestic wastewater treatment
              plants. Actions have been taken to upgrade plants to
              advanced wastewater treatment. Secondary contributors of
              nutrient loadings were atmospheric deposition and urban
              stormwater.


              Case Studies of Florida Estuaries


              Practically every estuarine system in Florida has been
              targeted for some type of study to evaluate resources,
              identify problems, or propose solutions. Funds have been
              provided through the federal National Estuary Program, State
              Surface Water Improvement and Management Act, local and
              regional governments, Pollution Recovery Trust Fund, or
              special appropriations from the Florida Legislature. In
              most cases, studies are directed toward damaged estuaries
              and frequently focus on rehabilitation and restoration work.
              But, they can also be focused on protection of a relatively
              unimpacted resource from future abuses. This section
              summarizes the concerns and on going work to address them in
              three of Florida's estuaries.


              Tampa Bay


              Problems in Tampa Bay are typical of concerns and issues
              that affect other urban estuaries in the State. Tampa Bay
              was added to the National Estuary Program (NEP) on April 20,
              1990. In addition, the bay is a SWIM priority waterbody.
              Work performed through both programs is complementary.



                                          121









               Tampa Bay is a large bi-lobed body of brackish, water located
               on the central west coast of Florida. The bay- is divided
               into seven geographical subdivisions. These include Old
               Tampa Bay, Hillsborough Bay, Middle Tampa Bay, Lower Tampa
               Bay, Boca Ciega Bay, Terra Ceia Bay, and the Manatee River.
               Major rivers that discharge to Tampa Bay include the
               Hillsborough, Manatee, Alafia, Braden, Palm River/Tampa
               By-Pass Canal, and Little Manatee.

               The Tampa Bay watershed includes both upland and fresh water
               habitats. The total area of the watershed is 2,300 square
               miles. The- estuary has a total area of 398 square miles.

               Tampa Bay is heavily urbanized with a metropolitan
               population of 1.9 million. The nation's seventh largest
               porti the Port of Tampa, is located here. That port serves
               the phosphate industry of Central Florida. An active
               commercial fishery is also present in the bay. Commercial
               fishermen landed almost 25 million pounds of fish and
               shellfish in 1950.

               Continued urbanization coupled with decades of neglect and
               abuse have damaged the bay ecosystem. Seven different areas
               of concern were identified by the NEP Policy Committee as
               Contributors to the degradation of the bay. These included:
               1. eutrophication and the general overall decline in water
               quality; 2. reduction and alteration of habitat and loss of
               living resources; 3. a lack of community awareness; 4.
               conflicts between user groups; 5. a lack of interagency
               coordination and response; 6. a lack of understanding of the
               bay's flushing and circulation; and 7. the presence of
               hazardous and toxic contaminants. Agencies at state,
               federal, and local level are involved in activities directed
               to the evaluation and protection of the bay. The NEP
               provides a framework for interagency coordination and the
               eventual production of a comprehensive management plan for
               Tampa Bay.

               Work to restore the bay has been underway for four years. A
               review of accomplishments and status of the program to date
               are contained in the following paragraphs.

               one of the primary concerns has been the eutrophication of
               the bay and its general overall decline in water quality.
               Historically, excess nutrients entering the bay have
               resulted in an overabundance of phytoplankton populations.
               High concentrations of phytoplankton in the water column



                                            122









              increase turbidity and reduce light penetration. Both of
              these factors negatively affect seagrasses. As much as 81%-
              of the bay's seagrass beds have been lost.

              An interim nutrient budget completed by the NEP has
              identified primary sources of nitrogen, phosphorus, and
              total suspended solids loadings to Tampa bay. Loads were
              calculated based on data collected from 1985-1991. The
              nutrient budget will be used to develop pollution load
              reduction goals. These are determinations of percent
              reductions in loadings that can be achieved with specific
              corrective actions. Percent contributions from different
              sources are preliminary and are subject to further
              refinements and adjustments with more recent data.

              Major bay wide sources of total nitrogen loadings are
              nonpoint source stormwater runoff (42-0.), atmospheric
              deposition (28%), and discharges from wastewater treatment
              plants (12%). Hillsborough Bay accounts for 20% of the
              total nitrogen loading of the bay. Total nitrogen loadings
              into Hillsborough Bay have increased from about 750 tons per
              year in 1940 to recent estimates of over 2,000 tons per
              year. other major contributors of total nitrogen are the
              Alafia River and Manatee River.


              Point source discharges of effluent into surface waters
              account for 400 tons of total nitrogen per year. The
              majority of this loading comes from Hillsborough Bay. Land-
              applied effluent is another important contributor to
              nitrogen loadings. Sections of the bay where this source is
              important are Middle Tampa Bay, Old Tampa Bay, Boca Ciega
              Bay, and Little Manatee River.

              Bay wide total phosphorus loadings are attributable to
              fertilizer shipping and processing facilities (54%),
              nonpoint source stormwater runoff (16%), and discharges from
              wastewater treatment plants (14@;). The Alafia River and
              Lower Tampa Bay contribute 1201 and 8% respectively.
              Hillsborough Bay contributes 60% of the total phosphorus
              load. When compared to baseline loadings for 1940, total
              phosphorus loads in Hillsborough Bay have increased from
              about 2SO tons per year to over 3,000 tons per year.

              Total suspended solids loads are contributed to the bay by
              Hillsborough River (20%), Manatee River (17%), Alafia River
              (140-.), Old Tampa Bay (14-1.), and Boca Ciega Bay (12*-.).




                                            123








               Nonpoint sources are the major sources with the exception of
               ,the Manatee River.

               Legislation enacted in the late 1980s required that
               wastewater treatment plants in the Tampa Bay area go to
               advanced wastewater treatment. The Grizzle-Figg Legislation
               applies to waters from the north bank of the Anclote River
               to the south bank of Charlotte Harbor. It does not apply to
               facilities permitted by February 1, 1987 that discharge
               secondary treated effluent followed by water hyacinth
               treatment, or discharges to the non-tidal portion of Peace
               River.


               With the upgrade of wastewater treatment facilities or their
               removal, bay wide improvements have occurred in water
               quality. Seventeen years of data from 70 stations were
               analyz6d for trends. Nitrogen concentrations have decreased
               by almost one-third in most areas. The concentrations of
               phosphorus have decreased on average 67% since 1974.
               Chlorophyll a levels were at a record low in 1991. Even
               with these improvements, poor water quality conditions
               persist in the northeast section of Old Tampa Bay and in
               Hillsborough Bay.

               Projects are in place, funded by the NEP, to further define
               the contributions of different waterbodies and sources to
               nutrient loadings into the bay. one specific project is the
               determination of nitrogen and phosphorus loadings to
               Hillsborough Bay from East Bay. East Bay is the site of
               numerous fertilizer loading facilities.

               Additional measurements are needed to understand the
               contributions of freshwater inflows into the bay. Coupled
               with this work is the development of a circulation model.
               These efforts provide a framework on which future models of
               loading reductions can be developed.

               Modeling strategies to predict load reductions under
               different management scenarios are under development.. A
               three-tiered approach has been implemented. First, a
               statistical water quality model capable of predicting  the
               bay's response to changing pollutant loads is presently
               being developed. Second, a mechanistic model of the estuary
               will be developed as a check on the statistical modE!l.
               Third and final, will be the development of a linked
               hydrodynamic/water quality model that will provide the
               capability to simulate spatial and temporal changes in.water


                                            124









              quality in response to changes in management practices. The
              targeted objective of all models will be to determine a
              chlorophyll concentration that will allow penetration of
              light to depths recorded for 1950 (approximately 6 feet).
              Models will be used to predict necessary reductions in
              nutrient loads to meet the targeted chlorophyll
              concentration.


              Stormwater was identified as the largest contributor of
              nutrient loads to the bay. To address the problem numerous
              projects have been undertaken as part of the Southwest
              Florida Water Mangement District's SWIM Program for Tampa
              Bay. Presently, there are 14 stormwater rehabilitation
              projects either under design or in construction. The
              majority of the projects are centered around wetland
              construction or revegetation, removal or repair of outfall
              structures, or the construction of stormwater treatment
              ponds. Additionally, the NEP has contracted with the Port
              of Tampa to design and construct a demonstration
              evapotranspiration stormwater treatment facility. The
              purpose of this facility will be to collect stormwatef
              runoff from the numerous point and nonpoint sources around
              the Port of Tampa. A 3-acre planted eucalyptus forest will
              be used as the treatment facility.

              A large portion of the wetland vegetation that historically
              was present in Tampa Bay has been lost or altered. Mangrove
              acreages have been reduced.by more than 44*1. Seagrass
              meadows were estimated to cover 76,500 acres during the 19th
              century. By 1982, that amount had declined to 21,600 acres.
              Losses of habitat resulted in reduced food/shelter for fish
              manatees, and birds, increased shoreline erosion, and
              reduced water quality by decreased filtering capacity.
              Activities that have been responsible for net wetland loss
              are dredging and filling, constructing seawalls, rip-rapping
              shorelines, altering shoreline slopes, and mangrove pruning.
              It has been estimated by the USGS that the surface area of
              Tampa Bay has been reduced 13 square miles by infilling
              since 1880 (Goodwin, 1987). Additionally, in the case of
              seagrasses, thermal discharges from power plants and
              physical removal by boat props are detrimental impacts.

              Losses of living resources are not only caused by direct
              habitat destruction, but also by habitat alteration. Dredge
              and fill activities have permanently altered the bay bottom.
              The bottom perturbations created by these activities may
              select those organisms that are more tolerant of pollution



                                           125









                with a resultant loss of diversity. Additional losses or
                degradation of productivity and biodiversity of benthic
                communities have been attributed to excess freshwater
                runoff, removal of vegetation, dredge spoil disposal, and
                deposition of sediments from altered upstream sites.

                A recent trend of increasing acreages of seagrass beds has
                been documented (Table 30). Lewis et al. (1990) estimated        a
                100-o increase in total acreage of seagrasses for 1988 when
                compared to 1982. The only area not showing a gain in
                acreage was Old Tampa Bay. A second evaluation performed
                for 1990 indicated that this trend of increasing acreages
                may be continuing (Coastal Environmental, Inc., 1993).


                Table 30. Acreages of Seagrasses in Tampa Bay, 1950-19881.



                Location                   1950        1982        1988

                Old Tampa Bay             10,855       5,943       5,23,6
                Hillsborough Bay           27 43             0         62
                Middle Tampa Bay           9,499       4,042       5,651
                Lower Tampa Bay            6,106       5,016       5,614
                Terra Ceia Bay                734          751        986
                Manatee River                 126          131        245
                Boca Ciega Bay            10,581       5,770       6,133

                Total                     39,640       21,656      23,927

                'Data from Lewis, R.R.,   K.D. Haddad, J.O.R. Johansson.
                  1990. Recent areal expansion of seagrass Meadows in Tampa
                  Bay, Florida: real bay improvement or drought-induced?
                   Pages 189-192 In S.F. Text and P. A. Clark, eds.
                   Proceedings Tampa Bay Area Scientific -Tnformation
                   Symposium 2.



                Estuarine wetlands are important for the maintenance Of the
                Tampa Bay fishery and for the maintenance of good water
                quality. Restoration and rehabilitation of impacted areas
                are an integral component of repairing the bay. Se-,reral
                millions of dollars will ultimately be spent to complete
                this work. There are more than 20 projects in progress or
                under consideration within the bay or its watershed that



                                                126








              address habitat restoration. Participation and funds for
              these projects come from a variety of federal, state,
              county, and local governments and agencies. Projects vary
              in size from a few acres to a proposal to restore over 1,000
              acres at the Wolf Branch Creek site in southeast Tampa Bay.

              An example rehabilitation project is the restoration of 651
              acres in the Cockroach Bay watershed. Phase la work to be
              performed includes the infilling of three land locked shell
              pits and the restoring of different habitats corresponding
              to changing salinity gradients. This work will increase
              available acreage of critical fish nursery areas by addition
              of low salinity fishery habitat. Phase lb work will be
              comprised of the construction of a stormwater retention pond
              to treat 210 acres of agricultural fields' runoff.

              Scallops lived in Tampa Bay until the 1960s. The exact
              cause of their decline was never determined, but was
              suspected to be from worsening water quality. Pilot studies
              were performed by Mote Marine Lab to determine if conditions
              had improved sufficiently to support bay scallops. Lab
              cultured scallops were placed in the bay at two locations
              and monitored for adult growth, reproduction, and survival.
              Results indicated that water and habitat quality may once
              again be adequate to support a viable scallop fishery.

              The final goal of the NEP is to synthesize acquired
              information about the bay into a Comprehensive Conservation
              Management Plan.  A draft plan is scheduled for release
              during 1994. Bay  management includes the promotion,
              adoption, and enforcement of laws and regulations needed to
              implement the water quality, natural systems, and public use
              initiatives of the plan. The long-term goal is the
              development and implementation of an effective process for
              the comprehensive mnanagement of Tampa Bay.

              Indian River Lagoon


              The second national estuary in Florida is located on the
              east coast of the State. The Indian River Lagoon was
              approved as part of the National Estuary Program on April
              13, 1990. It is also designated as a State SWIM priority
              waterbody.

              The Indian River Lagoon is a complex of lagoons occupying a
              north-south length of 155 miles with an average water depth
              of 3 to 4 feet. The lagoon system is bordered on the east



                                           127









                by a chain of barrier islands. It is comprised of Mosquito
                .Lagoon south of Ponce Inlet, Banana River, and the Indian
                River from Turnball Creek to Jupiter Inlet. Freshwater
                inputs to it are from rainfall and small streams. Its
                watershed spans an area of 2,280 square miles including
                92,800 acres of coastal mangroves. The pre-development
                drainage area was 1,000 square miles. Construction of
                drainage canals across basin boundaries, including Kissimmee
                River, Lake Okeechobee, and St. Johns River, increased the
                area from which fresh water could drain to the estuary.

                Prior to the NEP designation, several conferences,
                workshops, and meetings were held to define and prioritize
                issues. Later the Governor's Interagency Management.
                Commission established the Indian River Lagoon Field
                Committee (IRLFC). The goal of this committee was to
                develop a management plan for the lagoon. Partly because of
                the recommendations of this committee, the legislature
                included Indian River Lagoon as a priority water in the 1987
                SWIM Legislation. The SWIM plan developed jointly by St.
                Johns River Water Management District and South Florida
                Water Management District adopts and endorses many of the
                recommendations made by the IRLFC.

                one common need identified by SWIM, the IRLFC, and many of
                the other previous commi.,ttees, was for integrated management
                of the lagoon. There are 112 different governmenta-'t.
                entities that have some jurisdiction over the lagoon. The
                NEP has taken the responsibility to provide for integrated
                management and interagency cooperation. A common goal of
                both SWIM and NEP is the production of a single document in
                1996 that will unify the SWIM Plan and the NEP's
                Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan and
                implementation of that plan. SWIM and NEP issues have been
                synthesized and integrated into four separate categories.
                Major issues that need to be addressed are living resources,
                water and sediment quality, public health and safety, and
                public use and participation. The following paragraphs
                provide a general summary of'specific issues and proposed
                solutions.


                The lagoon is a highly productive and biologically diverse
                estuary. Geographic juxtaposition of the ecologically
                different Carolinian Province and Caribbean Province has
                given unique qualities to Indian River Lagoon. There are
                4,315 species of plants and animals. No other estuary has a
                greater concentration of rare and endangered organisms. The


                                             128








              lagoon is a developmental habitat for both green and
              loggerhead turtles and home to the bottle nose dolphin and
              West Indian manatee.


              The lagoon is critical habitat for 32 species listed as
              threatened or endangered by the GFWFC. Manatees are
              probably one of the most visible of these species. There is
              a high rate of manatee mortality from collisions with boats.
              Slow speed zones have been established in many areas of the
              lagoon to protect the manatee.

              The lagoon's fishery has been and continues to be an
              important economic factor for this region of Florida.
              Estimates of the present value of the commercial and sport
              fishery approach $100 million. Commercial landings have
              declined throughout the system in recent years. However,
              little information is available about the life history of
              fishery stocks. Part of the problem is being addressed by
              DEP's Independent Fishery Statistics Program. Other
              difficulties are that laws that manage the resource are
              piecemeal at best, or based on local interests. One
              recommendation to correct this is to adopt laws on a
              regional basis to better protect the resource.

              Habitat loss is an important concern. As much   as 76% of
              emergent estuarine wetlands have been isolated  from the
              lagoon as mosquito impoundments. There are 192 impoundments
              covering 40,416 acres. The impoundments are important for
              control of mosquitoes for public health concerns, but fish
              cannot access the impoundments. The acreage represents lost
              fishery habitat. This is a critical loss, because of the 57
              fish and shellfish species which are landed here, 63% are
              wetland dependent during some part of their life.
              Restoration work is in progress through SWIM. This work
              entails placing culverts between the impoundments and the
              lagoon to allow an exchange of water. Flap gates are kept
              closed in the summer to keep water in the impoundments for
              mosquito control, but then opened the rest of the year.
              Salt marsh areas have been disturbed by dredge spoil
              disposal. There are plans to reestablish tidal and water
              circulation patterns where feasible. Other tracts of
              existing wetland may be purchased to prevent their
              degradation and to protect water quality of the lagoon.

              Seagrasses are an important constituent of lagoon habitat.
              The objective for this estuary is to maintain a  I macrophyte
              based ecosystem. As much as 30% of the historical grass



                                           129








                 beds have been lost. Some of the causes have been dredging
                 activities, development, excess nutrients, and turbidity.
                 NEP goals are to protect the remaining beds. Table 31
                 compares estimates of acreages within the lagoon for 1970,
                 1980, and 1992.



                 Table 31. Acreages of Seagrasses in Indian River Lagoon,
                 1970-19921.





                 Location                         1970       1986         1-992


                 Mosquito Lagoon                 13,583     12,414       16,699
                 Banana River                    22,368     16,628       21,476
                 North Indian River              30,239     34,110       17,689
                 North Central Indian River       3,390       3,719          901
                 South Central Indian River       2,460       2,977        2,934
                 South Indian River               6,480     13,321         9,249


                 Total                           67,520     83,169       68, 948

                 'Data from Woodard-Clyde Consultants.      1994.    Historical
                    _Tmagery Tnventory and Seagrass Assessment     -Tndian River
                    Lagoon. Prepared for Indian River Lagoon       NEP.



                 While restoration of habitat is important, it may not
                 succeed without improvements in water quality. Significant
                 water quality issues are: 1. excess freshwater inflows
                 leading to undesirable salinity fluctuations; 2. increased
                 sedimentation and loadings of suspended matter; 3. increased
                 nutrient loadings; 4. increased input of toxic substances;
                 and 5. increased levels of pathogens.

                 Excess freshwater inflows and their loadings of sediment,
                 nutrients, and toxics are a threat to the ecological
                 structure of the estuary. Canals built between,1910 and
                 1930 to provide flood control and water for agriculture also
                 artificially divert large quantities of fresh water to the
                 lagoon. Other canals built across basin boundaries have
                 increased the surface freshwater drainage area of the Indian
                 River Lagoon. These inputs create an undesirable
                 fluctuation in salinity within the lagoon. At peak,
                 combined discharges can exceed 9,000 cubic feet per second



                                                 130









               resulting in as much as 5.8 million gallons per day entering
               the lagoon. Another canal, C-54 (built for flood relief),
               can at peak flow discharge an additional 3,582 cubi-c feet--
               per second. Stress and potential mortality of estuarine
               organisms occurs during these events. Sediment loads bury
               seagrass beds and cause shoaling in navigation channels. In
               the reverse situation, too little water during dry periods
               can result in too high a salinity. Part of the problem is
               being addressed with the restoration of the upper St. Johns
               River basin. Details of that project are described in
               Chapter 3: River and Streams Water Quality Assessment.
               Other alternatives are the readjustment of regulatory
               schedules for Lake Okeechobee to reduce its inflows to the
               Indian River basin.


               Diversions of ground water to surface water runoff have
               exacerbated the problem of too much freshwater inflow. In
               many parts of the lagoon's watershed there are single well
               groundwater heat pumps without demand valves allowing
               continuous flow. Estimates are that 100 to 180 million
               gallons per day are discharged to the lagoon from these
               systems. Brevard County recently passed an ordinance which
               will reduce this inflow by 8001 by 1996. Other sources of
               ground water withdrawals that are discharged to the lagoon
               are wells drilled for irrigation of lawns and agricultural
               supply and free flowing artesian wells. The legislature
               mandated in 1991 that all free flowing artesian wells be
               capped. Funds have not been allocated for this task.

               A preliminary assessment of loads and sources of nutrients
               and a limited number of metals has been completed. Someof
               the point and nonpoint sources of loadings to the lagoon are
               stormwater runoff, agricultural runoff, septic tanks,
               seafood processors, wastewater treatment facilities, power
               plants, reverse osmosis plants, marinas, and boat discharges
               that contain raw sewage and metals. In 1990 there were 25
               domestic wastewater treatments plants discharging 23 million
               gallons per day of effluent. In that same year, the
               legislature enacted the Indian River Lagoon Act. it
               required that by July 1, 1995, that all surface water
               discharges of domestic wastewater be eliminated, and
               prohibited new discharges to the lagoon. The law
               recommended that wastewater reuse be investigated and the
               centralization of sewage treatment and collection be
               considered.







                                             131









               To provide a better assessment of existing water quality,
               several monitoring programs have been started. Data
               acquired from all monitoring activities will be used to
               better define loadings and develop pollution'load reduction
               goals for this estuary. A water quality monitoring project
               was implemented that provides for the review of existing
               data and the design of a new data collection program. New
               data collection efforts are designed to address both point
               and nonpoint sources. A separate toxic substances
               monitoring network was started with the'goal of identifying
               areas where toxics are a problem. A project has been begun
               that will identify areas of the lagoon bottom which are
               composed of muck. This project involves three phases.
               Phase one is in progress and involves the quantification of
               muck deposits. Phase two will be a detailed study of their
               chemical,composition. Phase three will look at the
               feasibility of removing these deposits and controlling their
               sources.,


               The final task of the NEP and SWIM is to use information
               obtained from studies to produce an integrated Comprehensive
               Conservation Management Plan. The building of public
               support or a constituency for the lagoon is an important
               factor in any management plan for the lagoon. Public
               education and awareness of the value of this estuary are the
               primary tools used to accomplish this task.   Without a
               consensus between constituency groups the implementation of
               the Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan will not be,
               possible.


               Sarasota Bay


               Sarasota Bay is a subtropical estuary located on the
               southwestern coast of Florida. The bay is situated in both
               Sarasota and Manatee Counties. It was selected as part of
               the NEP in July 1988. Threats to the bay are from
               development and overuse of resources rather than industrial
               discharges. Major problems areas identified by the NEP for
               this waterbody include:

                   1. Bay wide declines in water quality.

                   2. Habitat loss by dredge and fill activities,
                       unmanaged development, and declines in water
                       quality.





                                           132









                  3.  Bay wide declines in fishery resources caused by
                      loss of habitat, declines in water quality, and
                      overharvest.


                  4.  Inadequate and inconsistent public access and
                      overuse of resources has caused conflicts between
                      user groups.


                  5.  A lack of understanding of circulation and.flushing
                      problems.

             Through  the NEP program, 14 different technical
             investigations were initiated. Concurrent with these
             investigations was the establishment of a network of
             committees linking policy, management, citizen, and
             technical experts to develop a strategy to improve Sarasota
             Bay. These efforts culminated in the production of a
             management plan for the bay. The followings paragraphs
             provide an overview of the state of the bay, its problems,
             and their solutions.


             Declines in water quality were identified as a significant
             issue because of their direct impact on use of the bay and
             indirect impacts on habitat and the fishery. The primary
             pollutants of concern are nutrients and toxic substances.
             This last category includes heavy metals and pesticides. In
             general, water quality in northern and central portions of
             the bay is improving. Heavy metals were found in creeks and
             bayous entering the bay, but little contamination exists in
             the bay proper.

             Important sources of nitrogen loadings into the bay come
             from stormwater runoff, sewage treatment plant wastewater
             discharges, septic tanks, and rainfall. Bay wide stormwater
             provides 47!k of the total nitrogen load. In Sarasota
             County, septic tanks and small wastewater treatment plants
             contribute 32% of the nitrogen load to Whitaker Bayou, 32%
             to Phillippi creek, and 24!k to Roberts Bay.

             Events that occurred in the 1980s and 1990s aided in the
             improvement of water quality. The Grizzle-Figg Legislation
             required that all surface discharges of domestic wastewater
             into Sarasota Bay be given advanced wastewater treatment.
             The City of Sarasota completed converting its wastewater
             treatment plant from secondary to advanced combined with
             water reuse in 1991. Advanced treatment has reduced the
             City of Sarasota's nitrogen loading to the bay by 80-90%.


                                          133








               This reduction contributed to a 14% bay wide reduction in
               nitrogen loading. The City of Sarasota ceased regular
               wastewater discharge to a tributary of Sarasota Bay,
               Whitaker Bayou, in March 1990. The City still discharges as
               much as 50% of its wastewater to the bay because of problems
               with its reuse system and is under Consent Order for the bay
               discharge. The other 50% is reused for irrigation on golf
               courses, pasture, and cropland. This amounts to a use of
               approximately 7-9 million gallons per day.

               Sarasota's treatment plant presently has an excess capacity
               of 3 million gallons per day. It could service as many as
               7,000 homes now on septic tanks. For the areas of Whitaker
               Bayou and Phillippi Creek, this action would result in
               reductions of nitrogen loads by 35% and 16*-., respectively.

               Sarasota County is evaluating the feasibility of purchasing
               and operating existing small wastewater treatment plants.
               other suggested plans are to sewer areas presently on septic
               tanks and to have in use three regional treatment plants for
               water reuse.

               Manatee County has reduced stormwater runoff from a* 2,100
               acre gladiolus irrigation field receiving reclaimed
               wastewater. This was accomplished by constructing three
               tailwater pump-back stations that move runoff to the front
               of the fields to be reused.


               Manatee County has taken other actions that have led   to
               improvements in bay water quality. In 1989, Manatee     County
               completed construction of a deep well for treated wastewater
               injection; this prevents the need for direct discharges to
               the bay.

               other problems besides nitrogen loadings exist. Bacterial
               levels that exceed State criteria have been documented in
               Phillippi Creek. Metals or toxics entering the bay are
               doing so via stormwater. It has been estimated that
               stormwater treatment ponds can reduce metals and toxics
               loads by 93%. Priority areas to receive stormwater
               treatment are Whitaker Bayou, Phillippi Creek, and Roberts
               Bay.

               Habitat loss and alterations are major concerns for Sarasota
               Bay. Bay wide there has been a 30% decline in total acreage
               of seagrasses since 1950. In spite of this, there are areas
               of the bay where seagrasses have rebounded. Two such



                                             134









              locations are New Pass and Longboat Pass. In Little
              Sarasota Bay seagrass species have shifted from water
              quality sensitive Thalassia to more tolerant species:
              Halodule and Ruppia. Large areas of the bay bottom were
              disturbed in the 1950s and 1960s by dredge and fill
              activities (about 15*-. of the total bottom). Many of these
              areas are now sinks for fine grained sediments and
              pollutants. They are also subject to hypoxia or anoxia;
              they no longer support marine life.

              The continued viability of the bay's fishery is dependent on
              available and adequate habitat and adequate water quality.
              Both the commercial and recreational fisheries are
              important resource for the bay area economy. Declines in
              water quality, loss of habitat, and increased fishing
              pressure have resulted in decreased fishery resources. For
              example, recreational landings of seatrout have declined 50%
              since the 1950s.


              Suggested means of reversing this decline include
              protection, restoration or improvement of natural habitat,
              and development of artificial reefs. Boat propeller
              scarring damages seagrass beds. A program combining
              improved channel markers and boater education is seen as one
              way to protect existing beds. Several habitat restoration
              and revegetation projects of dredge spoil disposal sites
              have been started. Further improvements in water quality
              are a necessary part of improving and protecting habitat and
              the fishery. Improved water clarity and reduced nitrogen
              loadings from stormwater runoff will aid in the growth and
              maintenance of seagrasses. Excess nitrogen creates a
              problem by fueling the growth of phytoplankton and epiphytes
              on the seagrasses, with resultant undesirable seagrass
              shading. Construction of artificial reefs.will provide more
              habitat for fish. A demonstration project performed by Mote
              Marine Lab found that canals with seawalls constructed as
              artificial reefs attracted 100 times more juvenile fish than
              those with bare seawalls.


              Another important factor influencing habitat and fishery
              maintenance is circulation. Alterations to circulation
              patterns within the bay have occurred as a result of dredge
              and fill activities. The NEP's three dimensional
              circulation model identified two areas with problems: Palma
              Sola Bay and Little Sarasota Bay. Reconstruction of the
              Palma Sola Causeway will improve circulation patterns in
              that area. Little Sarasota bay has been cut off from the



                                           135









               bay proper by the closure of Midnight Pass. As a result,
               circulation within Little Sarasota Bay has been reduced.
               The issue of whether to reopen or keep closed Midniglat Pass
               has not been resolved.


               Through the NEP, several bay wide baseline monitoring
               programs have been initiated. These included a water
               quality monitoring program, bottom habitat assessment,
               fishery resource assessment, point and non-point source
               pollutant load assessment, and resource access and use
               assessment. Monitoring programs identified problems and
               allowed the development of solutions. Future bay management
               implemented by local governments will need to include these
               elements of monitoring to ensure the continued restoration
               of the bay.

               Management of recreational use of the bay is an important
               aspect of bay protection. Conflicts have resulted between
               user groups in specific geographic areas of the bay.
               Enhancement of the recreational experience contributes not
               only to the local economy, but promotes stewardship and
               protection of the bay. For any management plan for the bay
               to succeed, there must be a constituency that supports it.

               Special Programs

               Florida is presently (or will be in the near future)
               involved in several federal estuary programs. These are
               EPA's National Estuary Program, Gulf of Mexico Program, and
               Environmental Mapping and Assessment Program (EMAP). Three
               estuary systems were selected for inclusion in Section 317
               (National Estuary Program) of the Water Quality Act of 1987 .
               These were Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, and the Indian Rliver
               Lagoon. Updates of work in progress were included in the
               Case Study Section of this chapter. The Lower St. Johns
               River was nominated, but not included in the program.

               DEP is directly involved with the Gulf of Mexico Program in
               several areas. In an effort to better document fish
               mortality events in the Gulf, DEP's Marine Research
               Institute is developing protocols to facilitate regional
               interstate response to these events. A second project is
               directed at convening a workshop on marine biotoxins and
               algal blooms. Noxious algal blooms are a common occurrence
               within the Gulf of Mexico. The objectives of the workshop
               will be: 1. to establish a database of historical and
               present red tide events; 2. to establish an information



                                            136









              network between interested parties; 3. to establish a
              directory of institutions and individuals with specific
              expertise; 4. to develop a voluntary team of experts to act
              as consultants to states; and 5. to develop training courses
              and public information about the impacts of red tide blooms.
              A third project will look at the feasibility of using clonal
              micropropagation techniques on Widgeon Grass as an aid in
              the restoration of seagrasses.

              In 1994, DEP will enter into an agreement with EPA to begin
              monitoring estuarine areas under the EMAP Program. The DEP
              will be responsible for estuaries within the Carolinian
              Province; this is the area from the Indian River Lagoon
              north to Amelia Island. EPA has been sampling within
              Florida's Louisianian Province since 1991. This province
              includes northwest Florida and the Big Bend area. In the
              near future the DEP will probably assume responsibility for
              the Louisianian Province and begin work in South Florida in
              the West Indies Province. As many as 100 estuarine and
              coastal sites are planned to be monitored through EMAP.

              In addition to the Indian River Lagoon and Tampa Day, many
              other Florida estuaries have been targeted as state SWIM
              priority waters (Tables 7 and 8). Each SWIM plan has
              components that are waterbody specific, but there are
              several elements which are common to all. These are
              stormwater control and outfall retrofit, monitoring, habitat
              restoration, the determination of nutrient loads, and
              environmental education.



























                                           137









              Chapter Six: Wetlands Assessment


              Extent of Wetland Resources


              Due to its low elevation and peninsular nature, Florida is
              blessed with numerous and varied wetlands. The major types
              of wetlands include the estuarine Spartina and mangrove
              marshes, and fresh water sawgrass marshes, cypress swamps
              and flood plain marshes and swamps. In total, almost one-
              third of the State can be considered wetlands. The 'Largest
              and most important expanses of wetlands are:

                   1.  Everglades and the adjacent Big Cypress Swamp which
                       together with the Water Conservation Areas (diked
                       off portions of the or1g1nal Everglades system),
                       and excluding the developed coastal ridge, extend
                       from about 20 miles south of Lake Okeechobee to
                       Florida Bay.

                   2.  Green Swamp located in the central plateau of the
                       State.


                   3.  Big Bend coastal area extending from the St. Marks
                       River to the Withlacoochee River.


                   4.  Vast expanses of Spartina marsh located between the
                       Nassau and St. Marys Rivers.

                   5.  Headwaters and flood.plains of many rivers located
                       throughout the State, especially the Apalachicola,
                       Suwannee, St. Johns, Oklawaha, Kissimmee, and Peace
                       Rivers.


              In 1984, the Florida Legislature passed the Warren S.
              Henderson Wetlands Protection Act which recognized t'he value
              of wetlands in the protection of the water quality and
              biological resources of the State of Florida. The Act
              addressed permitting activities, tracking of wetlands
              affected by these activities, and an areal inventory of
              wetland status. Because of a variety of funding and
              contract problems, the inventory program has not yet been
              created. Other Statewide research to document wetland areas
              is being performed by the National Wetlands Inventory (U.S.
              Fish and Wildlife Service) and DEP's Marine Research
              Institute.






                                           138









              Although information regarding the historical extent of
              wetlands in Florida is limited, gross estimates of wetland
              losses can be made. Dahl (1990) estimates that Florida lost
              46% of its wetlands between the 1780s and the 1980s.    Table
              32 contains historical wetland acreage estimates for
              Florida.


              Table 33 depicts Florida's wetland acreage by wetland type
              (based primarily on 1979-1980 aerial photography at a scale
              of 1:80,000). The acreages and classification system were
              adapted from Florida Wetland Acreage, National Wetlands
              Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, January 1984.
              Wetland types were defined using the Cowardin et al.
              classification system.

              There are several wetlands management programs in place.
              Dredge and fill activities, a major threat to wetlands in
              Florida, are regulated through the permitting process. DEP
              is in charge of permitting non-agricultural projects within
              wetlands associated with waters of the State. The water
              management districts process agricultural permits and permit
              requests in isolated wetlands. Finally, any project located
              on State-owned lands (such as below mean high water) also
              has to be approved by DEP's Division of State Lands.

              The Department has negotiated agreements with three of the
              five water management districts to combine the proces  *sing of
              dredge and fill and Management and Storage of Surface Waters
              (MSSW) permits. These agreements enable the Department or
              the appropriate water management district to process both
              the dredge and fill and MSSW permit for specific projects
              depending on the planned activity. From the applicant's
              perspective, these agreements simplify the permitting
              process because they only have deal with one agency.
              Legislation passed during the 1993 legislative session
              ratified these agreements and combined the two permits into
              a single Environmental Resource Permit with a proposed
              effective date of July 1, 1994. The legislation formally
              becomes effective pending the DEP's development of a unified
              Statewide wetlands delineation methodology. In addition,
              the State is pursuing the option of taking over some or all
              of the federal permit program via a State Programmatic
              General Permit being negotiated with the Corps.







                                           139










               Table 32. Historical Estimates of Wetlands in Florida.*




                              Wetland Acreage    Source



               ca. 1780s         20,325,013      Dahl (1990)
               Mid-1950s         12,779,000      Hefner (1986)
               Mid-1970s         11,334,000      Hefner (1986)
               Mid-1970s         11,298,600      Frayer & Hefner (1991)
               1979-1980         11,854,822      Natl Wetland Inv (1984)
               ca. 1980s         11,038,300      Dahl (1990)


               *Sources:


               Dahl, Thomas E. 1990. Wetland Losses in the United States
                  1780s to 1980s. U.S. Department of the Interior, 'Fish and
                  Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

               Frayer, W.E. and J.M. Hefner. September, 1991. Florida
                  Wetlands Status and Trends, 1970s to 1980s. U.S.
                  Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
                  Atlanta, Ga.

               Hefner, John M. 1986. Wetlands of Florida 1950s to 1970s.
                  In Managing Cumulative Effects in Florida Wetlands,
                  (Conference Proceedings), October 17-19, 1985. New
                  College, Sarasota, Florida.

               National Wetlands Inventory. January 1984. Florida Wetland
                  Acreage. National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and
                  Wildlife Service, St. Petersburg, Florida.


















                                              140









                          Table 33. Extent of                             Wetlands, by Type.


                          I TYPE OF                 WETLAND I             I TYPE OF                 WETLAND                  TYPE OF                WETLAND
                          +1-W-E-T-L-A-N-D-S--+l  ---  AC-R-E-A-G-E---+I  +1--W-E-T-L-A-N-D-S-l+---A-C-R-E-A-G-E--+I      +1-W-E-T-L-A-N-D-S--+1  ---  AC-R-E-A-G-E--+l
                          ------------------------ ------------------------ -----------------------
                          I M2US                1 31,257               1  1 L20W                  1   41,958 1            1 POW/U              1      16,206 1
                          ------------------------ ------------                                   7----------- -----------------------
                          I E2AB                1 197,631              1  1 L2US                  1     1,223 1           1 U/POW              1        9,197 1
                          ------------------------ ------------------------ -----------------------
                          I E2AB/US 1 46,367                           1  1 PABH                  1     4,663 1           1 FPOA               1 240,486 1
                          ------------------------ ------------------------ -----------------------
                          I E2EM                1 347,143              1  1 PEMA                  1 450,314 1             1 PFO/EMA 1                 33,124 1
                          ------------------------ ------------------------ -----------------------
                          I E2EM/AB 1 14,739                           1  1 PEMA/U                1   61,407 1            1 PFOA/U             1      34,408 1
                          ------------------------ ------------------------ -----------------------
                          I E2EM/OW 1 16,096                           1  1 U/PEMA                1   92,434 1            1 U/PFOA             1        7,133 1
                          ------------------------ ------------------------ -----------------------
                          I E2EM/US 1                  8,392           1  1 PEMC/U                1 810,801 1             1 PFOC               13,504,381 1
                          ------------------------ ------------------------ -----------------------
                          I E2EM/U              1      2,747           1  1 PEM/ABC 1                   1,844 1           1 PFO/EMC 1 552,628 1
                          ------------------------ ------------------------ -----------------------
                          I U/E2EM              1      2,089           1  1 PEMC/U                1 611,555 1             1 PFOC/U             1 806,574 1
                          ------------------------ ------------------------ -----------------------
                          I E2FO                1 592,935              1  1 U/PEMC                1 766,831 1             1 U/PFOC             1 460,705 1
                          ------------------------ ------------------------ -----------------------
                          I E2FO/OW 1 41,647                           1  1 PEMF                  1 491,631 1             1 PFOF               11,510,033 1
                          ------------------------ ------------------------ -----------------------
                          I E2FO/AB 1 15,442                           1  1 PEM/ABF 1                   4,844 1           1 PFO/ABF 1                   3,040 1
                          ------------------------ ------------------------ -----------------------
                          I E2FO/EM 1 65,647                           1  1 PEM/OWF 1                 32,010 1            1 PFO/EMF 1 166,182 1
                          ------------------------ ------------------------ -----------------------
                          I E2FO/US 1 45,627                           1  1 PEMF/U                1 265,344 1             1 PFO/OWF 1                   5,458 1
                          ------------------------ ------------------------ -----------------------
                          1 E2FO/U              1      1,150           1  1 U/PEMF                1 305,569 1             1 PFOF/U             I S92,762 I
                          ------------------------ ------------------------ -----------------------
                          I E2RF                1      3,065           1  1 PEMH                  1   28,470 1            1 U/PFOF             11,048,270 i
                          ------------------------ ------------------------ -----------------------
                          I E2US                1 116,983              1  1 PEMH/ABH 1                29,604 1            1 PFOH/ABH 1                19,837 1
                          ------------------------ ------------------------ -----------------------
                          I L2AB                1 26,440               1  1 PEM/OWH 1                 11,221 1            1 PFO/ABH 1                   3,042
                          ------------------------ ------------------------ -----------------------
                          I L2AB/OW 1                  1,798           1  1 POW                   1   71,592 1            1 PFO/EMH 1                   1,874
                          ------------------------ ------------------------ -----------------------
                          I L2EM                1      1,974           1  1 POWH                  1     3,039 1           1 PFO/OWH 1                   1,899 1
                          ------------------------ ------------------------ -----------------------





















                                                                                                  141










            Table 33.      (Continued)




            Explanation of Codes:
            Classification Element           General, Nontechnical Description


            Marine (M)                     High energy system with full strength salinity.
                                           No woody or herbaceous vegetation.

            Estuarine (E)                  Relatively low energy coastal system, frequently
                                           found at mouths of rivers, embayments arid between
                                           barrier islands and mainland. Salinity usually
                                           less than full strength. Woody or herbaceous
                                           vegetation may be present.

            Riverine (R)                   The portion of the river channel that does not
                                           contain woody or herbaceous vegetation.

            Lacustrine (L)                 Lakes, generally 20 acres or larger, that do not
                                           contain perennial vegetation.

            Palustrine (P)                 Swamps, bogs, wet meadows and other traditional
                                           freshwater wetlands. Ponds less that 20 acres.


            Subtidal (1)                   Substrate is continuously submerged.

            Intertidal (2)                 Substrate exposed and flooded by tides.

            Tidal (1)                      Water level (but not salinity) is influenced by
                                           tides.


            Lower Perennial (2)            Relatively slow-flowing water due to gradient.

            Limnetic (1)                   Lake water 2 meters or deeper.

            Littoral (2)                   Lake water shallower than 2 meters.


            Aquatic Bed  (AB)              Dominated by plants that grow principally on or
                                           below the water surface.


            Emergent (EM)                  Characterized by erect, rooted plants such as
                                           cattails in fresh water and saltwater cord grass
                                           in saltwater.


            Scrub/Shrub (SS)               Woody vegetation less than 20 feet.

            Forested (FO)                  Woody vegetation over 20 feet.

            Open Water (OW)                Surface water where vegetation is absent.

            Reef                           Coral reefs, mollusk reefs.








                                                      142











            Table 33. (Continued).




            System                       Subsystem                   Class


                                                                        -Aquatic Bed (AB)
            marine (M)                  Subtidal (1)                    -Reef (RF)
                                                                        -Open Water (OW)

                                                                        -Aquatic Bed (AB)
                                                                        -Ree@f (RF)
                                        Intertidal (2)                  -Unconsolidated Shore (US)
                                                                        -Open Water (OW)

                                                                        -Aquatic Bed (AB)
                                        Subtidal (1)                    -Reef (RF)
                                                                        -Open Water (OW)

            Estuarine (E)                                               -Aquatic Bed (AB)
                                                                        -Reef (RF)
                                        Intertidal (2)                  -Emergent Vegetation (EM)
                                                                        -Scrub-Shrub Vegetation (SS)
                                                                        -Forested Vegetation (FO)

                                                                        -Aquatic Bed (AB)
                                        Tidal (1)                       -Unconsolidated Shore (US)
                                                                        -Open Water (OW)

            Riverine (R)
                                                                        -Aquatic Bed (AB)
                                        Lower Perennial (2)             -Unconsolidated Shore (US)
                                                                        -Open Water (OW)

                                        Limnetic (1)                    -Aquatic Bed (AB)

            Lacustrine (L)
                                        Littoral (2)                    -Aquatic Bed (AB)
                                                                        -Emergent Vegetation (EM)

                                                                        -Aquatic Bed (AB)
                                                                        -Emergent Vegetation (EM)
            Palustrine (P)                                              -Scrub-Shrub Vegetation (SS)
                                                                        -Forested Vegetation (FO)














                                                           143




		Table 33. (Continued).

		Definintions of Wetland Hydrology Types:

		Temporal Flooded (A)  			Surface water is present for brief periods during the growing season; but the water tabel usually lies well below the soil surface for most fo the season.
		Seasonally Flooded (C)			Surface water is present for extended periods, especially in the growing season, but is absent by the end of the season. When surface water is absent, teh water table is often near the land surface.
		Semi-permanently Flooded (F)		Surface water persistes throughout the growing season, when surface water is abesent, the water table is usually at or very near the land surface.
		Permanently Flooded (H)			Surface water covers the land surface throughout the year in all years. Vegetation is composed of obligate hydrophytes.
			
		Examples of Wetland Classification:
			E 2 FO					PEMC
	System:	E=Estuarine System       System:    P= Palustrine
	Subsystem	2=Intertidal Subsystem	 Subsytem:	Does not exist
	Class:	FO=Forested Class:	 Class:	EM=Emergent
	Water Regime: Not used			 Water Regime:  C=Seasonally flooded

	Wetland classes can be mixed as shown in the following example: E2FO/EM=Esturaine Intertidal, Forested mixed wiht Emergent










										144	 








              There is a joint application form for dredge and fill
              projects for DEP and the Corps; however, the permitting
              processes are independent. There is coordination by
              meetings, phone calls, and joint site inspections.

              A DEP water resource management (dredge and fill) permit
              acts as the State Water Quality Certification when required
              for a Corps permit. DEP has adopted rules for determining
              the extent of its wetlands jurisdiction. Briefly, wetland
              jurisdiction begins at the edge of a waterbody ("waters of
              the State"), and extends landward to include those
              contiguous areas which are subject to "regular and periodic
              inundation". These areas are defined primarily by the
              species of wetland plants listed in the rule (i.e., the
              "vegetative index"). The State's water management districts
              also have permitting authority, and, although there is some
              variation between them, their definitions of jurisdictional
              wetlands mirror DEP's.


              Integrity of Wetland Resources

              Each year Florida issues a report of wetland acreages
              affected by permitted activities. This wetland monitoring
              report has been issued for the last nine years. It does not
              include exempt or illegal wetland activities. Use support
              decisions are based on the water quality classification for
              the affected wetland/waterbody. Generally, the Department
              can issue dredge and fill permits for activities provided
              that they are not contrary to the public interest.

              Table 34 contains a summary of affected wetlands (as
              regulated by the Department and the five water management
              districts). The numbers should only be compared with the
              following considerations:

                  1.  The numbers reflect only wetland permits and do not
                      measure overall wetland trends. Wetlands lost to
                      non-permitted or exempt activities are not tracked.

                  2.  Although minimized, there is some overlap where DEP
                      and the water management districts both issue
                      permits.

                  3.  The water management districts use slightly
                      different techniques to determine jurisdictional
                      wetlands.





                                          145









             Table 34. Wetlands Affected by Permitted Activities
              (1985-1993).




                                           Wetland Acres
                          Lost* Created* Preserved* Improved* Benefitted*



             DEP          7,827    39,272     20,900       123,843      1B4,015


             NWFWMD          187       170       1,986            0        2,343


             SRWMD          18 8        45      7,343             0       7,388


             SJRWMD       4,351      8,719    65,256        14,028       88,003


             SWFWMD       4,293     3,409     30,549         1,254       35,212


             SFWMD        13,658   11,532     73,135        20,893      105,560


             TOTALS       30,504   63,147     199,169      160,018      422,521


               General  Definitions


             Lost=        wetlands destroyed

             Created=     wetlands created from uplands or non-jurisdictional
                          wetland acreage which becomes connected to
                          jurisdictional wetlands

             Preserved=   jurisdictional wetlands legally entered into some
                          type of conservation easement

             Improved=    poor quality jurisdictional wetlands in which some
                          activity enhances the quality, such as improved
                          flow, removal of exotic species, etc,

             Benef itted= sum of acreage in the created, preserved and
                          improved categories










                                               146









                   4 . Not all figures included have been verified by
                      field inspections or remote sensing techniques.

              Enforcement of the Henderson Act and the water resource
              management permit relies on public awareness. Although
              there are enforcement officers at each District, there is
              little time for surveillance, and many violations are
              reported by the public. Public education occurs through
              several state promulgated pamphlets and documents, technical
              and regulatory workshops, and newspaper coverage. Because
              of the enormous importance of wetlands in Florida, the press
              has done a good job of focusing the public's attention on
              wetland issues.


              In recent years, another threat to wetlands, besides direct
              dredging and filling, is being recognized as extremely
              important. The quality and quantity of water delivered to
              wetlands affects their functional nature, if not their very
              existence. These issues are considered in dredge and fill
              permitting, but can be affected by non-dredge and fill
              activities. Water quantity is primarily regulated by the
              water management districts and the Corps. Water quality is
              regulated by DEP through its point source and stormwater
              programs and through setting of standards. The most notable
              example of wetland degradation resulting from changes in
              water quality and quantity is the Everglades.


              Florida includes wetlands as "waters of the State".
              However, the attainment of designated uses has not been
              analyzed in a manner'similar to that used for rivers, lakes,
              and estuaries.


              Development of Wetland Water Quality Standards

              The State's antidegradation policy for wetlands is set out
              in Section 403.918, F.S., and in Sections 17-302.300 and
              17-4.242, F.A.C. A public interest test is applied to all
              proposed permits that may degrade wetlands. In addition,
              activities that may degrade wetlands designated as
              Outstanding Florida Water, are held to more stringent tests.
              Lastly, an extremely rigorous nondegradation policy is
              applied for waters classified as Outstanding National
              Resource Waters.


              The Outstanding National Resource Water category of waters
              was created in 1989 and includes Everglades and Biscayne
              National Parks. However, the designations were made



                                          147








               contingent upon legislative confirmation which has not yet
               occurred.


               The State of Florida has not adopted wetland-specific
               numeric water quality criteria, primarily because wetlands
               are included as waters of the State. Instead, wetlands are
               regulated using the same standards as are applied to surface
               waters. Table 35 summarizes the development of State
               wetland (and surface) water quality standards.

               Designated uses for wetlands in Florida are the same as for
               surface waters:


                    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.


               Florida already has some narrative biocriteria in   its rules
               (e.g., dominance of nuisance species, biological integrity).
               The State is in the process of developing additional
               biocriteria for all State waters (including wetlands). To
               this end, the Department formed a committee to examine
               appropriate biocriteria for Florida. The Department has
               initiated several contracts addressing Rapid Bioassessment
               (RBA), including an investigation of the feasibility of
               developing new biocriteria that relate to regional water
               quality goals. The use of RBA as a screening device for
               determining use attainability is another expected benefit of
               the contract studies.


               Since wetlands are included as waters of the State,
               Florida's antidegradation policies for surface waters also
               apply to wetlands. These policies were formally adopted in
               1989 and are contained in Section 17-302.300, F.A.C. An
               additional layer of water quality protection has been






                                            148









              Table 35. Development of State Wetland Water Quality
              Standards.





                                                Under
                                    In Place    Development    Proposed



              Use Classification      XXXX


              Narrative
              Biocriteria             XXXX         XXXX          XXXX



              Numeric
              Biocriteria                          XXXX


              Antidegradation         XXXX

              Implementation
              Method                  XXXX





              afforded to them by their classification as Outstanding
              Florida Waters. This category includes many of the State's
              most important wetlands. The intent of an OFW designation
              is to preserve ambient water quality. With few exceptions,
              permits cannot be issued for direct discharges which would
              degrade ambient water quality. Indirect discharges to OFWs
              must not "significantly degrade" the downstream OFW. In
              addition, all permitted activities must be clearly in the
              public interest, including dredge and fill.

              Additional Wetland Protection Activities


              The DEP Wetland Resource Permitting Program (administered
              under Chapter 403, F.S., and Chapter 17-312, F.A.C.) serves
              as the Section 401 certification mechanism. This program
              includes extensive requirements for the permit applicant.

              The Section 404 and Section 401 water quality certification
              process provides go9d protection for isolated wetlands. For
              contiguous wetlands,' the process overlaps with DEP
              permitting and thus provides minimal additional protection.



                                           149









               Section 17-25.042, F.A.C., contains design standards for use
               of wetlands for stormwater treatment. Degraded wetlands are
               primarily used in these cases. Restoration of hydro-period
               is an important goal; in cases, extensive monitoring is
               required.

               The State's five water management districts regulate
               agricultural discharges. All districts have (or are
               currently developing) agricultural rules concerning :MSSW
               permits, Permit applicants must demonstrate that there will
               be no impact to wetlands (including isolated wetlands) of 5
               acres or larger.

               The State also has an advisory committee for silvicultural
               Best Management Practices in hardwood forest wetlands.
               These activities are regulated by the five water management
               districts.


               The DEP Division of Environmental Resource Permitting is
               currently developing plans to implement a GIS based program
               which will track several aspects of the wetland program.































                                           150









               Chapter Seven:      Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns

               The public health and aquatic life concerns chapter brings
               together information from many different programs within DEP
               and several other state agencies. The topics covered in
               this chapter include: extent of surface water affected by
               toxics, fishing bans and fish kills, sediment contamination
               problems, shellfish restrictions and consumption advisories,
               and closures of surface water drinking supplies and bathing
               areas.


               Size of Waters Affected by Toxicants


               Toxic pollutants are a growing concern throughout the
               country, however, there is little definitive information
               available on their extent and impact on the aquatic
               environment. This portion of the assessment examines water
               column toxic metals which are found in Florida's waters.
               The assessment is based on an inventory of nine toxic metals
               (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury,
               nickel, and zinc) sampled during (1991-1993). The Florida
               surface water quality standards (Chapter 17-302, F.A.C.)
               were used to assess whether toxic pollutants were found at
               elevated levels. Several standards are based on hardness
               levels. However, since hardness levels were not available
               in all cases, a hardness value of 100 mg/l as CaC03 was
               assumed (see Technical Appendix for more complete analysis).
               An elevated level was defined as an exceedance of any
               standard for the nine metals. Generally, each watershed was
               sampled two or three times for several of the metals during
               the last three years.

               A total of 410 watersheds were sampled for toxic metals
               during the three year period. Water column mercury, lead
               and iron exceeded criteria most often (47%, 30%, and 22% of
               the time). Table 36 summarizes the total size of Florida
               waters with elevated levels of toxic metals. The table
               shows that 5211 of the river miles, which were assessed for
               toxics in the water column, have elevated levels, while
               about 59% of the lake areas and 570-. of the-total estuarine
               areas have elevated toxics levels.


               Table 37 summarizes percent individual metal exceedances in
               Florida waters. For all waterbody types, the greatest
               number of watersheds with metals criteria exceedances were
               for mercury and lead. The State does have an identified
               mercury problem affecting fish tissue, but a word of caution



                                          151









                 needs to be interjected for the mercury data assessed in
                 both tables. Information on field and lab techniques, was
                 not available, but it is known that contamination of water
                 samples with low concentrations of mercury occurs very
                 readily. Further discussion of the mercury problem is
                 contained in the section on Fishing Advisories and Bans
                 Currently in Effect.


                 Table 36. Total Size of Waterbodies Affected by Metals
                 (not including fish tissue data).



                 Waterbody                 Size Monitored       Size with Elevated
                                             for Toxics          Levels of Toxics



                 River (miles)                  2,496               1,287
                 Lakes (square miles)           1,015                 597
                 Estuaries (square miles)         785                 448





                 Table 37. Percent Exceedances of Individual Metals in the
                 Water Column.





                             STORET     Number of      Florida        Percent
                             Parameter  Watersheds     Criteria      WatershE!ds
                 Metal       Number     Sampled         (ppb)**      with Exceedances



                 Arsenic     1002         162             so                 0
                 Cadmium     1027         211             1.1              17
                 Chromium    1034         155             207*               0
                 Copper      1042         330             12*              10
                 Iron        1045         378             1000             22
                 Lead        1051         240             3.2*             30
                 Mercury     71900        129             0.012            47
                 Nickel      1067         130             158*               0
                 Zinc        1092         253             106              10



                 * Actual criteria are   dependent on water hardness, which was
                 assumed to be 100 mg/l as Cam,, since hardness was not available
                 for all watersheds.
                    parts per billion



                                               152










             Public Health/Acruatic Life Impacts


             Fishing Advisories and Bans Currently in Effect


             Health concerns, as regards bans and advisories of fish
             consumption in the State of Florida, are administered by the
             Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS),
             Epidemiology Section, and the Department of Environmental
             Protection. Additionally, the Florida Game and Fresh Water
             Fish Commission and the Marine Fisheries Commission play
             significant roles in regulating fish populations in Florida.
             At present advisories have been issued for both mercury and
             dioxin.


             HRS issued its first fish consumption advisory for mercury
             in early 1989 because of elevated concentrations of the
             metal found in largemouth bass collected from the
             Everglades. Subsequently, increased monitoring has resulted
             in advisories being issued for many more stream/river
             drainage basins and lakes. A complete list of waterbodies
             is contained in Table 38.


             There are two mercury consumption advisories in effect. The
             first states that fish tissue containing mercury
             concentrations greater than 1.5 parts per million (ppm)
             should not be consumed. The second is a limited consumption
             advisory. Fish tissue with concentrations of mercury
             between 0.5 and 1.5 ppm should not be consumed more than one
             meal per week by adults and not more than one meal per month
             by pregnant or lactating women and children under 15 years
             of age. An average meal is defined as 4 ounces or 113.5
             grams of fish. Three areas of the State are affected by the
             no consumption advisory. These include Everglades National
             Park's Shark River Drainage north and west of State Road 27,
             Everglades Water Conservation Area 2a, and Everglades Water
             Conservation Area 3. Species affected by this advisory are
             largemouth bass, gar, and bowfin.

             On May 13, 1991, HRS and the Florida Department of
             Agriculture and Consumer Services jointly issued a limited
             consumption health advisory for shark meat. That advisory
             was based on 25 samples of shark meat taken at the retail
             level that contained an average concentration of 1.48 ppm
             methylmercury.






                                          153











                  Table 38.. Waterbodies Af f ected- by, Fish,. Consumption. Advisories-.


                  Waterbody Name                                     HUC-Code         County                                     Species.Afected


                  NO-CONSUMPTION.ADVISORY:


                  PollutantFMetoury
                  Water Conservation Area 3                          03090202         Dade/Broward                               largemouth bass, gar, bowf..in
                  Water Conservation Area 2A                         03090202         Palm BeachjBroward@                        largemouth bass, gar, bowfin
                  EverglAdes National Park                           0:3 0 9 0202,    Dade/Monroe                                largemouthabass,, g     ,ar,, bowfin
                    Shark River Drainage North and-
                    West of SR27


                  Pollutant=Dioxin
                  Fenholl'oway River                                 031-1.0102       Taylor                                     all species..

                  LIMITED CONSUMPTION ADVISORY


                  Pollutant=Mercury
                  Anclote River                                      03100207         Pasco/Pinellas                             largemouth     bass,  gar,   bowfin
             L9    Choctawhatchee River                              0314-0203-       Holmes/Walton/Washington                   largemouth     bass,  gar,   bowfin
                  Crooked River                                      03130013         Franklin                                   largemouth     bass,  gar,   bowfin
                  Apalachicola River Drainge:
                    Chipola River and Dead Lakes                     03130012         Jackson/Calhoun/Gul,f.                     largemouth     bass,  gar,   bowfin
                    Equaloxic Creek                                  03130011         Liberty                                    largemouth     bass,  gar,   bowfin
                    Sweetwater Creek                                 03130011         Liberty                                    largemouth     bass,. gar,   bowfin
                  Econlockhat,chee River                             03080103         Orange/Seminole,                           largemouth     bass,  gar,   bowfin
                  Ecofina Creek/Deer Point Lake                      03140101         Bay                                        largemouth     bass,, gar,   bowfin
                  Blackwa,ter River                                  03140104         Santa-Rosa                                 largemouth     bass,  gar,,  bowfin
                  Escambia River                                     03140305         Escambi-a                                  largemouth     bass,  gar,   bowfin
                  Hillsborough River                                 03100205.        Hillsborough.                              largemouth     bass,  gar,   bowfin
                  Holmes Creek                                       03140203         Washington                                 largemouth     bass,  gar,   bowfin
                  Ochlockonee River/Lake Talquin.                    03120003         Leon/Wakulla                               largemouth     bass,  gar,   bowfin.
                  Oklawaha River                                     03080102         Marion                                     largemouth     bass,  gar,   loWf4n
                  Peace River                                        03100101         Polk/Hardee/DeSoto;                        largemouth     bass,  gar,   bowfin
                  Perdido River                                      031401,06        Escambia                                   largemouth     bass,  gar,   bowfin
                  St. Marys River                                    03070204         Nassau/Baker                               largemouth     bass,  gar,   bowfin
                  Sopchoppy River                                    03120003         Wakulla                                    largemouth     bass,. gar,-  bowfin
                  Suwannee River Drainage:
                    Santa Fe River                                   03110206         Columbia/Gilchrist/Suwannee                largemouth     bass,  gar,   bowfin
                  Withlacoochee River and Drainage                   03110203         Hamilton/Madison                           largemouth     bass,  gar@   bowfin
                    Alapaha River                                    03110202         Hamilton                                   largemouth     bass,  gar,,  bowfin





             wo MAN                                          M M an                                         jW "M (M MAU                                              M go












               Table 38. (Continued).


               Wate rbody Name                              HUC Code       County                               Species Affected


               Wacasassa River                              03110101       Levy                                 largemouth  bass,  gar,  bowfin
               Withlacoochee River                          03100208       Pasco/Citrus                         largemouth  bass,  gar,  bowfin
               Yellow River                                 03140103       Santa Rose/Okaloosa                  largemouth  bass,  gar,  bowfin
               Upper St. Johns River                        03080103       Seminole/Volusia/Brevard/            largemouth  bass,  gar,  bowfin
                  (SR415 S. through Lakes Washington,                        Orange/Osceola
                  Puzzle, Poinsett, Winder, and Harney
               Lake Altho                                   03110206       Alachua                              largemouth  bass,  gar,  bowfin
               Lake Annie                                   03090101       Highlands                            largemouth  bass,  gar,  bowfin
               Brick Lake                                   03090101       Osceola                              largemouth  bass,  gar,  bowfin

               Butler Chain of Lakes:
                  Lakes Blanche, Butler, Chase,             03090101       Orange                               largemouth  bass,  gar,  bowfin
                  Crescent, Cypress, Down,
                  Illsworth, Little Fish,
                  Louise, Pocket, Sheen and Tibet
            Ln Clermont Chain of Lakes:
            (-n   Lakes Dias and Louisa                     03080102       Lake                                 largemouth  bass,  gar,  bowfin
               Conway Chain of Lakes:
                  Lakes Conway and Little Conway            03090101       Orange                               largemouth  bass,  gar,  bowfin
               Crooked Lake                                 03090101       Polk                                 largemouth  bass,  gar,  bowfin
               Lake  Dorr                                   03080101       Lake                                 largemouth  bass,  gar,  bowfin
               Lake  Eaton                                  03080102       Marion                               largemouth  bass,  gar,  bowfin
               Lake  Hart                                   03090101       Orange                               largemouth  bass,  gar,  bowfin
               Lake  Iamonia                                03120003       Leon                                 largemouth  bass,  gar,  bowfin
               Lake  Istokpoga                              03090101       Highlands                            largemouth  bass,  gar,  bowfin
               Lake  Josephine                              03090101       Highlands                            largemouth  bass,  gar,  bowfin
               Lake  Kerr                                   03080101       Marion                               largemouth  bass,  gar,  bowfin
               Kissimmee Chain of Lakes:
                  Lakes Alligator, Hatchineba,              03090101       Osceola                              largemouth  bass,  gar,  bowfin
                  Tohopekaliga, East Tohopekaliga,
                  and Kissimmee
               Lake Miccosukee                              03120001       Jefferson                            largemouth.bass,   gar,  bowfin
               Mill Dam Lake                                03080102       Marion                               largemouth bass,   gar,  bowfin
               ocheese Pond                                 03130011       Jackson                              largemouth bass,   gar,  bowfin
               Lake Placid                                  03090101       Highlands                            largemouth bass,   gar,  bowfin
               Savannas State Preserve                      03090202       St. Lucie                            largemouth bass,   gar,  bowfin
               Swim Pond                                    03080102       Marion                               largemouth bass,   gar,  bowfin













              Table 38. (Continued).



              Waterbody Name                           HUC Code      County                             Species Affected

              Ocean Pond                               03070204      Baker                              Ilargemouth bass, gar, bowfin
              Lake Tarpon                              03100206      Pinellas                           largemouth bass, gar, bowfin
              Everglades National Park - Taylor        03090202      Dade/Monroe                        largemouth bass, gar, bowfin,
                 Slough South and East of SR27                                                           warmouth
              Big Cypress Preserve-Turner River        03090204      Collier                            largemouth bass, gar, bowfin
                 Canal L-28 Tieback Canal-Loop
                 Road Culverts

              Everglades National Park-Shark River     03090202      Dade/Monroe                        warmouth, yellow bullhead, oscar,
                 Drainage south and east SR27                                                            Mayan cichlid,  spotted sunfish
              Water Conservation Area 2a               03090202      Palm Beach/Broward                 warmouth, yellow bullhead, oscar,
                                                                                                          Mayan cichlid, spotted sunfish
              Water Conservation Area 3                03090202      Broward/Dade                       warmouth, yellow bullhead, oscar,
                                                                                                         Mayan cichlid, spotted sunfish
              Water Conservation Area 1                03090202      Palm Beach                         largemouth bass, gar, bowfin,
                 Loxahatchee National Wildlife                                                           warmouth
           Qn    Refuge
           M Holey Land WMA                            03090202      Palm Beach                         largemouth bass, gar, bowfin
              Everglades Agricultural Area             03090202      Palm Beach/Hendry                  largemouth bass, gar, bowfin
                 portions of canals draining
                 EAA including: Hillsborough,
                 North New River, Miami,
                 Bolles/ Cross, L1, L2, L3, L4,
                 L10, L12 and C18


















                         M       M       M      M









              The issue of mercury contamination in Florida fish,
              particularly largemouth bass, began in the early 1980s as an
              offshoot of an investigation into a hazardous waste site.
              This site was formerly a battery salvage operation located
              in Northwest Florida's Chipola River basin. To the surprise
              of the investigators, fish tissue samples collected from a
              comparison site on the unimpacted Santa Fe River had higher
              mercury concentrations than samples taken from areas close
              to the waste site. Continued sampling throughout Florida
              identified many other areas with elevated fish tissue
              mercury levels. A preliminary evaluation of data collected
              and analyzed by GFWFC, HRS, and DER was prepared and
              released in January 1990. The document Mercury, Largemouth
              Bass and Water Quality: A Preliminary Report is available
              from the Standards and Monitoring Section of DEP. -

              High tis sue concentration of mercury was not limited to fish
              species. one Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi) found
              dead in Everglades National Park had a liver concentration
              of 94 ppm. The Florida Panther Technical Committee
              concluded that mercury toxicosis was implicated in the death
              of that animal. Mercury toxicity may have also contributed
              to the death of two other panthers.

              In 1989, a joint monitoring project by the GFWFC, HRS
              Environmental Health, and DER staff found high levels of
              mercury in fish from the Everglades. These and later
              findings led the State Health Officer to issue a series of
              advisories urging fishermen not to consume several species
              of fish caught in the Everglades and to limit their
              consumption of certain species caught in other fresh waters
              of the State.


              On December 29, 1989, the Office of the Governor issued an
              executive order forming a multi-agency task force to address
              the issue of mercury in fish and wildlife. The task force,
              Mercury Technical Committee, found no immediate solution to
              the cause of the contamination.


              The high mercury concentrations in Florida fish may be the
              result of a number of interacting factors, some
              anthropogenic and some natural. To some extent it is
              generally accepted that on a broad scale the problem is
              caused by atmospheric pollution. The principle route is via
              long distance transport of emissions from metals mining,
              smelting, and the coal-fired industry. The problem is most
              severe in the Everglades. Major concerns for this region



                                        157









               focus on the effects of municipal incinerators and other
               emission sources in Southeast Florida increased release of
               
               mercury from the soils of the Everglades Agricultural Area
               by disturbance and drainage, or increased mobilization of
               naturally occurring mercury by hydrological changes caused
               by flood control projects. Presently, there is not an
               adequate understanding of mercury dynamics in the mercury
               or its coupling to aquatic systems in general, much less
               specific causes of the problem. Mitigation of the mercury
               problem in Florida and in the Everglades depends on a
               thorough understanding of how mercury behaves in these
               natural ecosystems and why it is accumulating to dangerous
               levels in fish.

               To address the lack of information about mercury, the
               Mercury Technical Committee adopted a multi-year monitoring
               and research plan. Specific details of the proposed
               research are included in the Mercury Technical Committee
               Interim Report issued by the Task Force on June 28, 1991.
               Copies of that report can be obtained from DEP. Three major
               types of research were identified and work in each area is
               either Underway or planned as described below:

                     1. Trend Monitoring. The objective of this research
                        is to put the Present problem into a historical
                        perspective. Specifically, the State needs to know
                        if mercury concentrations in fish and organic soils
                        are stable, increasing, or decreasing. GFWFC
                        already has a program in place that requires
                        monitoring of fish from waterbodies throughout the
                        State. A second project will determine historical
                        trends in Florida Wildlife by analysis of museum
                        specimens. The third project is a retrospective
                        study of mercury in Everglades sediments. Most of
                        the work for this project has been completed. and
                        results will be discussed in detail later in. the
                        text.


                     2. Atmospheric Fluxes. The objective is to better
                        understand the spatial and temporal distribution of
                        atmospheric mercury burdens And deposition. This
                        will be accomplished by building a network of
                        monitoring stations to measure mercury vapor in the
                        air, as well as wet and dry deposition. The
                        densest network will be in South Florida in an
                        attempt to map the relationship between the
                        Everglades and emission sources. Other Site Will



                                           158









                       be located to determine the amount of import of
                       mercury to Florida from global air currents and to
                       measure local fluxes at aquatic sites. Other work
                       will measure emissions from specific industries
                       with the intent of examining options for eventual
                       emissions control technologies.



                   3.  Aquatic and Wetlands Studies. These studies will
                       focus on: (1) the determination of long-term trends
                       of mercury accumulation in sediment; (2)
                       interactions between watershed, air, sediment, and
                       water; (3) changes in the chemical forms of mercury
                       within a waterbody and how this affects its uptake
                       into aquatic organisms; and (4) what risk the
                       uptake of mercury by aquatic organisms poses to
                       wildlife and people.

              With four years of monitoring data collected since the first
              health advisories were issued, it is now known that
              approximately 1 million acres of the Everglades drainage
              system contains fish with markedly elevated concentrations
              of mercury in their tissue. Largemouth bass in this area
              average over 2.0 ppm mercury in their tissue. More than
              another million acres of fresh waters have been found to
              contain largemouth bass with elevated, but lower, levels of
              mercury. The State has estimated that when sampling is
              complete, largemouth bass with elevated levels of mercury
              will have been confirmed in as much as one-third to one-half
              of Florida's lakes and streams.


              Sampling of marine fishes began in 1990. Four estuaries
              have been sampled: Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, Charlotte
              Harbor, and Indian River Lagoon. To date, approximately
              1,000 fish representing 35 species have been tested.

              The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has begun to evaluate
              concentrations of mercury in fish tissue collected from
              Florida's 26 national wildlife refuges. Typically, fish
              fillets were collected from largemouth bass, gar, or bowfin,
              and when available brown bullheads and bluegills. In
              coastal areas, spotted seatrout and gafftopsail catfish were
              also collected. National Wildlife Refuges completed to date
              are St. Marks, St. Vincent, Chassahowitzka, J. N. IlDing"
              Darling, Crystal River, Lower Suwannee, Lake Woodruff,
              Merritt Island, and Florida Panther. Data so far have
              yielded mixed results. Mercury concentrations sometimes



                                         159









                exceeded the limited consumption advisory lower limit of 0.5
                ppm. Concentrations, however, never exceeded the upper
                limited consumption level of 1.5 ppm. The agency
                recommended further evaluation to determine biological
                effects of mercury contamination on Service trust species
                (endangered species and migratory birds) and their food
                chain organisms.

                A retrospective analysis of sediment cores from the
                Everglades, Savannas State Reserve, and the Okefenokee Swamp
                was performed by researchers from the University of Florida.
                The goals of that study were: 1. to determine historical
                baseline concentrations; 2. to determine post-development
                changes in sedimentary mercury accumulation; and 3. to
                determine the spatial distribution of mercury in the
                Everglades. Preliminary results found that average mercury
                concentrations in surface sediments (depth of 0-4 cm) were
                2.5 times higher than those from deeper (11-17 cm) in the
                soil profile. Through dating, these depths were determined
                to represent historical deposition at approximately the turn
                of the century (about 1900) and 1985 to present,
                respectively. The largest increase (3.7 times) was measured
                in Water Conservation Areas 1 and 2. Surface sediments from
                the Okeefenokee Swamp had the smallest increase.

                The rate of mercury accumulation was another important
                factor quantified in that study. Data for mercury
                accumulation rates were calculated as the product of' the
                sediment accumulation rate and mercury concentration at each
                depth interval in the core profile. Post-1985 rates were,
                on average, 6.4 times higher than circa 1900 rates. The
                largest rate increases occurred in cores from Water
                Conservation Areas 1 and 2 (7.7 and 8.7 times higher,
                respectively). The lowest accumulation rate was recorded
                for the Savannas State Reserve (3.4). In general,*niercury
                accumulation rates appeared to increase about 1940. The
                trend observed for mercury accumulation was comparable to
                those found for Sweden and the northern United States.


                Consumption of seafood containing large loads of mercury is
                a serious health risk. Because of this risk, a study was
                designed to survey households to determine their consumption
                of seafood. The objective of this study was to better
                determine the average amount of seafood that people in
                Florida consume. This information will be used to better
                define future risk assessments and consumption advisories.




                                          160









              The problem of mercury contamination is by no means unique
              to Florida. Twenty-eight states have issued health
              advisories restricting consumption of fish. other countries
              (Sweden and Japan) have discovered high levels of mercury in
              fish tissue. Obviously, the widespread distribution of the
              contamination problem necessitates national attention from
              agencies such as EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
              It appears that the mercury contamination problem in Florida
              will be an ongoing problem for some time.

              Mercury is not the only compound of concern for fish and
              wildlife in Florida. A study performed by EPA found
              elevated dioxin levels in fish tissue in certain
              waterbodies. An advisory was issued on September 21, 1990,
              by HRS in conjunction with DEP, urging the public not to
              consume fish caught in either Elevenmile Creek or the
              Fenholloway River. The advisory was issued because tissue
              concentrations of dioxin exceeded EPA recommended levels.
              Both waterbodies receive bleached Kraft paper mill
              discharges. Fish collected from the Fenholloway River had
              tissue levels of dioxin ranging from 11.5 to 19.1 parts per
              trillion. The EPA recommended maximum level of dioxin is 7
              parts per trillion. The advisory covered the areas from the
              paper mills to the mouths of these rivers. The advisory for
              Elevenmile Creek has since been lifted based on new data
              supplied by Champion Paper Company.

              Dioxin is produced as an unwanted by-product of the chlorine
              bleaching process used in producing paper and by certain
              other industrial and natural processes. It is believed to
              be a potential human carcinogen. Fish from three other
              waterbodies receiving paper mill wastes were tested (Gulf
              County Canal, St. Johns River and Amelia River), but did not
              exceed the EPA maximum, although levels were high enough to
              warrant further investigation. Follow up testing has not
              been performed on these waterbodies.

              Fish Abnormalities/Disease


              Significant incidences of fish abnormalities and/or disease,
              for 1992 and 1993, are listed in Table 39. Since the 1980s,
              there have been occurrences of fish disease in the lower St.
              Johns River and its tributaries. Ulcerative Disease
              Syndrome (UDS) is still found in fish from this estuary at
              least ten years after the first reported occurrences.





                                        161









                 Table 39. Waterbodies Affected by Fish Abnormalities.



                 County        Waterbody Name     HUC C  ode   Problem




                 Duval, Clay,  St. Johns River    03080103    Ulcerative Disease
                   St. Johns,                                   Syndrome
                   Putnam


                 Putnam        Rice Creek         03080103    Catfish die-off from
                                                                bacterial infection


                               Southeast coast    03090202    Reef fish disease


                 Dade          Biscayne Bay       03090202    Deformities found
                                                                in fish and crabs




                 Fish from the river mouth to Lake George have been affected
                 by UDS. The disease in Florida fish appeared similar to
                 outbreaks reported among Atlantic Menhaden in North Carolina
                 (Te Shake and Lim, 1987). The disease is characterized by
                 deep necrotic ulcers and has occurred in freshwater,
                 estuarine, and marine species that are at least part-time
                 residents of this waterbody. It has affected fish at all
                 trophic levels.

                 overall incidence of the disease is fairly low, but there
                 are "hot" spots along the river. In these areas, estimates
                 of infected fish can run as high as 102,5 of the population.
                 The Tallyrand area near the river mouth, including Mill Cove
                 and Blount Island, is one such area.

                 An extensive study of fish populations in the St. Johns
                 River was coordinated by DER in the late 1980s. Objectives
                 of that study were to determine the composition, abundance
                 and distribution of fish in the lower St. Johns estuary, to
                 document the occurrence of UDS, and to attempt to identify
                 the microbial agent of the disease. Pathogenic oomycetous
                 fungi and Aeromonas spp. and Vibrio spp. of bacteria were
                 isolated from infected fish. A specific cause of the
                 disease was not determined. It has been speculated that low
                 doses of toxin produced by dinoflagellates stress the fish
                 and make them susceptible to disease and infection.




                                              162









              Dependent on available research funds, work is planned to
              further investigate this theory.

              In early 1993, lesions were found on black drum in
              Apalachicola Bay, similar to those on UDS infected fish from
              the St. Johns River. Relatively few fish were affected, but
              samples were collected for pathological examination.
              Further occurrences have not been reported.

              In addition to UDS, Rice Creek, a tributary of the Lower St.
              Johns River, continues to experience die offs of young
              catfish from a bacterial infection. Rice Creek receives
              paper mill effluent.

              Lake Weir's black crappie population disappeared in the
              early to mid 1980s. The cause of the decline was never
              determined though extensive contaminant testing was
              performed by DER and the GFWFC on blood, tissue, and
              sediment. Biological assessment of the lake found that
              benthic macroinvertebrates had also declined in both
              diversity and density. A restocking effort by the GFWFC
              between 1985 and 1987 has had some success. Black crappie
              are present in Lake Weir. Limited reproductive success of
              the species has been documented with the capture of fish in
              age classes younger than the stocked fish.

              During the same time period as the black crappie decline,
              largemouth bass die offs occurred during the summer months.
              The die offs were caused by "no blood disease",
              characterized by low blood counts, pale gills (anemic), and
              listless behavior. Concurrent with "no blood diseasell,
              white grub parasite infections were found in large numbers
              of largemouth bass. A correlation was never established
              between the two diseases. Occasionally, other fish species
              are still collected from the lake which exhibit signs of "no
              blood disease".


              In late 1993 to early 1994, a fish disease and mortality
              event was reported for the southeastern coast. Fish
              affected were reef fish including angelfish, rock beauties,
              parrot fish, butterfly fish, and chromis species. The
              affected fish typically had lesions on the head, ulcerated
              body sores, and fin and tail rot. The number of reported
              cases has decreased substantially through the spring of
              1994. A similar mortality event was reported in the
              Caribbean in the 1980s.





                                        163









               Starting about 1980, local fisherman from the Biscayne Bay
               area observed deformed fish and crabs in North Biscayne Bay.
               The most prevalent deformities included missing dorsal fins
               and reverse scales in fish and shell deformities in blue
               crabs. These skeletal defects have been observed for gray
               snapper, pinfish, sea bream, and blue stripe grunt. Rough
               estimates are that 5-7*-. of these fish species may be
               affected. Correlative studies of known sediment contaminant
               sites and locations of deformed fish are being completed.
               There have been additional reports of the same type of
               deformities appearing in fish from the St. Lucie Estuary.
               Reports for this estuary are unconfirmed.

               Fish Kills


               The majority of reports of fish kills are investigated by
               the GFWFC and DEP District Offices. In addition, several
               counties and municipalities respond to complaints within
               their respective jurisdictions. The extent to which. state
               and municipal agencies are made aware of fish kills depends
               on public awareness and cooperation. The majority of fish
               kills listed in this report are documented as over the phone
               reports from concerned citizens. If a pollution event or
               illegal activities are suspected, the kills are
               investigated. In an effort to better estimate the numbers
               and investigate the causes of fish kills and disease events,
               DEP's Marine Research Institute is establishing a fish kill
               communication network and corresponding protocols for events
               occurring in the Gulf of Mexico.

               For the time period beginning January 1, 1992, and ending
               December 31, 1993, approximately 258 incidences of fish
               kills were recorded, not including Duval County. Of' that
               number, approximately 87 were located on private property.
               There are many more kills occurring in private ponds; that
               are not investigated or documented.

               Between 898,650 - 1.1 million fish were reported killed in
               State and private waters. Realistically, this is an
               underestimate because many of the reported kills do not
               document numbers of fish and many kills go undocumented.
               Additionally, the largest kills were reported as tons of
               fish. To compensate for this, estimates of fish numbers
               were made by assuming that these 30 tons of dead fish were
               predominantly menhaden and that this species weighed on
               average 150 grams per fish. of the total number of fish
               killed 871,850 - 1.07 million were from waters of the State



                                          164









              and 26,800 were from private waterbodies. Private
              waterbodies include stormwater retention ponds, golf course
              ponds, and small ponds or canals located entirely on private
              property.

              Fish kills in major waterbodies are listed in Table 40.
              Documented numbers of fish lost for different types of State
              waters are as follows:


                  estuarine/coastal     540,450 -640,450


                  lakes                 268,590 - 368,590


                  rivers and streams    2  000


                  canals                60,810.


              It  has become increasingly difficult to differentiate
              between a point source, or specific pollution event, from
              chronic nonpoint source pollution and hydrological,
              alteration as causes of fish kills. Only eight of the
              reported fish kill incidents could be linked to a specific
              event. Pollution related causes included release of Lorsban
              15G from a peanut field, small sewage spills, alum injection
              to a lake, presence of petroleum products, release of
              antifouling agents from pipes, and suspected release of
              water used to fight a fire at a chemical plant.

              The fish kill in New Rose Creek was most probably the result
              of contaminated water released from the site of a chemical
              plant fire. The suspected toxicants were xylene and
              ethylbenzene, but tests run on samples from the site gave
              results that indicated concentrations were below toxic
              levels.


              Nonpoint source causes of fish kills included agricultural
              pumping of low dissolved oxygen water, herbicide runoff,
              stormwater runoff, high BOD, and algal blooms.












                                          165






	Table 40. Major Waterbodies Affected by Fish Kills.

	Waterbody			Waterbody 	 	Cause					Number of			 	Species
	Name				Type		 						Fish Killed				Affected
	HUC Code 03100101 	Peace River	                   				
	Lake John			lake		 	low DO,algae			3,000					shad
	Cannon Lake			lake		 	low DO,algae			1,000					shad, bass, bluegill, crappie, tilapia
	Lake Maggiore		lake		 	low DO,urban runoff							shad,tiapia
	Lake Haines			lake		 	low DO,urban runoff 		200					tilapia, bluegill, crappie shad
	Lake Morton			lake			low DO,urban runoff		5,000					shad, bass
	Shell Creek			estuary	 	low DO				1,250					gizzard shad, bluegill, sunfish, gar
	  Reservoir								
	Lake Hancock		lake		 	low DO				2,000					tilapia, shad
	HUC Code 03100202 Mantee River
	Manatee River		river							500						bluegill, bass
	Braden River		river		 	low DO				1,100					bluegill, redear sunfish, bass
	catfish								
	Marina Basin		estuary	 	algal bloom,low DO 		2-300,000				anchovy, mojarra, catfish
	   in Brandenton								

	HUC Code 03100206 Tampa Bay
	Crescent Lake		lake		 	low DO, urban runoff		500					shad, tilapia, catfish
	Cross Bayou Canal		sw. canal	 	siltation				126					snook, striped mullet, bass, tilapia
	Port of Tampa		estuary 	 	unknown									grunts, catfish, sheepshead

	HUC Code 03100102 Myakka River
	Upper Myakka Lake		reservoir	 	low DO				12,500				gizzard shad, bluegill, redear sunfish, bass
	
	HUC Code 03100203 Little Manatee River				
	Little Manatee		river		 	unknown									bass, bluegill, mullet, gar, crappie
	River, 5-6 miles									
		east of Ruskin

	HUC CODE 03100201	Sarasota Bay
	Little Sarasota		estuary	 	low DO, floods								marine
	Bay					  		sewer overflow
	Midnight Pass		estuary	 	low DO, algae			100					marine


				












              Table 40. (Continued).



              waterbody           Waterbody   Cause                     Number of      Species
              Name                    Type                              Fish Killed    Affected


              HUC Code 03120001 St. Marks River
              Lake Ella           lake        alum injection and        2,000          bream, bass, grass carp
                                                herbicide


              Huc Code 03140101 St. Andrews Bay
              Porter Lake         lake        unknown                   1,000          chubsuckers
              North Bay Inlet     estuary     petroleum                 100            mosquito fish
              west Bay/Warren     estuary/    thermal discharge         100            pinfish
               Bayou                 canal      possible antifouling
                                                agent

              mc Code 03140104 Blackwater river'
              Bear Lake           lake        low DO                    1,000          threadfin shad

              HUC Code 03140105 Pensacola Bay
              Bayou Texar         estuary     low DO, nutrients         >10 tons       menhaden, white trout, catfish,
                                                                                         seatrout
              Bayou Chico         estuary     low DO, nutrients         20 tons        menhaden, catfish, white trout,
                                                                                         sea robins
              Woodland Bayou      estuary     low DO, nutrients         >100,000       menhaden, cutlassfish
              East Bay            estuary     low DO, nutrients         40,000         menhaden, croaker, white trout,
                                                                                         speckled trout, catfish, mullet

              HUC Code 03140102 Choctawhatchee Bay
              Choctawhatchee      estuary     low DO, runoff            5,000          mullet, whitetrout, blue crab,
               Bay, ICCW                                                                 catfish
              Choctawhatchee      estuary     unknown                                  blue crabs
               Bay

              HUC-Code 03140103 Yellow River.
              Caney Creek         stream      Lorsban 15G from          >1,000         bass, bream
                                                peanut field

              HUC Code 03140107 Perdido Bay
              Perdido Bay         estuary     unknown                   1,000          gafftopsail catfish











               Table 40.       (Continued)



               Waterbody            Waterbody    Cause                     Number of      Species
               Name                    Type                                Fish Killed    Affected


               HUC Code 03080101 Lower St. Johns River
               New Rose Creek       stream       water released from
                                                   chemical plant fire

               KUC Code 03080102 ok2awaha   River
               Lake Apopka          lake         low DO, algal bloom

               HUC Code 03080202 Middle East Coast
               Indian River/        estuary      H2S-purge of              1000           mullet, catfish, sheepshead
                 Port St. John                    utilities intake pipe
               Indian River/        estuary      ? possibly sewage         ?              crabs, catfish, red drum
                 Hwy 402                           spill
          1-i  Indian River/        estuary      unknown                   ?
          0)     Port St. John
          CC)  Banana River/        estuary      sprayed for mosquitoes
                Mosquito Impoundment

               HUC Code 03080101 Upper St.   Johns River
               Lateral M Canal      canal        herbicide, release        250            bluegill, redear sunfish, catfish,
                                                   of ag water from                         chubsucker, bullhead
                                                   control structure
               C-52 Canal           canal        adjacent canal            100-150        gar
                                                   herbicided, fish
                                                   caught in low DO  water
               St. Johns River      river        low DO, suspect           150
                 ,S-96C                            other causes
               Sweetwater canal     canal        low DO, ag pumping        25,000         bass, bluegi-1-1, black crappie,
                                                   high BOD                                 catfish, Centrarchids
               Canal into and       lake/canal   low DO, ag pumping        5-8,000        bass, bluegill, catfish,
                 Lake Sawgrass                     high BOD                                 chubsucker, Centrarchids
               Lake Winder          lake         low Do, ag pumping        2-300,000      bluegill, black crappie, bass,
                                                   high BOD                                 lake chubsucker, war-mouth
               Lake Poinsett        lake         low DO, ag pumping        1,500          bluegill, warmouth, bass, black
                                                   high BOD                                 crappie, brown bullhead, chain











               Table 40. (continued).



               Waterbody            Waterbody    Cause                      Number of       Species
               Name                    Type                                 Fish Killed     Affected


               Lake Washington      lake         low DO, ag pumping         13,000          bass, bluegill, black crappie,
                                                 high BOD                                     lake chubsucker, brown bullhead,

               HUC Code 03090101 Kissimmee River
               Lake Reedy           lake         sewage                     50              black crappie
               Lake Istokpoga       lake         low DO                     >1,000          theadfin shad

               Arbuckle Creek       stream       low DO, ag runoff

               HUC Code 03090202 Southeast Florida Coast
               E2 & E2W             canal        ag pumping, low            5,000           tilapia
                                                   water level
               Hillsboro Canal      canal        unknown                    800             bass, catfish
               Hillsboro Canal      canal        runoff,  possible          >100            bream, bass, catfish, tilapia,
                                                   herbicide                                  gizzard shad
               Canal NR Turnpike    canal        unknown                    >1,000          bass, panfish
               C-18 Lateral         canal        rain, runoff, low DO       500             shad
               Belcher Canal        canal        rain, runoff, low DO       700             bream, bass, catfish
               Turnpike Canal       canal        rain, runoff,              800             bass, catfish, specks
               C-1W Canal           canal        low DO, pumping water      1,460           bream, tilapia, bass
                 (2 kills)
               Parkside Lake        lake         algal  bloom               1,000           bass, bream, catfish, shad
               Lake Ida             lake         water  discharge           1,000           bass, bream, shad
               Lake Osborne         lake         algal  bloom, low DO       1,700           shad, bass, bream
               Village Green  Lake  lake         rain,  runoff              4,000           shad
               Willow Lake          lake         rain,  runoff              1,000           shad
               Canal NR West  Boca  canal        heavy  rain, algal bloom   2,500
               Canal NR             canal        heavy  rain,               1,000           shad
                Plantation                         algal bloom
               Canal NR             canal        low DO, high BOD,          1,000           catfish, bream, shad
               Wellington                          runoff
               Canal NR Miami       canal        possible herbicide         100             shad
                                                   runoff
               Canal NR Margate     canal        runoff, slight algal       500
                                                   bloom











              Table 40. (Continued).



              Waterbody             Waterbody    Cause                     Number of       Species
              Name                  Type                                   Fish Killed     Affected


              Canal NR Jupiter      canal        algal bloom, low water    250             bass, bream, mullet
                 Farms
              Canal NR Royal        canal        possible ag runoff        >100            bass, catfish, bream
                 Palm
              S-9 Pump Station      canal        low DO, hot weather       200             bass

              S-9 Pump Station      canal        low DO, ag pumping        800             bass, bream
              Miami Canal           canal        ag pumping                600             bream, bass
              S-352/C-51            canal        ag pumping                5,000           catfish, chubsucker
              Conservation          wetland      ag pumping                600             bass, bream
                 Area 2A by S-39
              L-31E Canal           canal        unknown                   1,600           bass, bream.
              Coral Creek           canal        low DO, pumping           475             bass, bream, shad
                                                    water
              Canal between         canal        low DO?                   900             bass, bluegill, catfish
                 Jupiter Farms
                  and FMA
              E-1 Canal             canal        low DO, rain              1,200           catfish, bream, tilapia
              E-2 Canal             canal        possible herbicide        2,100           bream, bass, catfish, gar, tilapia
                                                   runoff
              S-5/E-1               canal        runoff, rain              350             tilapia, gar, shad, bream, catfish
              C-25 extension        canal        low DO, possible          1,200           bluegill, bass
                                                   pesticide
              Garfield Bight        estuary      low DO, high temp         5,450-7,150     red and black drum, mullet, catfish,
                                                                                             spotted seatrout
              NW Snake Bight        estuary      low DO, high temp         3,300-5,400     red and black drum, mullet, catfish,
                                                                                             spotted seatrout
              Buttonwood Canal/     sw canal/    low DO, high temp         1,150-1,400     red and black drum, mullet,
                 Coot Bay           estuary                                                  catfish, spotted seatrout


              Definitions:
              sw canal-saltwater canal.                                                    ag runoff-agricultural   runoff
              low DO-low dissolved oxygen level in water.                                  BOD-biochemical oxygen   demand.
              ag pumping-discharge of water into canals from agricultural fields.
              runoff-stormwater runoff.









                 Approximately 99% of the documented fish losses are linked
                 to low dissolved oxygen levels caused by nonpoint source
                 pollution. An approximate breakout of fish killed by
                 nonpoint sources is as follows:

                     low dissolved oxygen/algal blooms           209,440 - 309,440

                     hydrologic modification and agricultural
                       pumping and runoff                        258,785 - 358,785

                     urban runoff, hydrologic modification,
                       and water discharges for flood control     28,185

                     a general category of low dissolved
                       oxygen/unknown                            294,440.

                 Urban runoff was identified as the cause where a fish kill
                 was preceded by rain and overcast weather conditions and
                 occurred in a developed area. The majority of urban runoff
                 events occurred in Southeast Florida, HUC code 03090202, and
                 were associated with the extensive hydromodification
                 (canals) that has occurred in the region. Fish kills
                 resulting from low dissolved oxygen levels have been a
                 persistent and continuing occurrence in this part of
                 Florida.


                 Estuaries were affected by low dissolved oxygen, nutrient
                 loadings, and algal blooms. Most kills were reported for
                 Pensacola Bay (HUC code 03140105) and its tributaries, Bayou
                 Texar, Bayou Chico and Woodland Bayou. Kills in these
                 waters occurred from August to September. Contributing
                 factors leading to the low dissolved oxygen condition were
                 increased nutrient loads with resultant blue-green algal
                 blooms, poor tidal flushing, low water, and warm water
                 temperatures. Several of these tributaries also receive
                 industrial discharges (e.g., Bayous Chico and Texar) which
                 may contribute to high BOD.

                 The majority of the fish confirmed lost in Pensacola Bay
                 were menhaden. A contributing factor to their presence in
                 large fish kills is their body oil content. Menhaden will
                 float on the water surface making them more noticeable than
                 other fish kill species.

                 The fish kills occurring in Pensacola Bay have persisted for
                 many years. Impacts on the Gulf of Mexico fishery are
                 unknown. Estuaries along the Gulf coast have been
                 identified as nursery and spawning areas for several Gulf
                 marine fishes. Larval and juvenile fish utilize the estuary



                                                171









               as a habitat and feeding ground. Among these are Gulf
               menhaden, spot, red snapper, sand seatrout, Atlantic
               croaker, and red drum (NOAA. 1985. Gulf of Mexico Coastal
               and Ocean Zones Strategic Assessment: Data Atlas).

               Another large estuarine fish kill occurred in a marina basin
               near Bradenton. An estimated 200-300,000 anchovies were
               killed; the cause was an algal bloom followed by cloudy
               weather.


               During June and July of 1992, a series of fish kills
               occurred in the upper St. Johns River basin. Portions of
               flood plain along this part of the river basin have been
               diked and drained for agriculture. Extensive construction
               of canals has occurred to move water off agricultural lands.
               The river itself is a series of lakes and wetlands connected
               by river reaches. Heavy rains from June to July of 1992
               resulted in extensive pumpage of agricultural runoff into
               canals. As a result, a slug of low dissolved oxygen. and
               poor quality water was moved from agricultural lands, into
               the St. Johns system. Several fish kills occurred as the
               slug moved through the system. Lakes Sawgrass, Winder,
               Poinsett, and Washington were affected. Contributing
               factors to the fish kills were the presence of decayed plant
               material adding to BOD and disturbance of bottom sediments
               which released hydrogen sulfide.

               Similar low dissolved oxygen kills associated with
               agricultural pumpage also occurred in South Florida. None
               were of the magnitude of the kills in the St. Johns basin.

               Sites of Known Sediment/Soil Contamination


               Sediment and soil contamination is a subject of particular
               importance in Florida because of the high degree of
               interaction between surface and sub-surface sediments,
               ground water and surface water. The unique geologic and
               hydrologic qualities which dominate the Florida landscape
               create conditions which make surface water and ground water
               relatively vulnerable to contamination. In addition., the
               extensive estuaries of Florida and their economic value as
               fisheries also make sediment a critical issue to the State.


               The Department of Environmental Protection is involved in
               several programs which deal directly or indirectly @Arith
               sediment and soil contamination. These programs cover a




                                          172









              broad spectrum of activities, ranging from basic sediment
              research to hazardous waste cleanup operations.

                                    Sediment studies


              At present, the State of Florida does not have criteria for
              either heavy metals or toxic organics in sediments. A
              working group within the Intergovernmental Programs Section,
              formerly Coastal Zone Management, is continuing work in the
              study of estuarine sediments. The goal of this work is to
              establish a better perspective of sediment conditions in
              estuarine waters. This work will be used to provide
              background information for the future development of
              sediment criteria.


              The initial study of this working group emphasized the
              collection and interpretation of metals data from estuarine
              sediments. Metals included arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
              copper, mercury, lead, zinc, cadmium, barium, iron, lithium,
              manganese, silver, titanium, and vanadium. This effort
              culminated in the release of the document A Guide to
              .-Tnterpretation of Metal Concentrations in Estuarine
              Sediments, FDER, Coastal Zone Management Section, April
              1988. The goal of that document was to identify natural
              background concentrations of selected metals in estuarine
              sediments. Data collection efforts were expanded to include
              five classes of organic contaminants: chlorinated
              hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
              polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), phenolic hydrocarbons, and
              aliphatic hydrocarbons. The expanded database has been
              summarized in the Florida Coastal Sediment Contaminants
              Atlas, FDEP, 1994. Included in the sediment database are
              data collected at 700 sites by DEP, 42 sites from NOAA's
              National Status and Trends Program, and 33 sites in the St.
              Johns River collected by Mote Marine Laboratory, a private
              marine research facility located in Sarasota, Florida. All
              data represent surface grabs of sediment.

              Data used in the DEP database were collected from three
              different surveys. From 1983-1984, sediment was collected
              as part of the Deepwater Ports Project from sites located
              near dense population centers and close to commercial '
              channels and ship berths. A second survey type, conducted
              from 198S-1991, located sites where contamination was
              expected because of inflows from tributaries and local
              landuse practices. The third survey performed looked at
              sites located in relatively remote or unimpacted areas.



                                        173








               From collected data, interpretative tools were developed to
               aide in the identification of enriched or contaminated
               sites. Metal to aluminum content ratios were developed for
               cadmium, lead, arsenic, zinc, lead, nickel, chromium., and
               copper to be used as a screening tool for metals enrichment
               in sediment. Aluminum concentrations provided a means of
               normalizing data to account for particle size distribution
               and sediment composition. Aluminum was chosen because it is
               an abundant naturally occurring metal, is highly refractory,
               and its concentration is generally not influenced by
               anthropogenic sources. Ratios of one or less were
               considered background or natural conditions. The Department
               did not have confidence in the mercury/aluminum ratio as an
               indicator of enrichment. Instead, mercury was evaluated
               against a maximum concentration associated with
               uncontaminated estuarine sediments.


               organic contaminants were normalized to the sediment
               sample's total.organic carbon (TOC) content. The reason for
               normalization was to account for the influence of organic
               carbon upon bioavailability of contaminants and their'
               potential for toxicity to organisms. The presence    of
               organic carbon enhances the adsorption of organic toxicants
               to sediments. Sediments with high TOC have a greater
               capacity to bind organic constituents. The more organic
               toxicant that can be bound, the less that is biologically
               available. Normalization was performed by summing results
               of individual compounds within each class of organic
               chemicals and then dividing by TOC for that sample.

               Enrichment of metals above background levels was most
               frequently observed for cadmium, mercury, lead, and zinc.
               The most commonly recorded organic compounds were PAHs found
               in approximately 70% of the samples tested for organics. Of
               the PAHs, fluoranthene and pyrene were found in more than
               50% of the tested samples. Not surprisingly, more
               contaminants were found near urban watershed than in. rural
               or undeveloped watersheds.

               Table 41 lists estuarine and coastal waterbodies affected by
               sediment contaminants. Figure 8 shows estuaries in Florida
               where the metal enrichment factor for lead, mercury, and
               zinc was five or greater. Information in Table 41 is
               subject to revision with further research. Because the
               State of Florida does not have sediment criteria, Table  41
               is not a list of violations. For metals, waterbodies
               containing more than one sampling location with an



                                          174









              enrichment factor greater than two were identified as having
              anthropogenic metal enrichment. For organics the following
              criteria were used to identify waterbodies with organics
              contamination: concentrations of chlorinated hydrocarbons
              greater than 10 parts per billion (ppb), concentrations of
              PAHs greater than 100 ppb, concentrations of aliphatics
              greater than 500 ppb, or concentrations of PCBs greater than
              35 ppb. For a waterbody to be-included in Table 41,
              multiple samples and stations that met selection criteria
              for organics were present.

              There are several other researchers performing sediment
              research work in Florida whose data were not included in
              Table 41. The reasons for not including their data were
              that either the same interpretive tools for data were not
              used, differences existed in laboratory methodology, or data
              were collected for freshwater sediments and were not
              directly comparable with the information in Table 41.
              However, these studies are useful in describing work in
              progress in the State and in indicating areas of Florida
              where additional research is needed. In many cases the data
              provided by these researchers confirms data collected by
              DEP. Information from these studies is summarized in the
              following paragraphs. Mercury contamination was discussed
              earlier in the section on Fish Advisories and Bans Currently
              in Effect, and will not be reiterated.


              The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service performed a study on
              Kings Bay and Crystal River sediments (Facemire, 1991). The
              purpose of the study was to determine if contaminants such
              as trace metals, organochlorine pesticides, and PCBs in the
              sediment were affecting the West Indian manatee.
              Researchers did not find organics above detection limit, but
              did find elevated concentrations of copper at all sampling
              sites. Similar elevated levels of copper had been.found
              during sampling by DEP. The suspected source of the
              sediment copper was copper-based herbicides used in the
              1970s for the control of hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata).
              An earlier investigation of tissue from dead manatees by
              O'Shea et al. (1984) found liver concentrations of copper
              ranging from 4.4 to 1,200 ppm dry weight. Five of the six
              individuals with the highest copper loads were determined to
              be from the Crystal River population.







                                        175









                  Table 41. Waterbodies Affected by Sediment Contamination.



                  Location and Name of Waterbody                 Contaminant of Concern



                  RUC Code 03080103 - Lower St. Johns River

                  Mouth of Ortega/Cedar Rivers                   Cd,Cu,Hg,Pb,Zn,
                                                                 PAH,PCB,Pest

                  Dunn Creek                                     PAH,PCB,Pest

                  St. Johns River NR Trout River                 Cu,Zn,Pb,PAH,PCB,Pest

                  Trout River                                    Cu,Zn,Pb,PAH,PCB,Pest

                  St. Johns River at mouth of Black Creek        Pb

                  mill Cove/St.johns River                       PAH,PCB,Pest

                  Blount Island/St. Johns River                  PAH

                  Broward River                                  PAH

                  St Johns River NR Arlington                    PAH,PCB,Pest

                  Julington Creek                                PAH,PCB,Pest

                  Doctors Lake                                   PAH


                  Dunns Creek                                    PAH,PCB

                  St. Johns River NR Palatka                     PAH,PCB,Pest

                  Chicopit Bay                                   PAH,Pest

                  Pablo Creek/ICWW                               PAH

                  Sisters Creek/ICWW                             PAH,PCB,Pest

                  HUC Code 03080201 - Upper East Coast

                  Matanzas River NR Crescent Beach               PAH


                  Halifax River NR Daytona Beach                 PAH,PCB

                  HUC Code 03080202 - Middle East Coast

                  Eau Gallie River mouth/Indian                  Hg,Cu,Pb,Zn
                    River Lagoon (Nr Melbourne)

                  Port Canaveral                                 Cd,Cu,Zn,Hg

                  HUC Code 03080203 - South Indian River

                  Sebastian River/Indian River Lagoon            PAH,PCB,Pest






                                                  176











                 Table 41. (Continued).



                 Location and Name of Waterbody                Contaminant of Concern



                 HUC Code 03090202 - Southeast Coast

                 Lake Worth/ICWW                               Pb,Zn,Hg,Cd

                 New River                                     Pb,Zn,Cu,PAH,PCB,Pest

                 Little River Canal/Little River/              Cd,Cr,Pb,Zn,Cu,Hg,PAH
                   Biscayne Bay/Bay Point

                 Miami Canal/Miami River/Tamiami               Cd,Cr,Cu,Hg,Pb,Zn,PAH,PCB
                   Canal/Biscayne Bay

                 Biscayne Bay/Port of Miami                    Cd,Cu,Hg,Pb,Zn,PAH

                 Biscayne Bay/N. Bay Island                    PAH

                 Biscayne Bay/Claugton Island                  Cd,Cr,Cu,Hg,Pb,Zn,PAH,PCB

                 Princeton Canal                               PAH,Pest

                 Blackwater Sound                              As,Cu,Pb,Zn

                 Florida Bay                                   As,Cu,Pb,Zn

                 HUC Code 03100103 - Charlotte Harbor


                 San Carlos Bay                                PAH

                 Charlotte Harbor                              PAH,PCB

                 HUC Code 03090205 - Caloosahatchee River


                 Caloosahatchee River (mouth)                  PCB

                 HUC Code 03100206 - Tampa Bay

                 Hillsborough Bay                              Cd,Cu,Hg

                 Cockroach Bay                                 PAH,PCB,Pest

                 Hillsborough Bay (Ybor Channel), Davis        Cd,Cu,Hg,Pb,Zn
                   Island, Harbour Island, Sparkman Channel)

                 East Bay/Port Sutton                          Cd,Hg

                 Riviera Bay                                   PAH,Pest

                 Old Tampa Bay                                 Cd,Hg

                 Tampa Bay                                     PAH,PCB









                                                 177











                 Table 41. (Continued).



                  Location and Name of Waterbody                 Contaminant of Concern


                  HUC Code 03100202 - Manatee Rivet

                  Manatee River (Nr Braden River)                Hg,Zn,Pb

                  HUC Code 03100204 - Alafia River

                  Alafia River (mouth)                           Cd,Hg,Pb,Zn,PAH,Pest

                  HUC Code 03100207 - Crystal River to St. Petersburg

                  Crystal River (upper)                          Cu

                  HUC Code 03110101 - Waccasassa River

                  Cedar Key/Black Point                          PAH

                  HTJC Code 03110205 - Lower Suwannee River

                  Suwannee Sound/West Pass                       PAH

                  HUC Code 03120001 -St. Marks River

                  Apalachee Bay/Spring Creek                     PAH,PCB,Pest

                  HUC Code 03130014 - Apalachicola Bay

                  Apalachicola Bay                               PAH,PCB,Pest

                  St. George Sound                               PAH,Pest

                  H0UC Code 03140102 - Choctawhatchee Bay

                  Boggy Bayou/Choctawhatchee Bay                 PAH,Pest

                  old Pass Lagoon/Choctawhatchee Bay             PAH

                  Choctawhatchee Bay                             PAH,Pest

                  0HUC Code 03140105 - Pensacola Say

                  Bayou Grande                                   Cd,Cr,Hg,Pb,Zn, PPH,PCB

                  Bayou Chico                                    Cd,Cr,Hg,Pb,Zn,PP.H,PCB

                  Escambia Bay                                   PAH,PCB,Pest

                  0Escambia River                                 PAH

                  Pensacola Bay Harbor                           PAH,PCB

                  East Bay                                       PAH







                                                  178










                 Table 41. (Continued).



                 Location and Name of Waterbody                 Contaminant of Concern


                 Southern Pensacola Bay                         PAH,PCB

                 HUC Code 03140101 - St. Andrew Bay

                 St. Joseph Bay at Gulf County Canal            Hg,Pb,Zn

                 St. Andrew Bay                                 Zn,Pb,Cu,PAH,PCB,Pest

                 Watson Bayou                                   Cd,Hg,Zn,PAH,PCB,Pest

                 HUC Code 03140107 - Perdido Bay

                 Perdido Bay                                    PAH,PCB

                 Big Lagoon                                     PAH

                 Elevenmile Creek                               PAH


                 Bayou Marcus                                   PAH

                 HUC Code 03140104 - Blackwater River


                 Blackwater River                               PAH


                 HUC Code 03140106 - Perdido River

                 Styx River (near mouth)                        PAH

                 Perdido River                                  PAH



                 Cd - Cadmium             Hg - Mercury          Pb - Lead       Zn   Zinc
                 Cu - Copper              Cr - Chromium
                 PAH - Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
                 Pest - Chlorinated hydrocarbons (pesticides)
                 PCB - Polychlorinated biphenyl
                 ICWW - Intracoastal Waterway





















                                                 179













                                                                           Hg
                                                                                                         ATLANTIC

                                                                                                                         OCEAN

                            PEN
                                          PC
                    @Pb Hg Zn                                                                                IRS


                               GULF OF MEXICO                                                                              FP-7b
                                                                                                                             Ha
             co
                                                           Pb Hg Zn   Ttl@:8>TM                                            1-21ij
                                       t                  I
                                       N                                                                                           b
                     Abbreviation --LQ=ion Name                                                                            L CHZgn
                         PEN           Pensacola
                         PCY           Panama City
                         TMP           Tampa Bgy
                         EVQ           Everalades
                         KEYS          Florida Kevs
                         MIA           Miami                                        Pb Zn   D@' EVG
                         FTL           Fort Lauderdale
                         WPB           West Palm Saach
                         IRS           Indian River Svstem                                           C@%      K    4@ 7Zn
                     F   JAR           Jacksonville
                     Figure   8.   Areas of Florida with Sediment Metal               Enrichment Factors        of 5 or Greater
                    for Lead     (Pb), Mercury (Hg), and Zinc (Zn). There were 90 Samples                        for Lead, 47 for
                     Mercury,    and 64 for Zinc.









              The South Florida Water Management District maintains one of
              the largest pesticide databases for fresh water and sediment
              (Pfeuffer, 1991). Presently 29 stations are monitored
              quarterly for 67 pesticides and their degradation products,
              either currently used in agricultural areas or compounds
              banned or restricted to non-crop areas. The database was
              formulated in 1984 partly to meet requirements of permits
              and Memoranda of Agreement with Everglades National Park and
              the Miccosukee Tribe. Stations were located at inflows and
              outflows to the Water Conservation Areas, Lake Okeechobee,
              Everglades National Park, and along the Caloosahatchee
              River.


              Detections of DDE/DDD/DDT were periodically found in
              sediments at stations throughout the study area.
              Concentrations ranged from less than 1 ppb to 4,900 ppb. In
              most instances, levels were usually less than 100 ppb and
              frequently less than 10 ppb. The major exception to this
              was Torry Island in Lake Okeechobee. Sediment samples
              collected in February 1986 from an old agricultural area had
              DDD and DDE concentrations of 4,900 ppb and 300 ppb,
              respectively. Consistent results were not found with the
              other tested pesticides. Compounds such as aldrin or
              diazinon were detected during one sampling event and then
              not found again at that station during subsequent events.

              During 1990 and 1991, Collier County Environmental Services
              Division collected sediment samples from 13 sites in coastal
              and estuarine waterbodies (Grabe, July 1993). Samples were
              analyzed for trace metals, organochlorine pesticides, PCBs,
              and PAHS. Evidence suggested low level cadmium enrichment
              of sediments found at several locations in the southeastern
              part of the Ten Thousand Islands, including sections of
              Blackwater River near Collier Seminole State Park,
              Cocohatchee River, Rookery Bay, and Henderson Creek. Of the
              organics, PAHs were not detected in any samples, but several
              organochlorine pesticides were detected in some replicates
              taken at several locations. The substances detected were
              aldrin in the Blackwater River and endosulfan I and endrin
              in Naples Bay and Vanderbilt Lagoon. The County is
              continuing their monitoring program with recommendations to
              include sites in marinas and initiate biological monitoring.


              The DER in 1990 contracted the Institute for Coastal and
              Estuarine Research at the University of West Florida to
              determine the extent of heavy metal accumulation in
              sediments from Bayou Chico, Pensacola Bay (Stone and Morgan,



                                        181









               1991). Cores of 15 to 20 foot length were removed,'
               representing the depositional record to at least the
               Holocene. The objective was to demarcate anthropogenically
               enriched deposits from geological background. Metal
               enrichment, attributable to anthropogenic activities, was
               discernible in 10 of the 12 extracted cores. The enriched
               layer varied from 0.4 feet in the lower bayou to 6.8 feet at
               mid bayou. The upper reaches of the bayou exhibited the
               highest concentrations of trace metals. At most sites,
               trend analyses of metals concentrations exhibited an overall
               decrease or remained constant. An additional analysis was
               made of two cores for PAHS. The compound retene was found
               at concentrations of 250 and 300 ppm.

               While concentrations of contaminants can be measured in
               sediment, the effects on biota of a given concentration are
               not well understood. To address this concern, a project was
               initiated by DEP to develop sediment quality assessment
               guidelines. The objective was to evaluate the potential of
               sediment sorbed organic contaminants to affect biota.
               Assessment guidelines provide numerical ranges of
               contaminant concentrations that could result in a given
               level or intensity of biological effect.

               Twenty-five contaminants were assessed for their use in
               devising preliminary guidelines. Data from 20 different
               areas of Florida were used. Data used to produce the
               guidelines are primarily from results of acute toxicity
               tests. This was necessary because limited data existed on
               chronic effects on organisms exposed to sediment sox-bed
               contaminants. Three ranges of effects were defined for each
               contaminant. These are: probable effects range, possible
               effects range and no effects range. These are interpreted,
               in the order listed, to mean concentrations that have always
               had an effect, frequently have had an effect, and rarely or
               never have had an effect. Subjective assessment of the
               credibility of the guidelines indicated that a high level of
               confidence could be placed on results for 11 compounds;
               while a moderate or low confidence could be placed on the
               remaining 14 substances. A complete discussion of
               methodology is contained in the report Development  of an
               Approach to the Assessment of Sediment Quality in Florida
               Coastal Waters, D.D. MacDonald, 1993.

               The guidelines should be used as an interpretation and
               evaluation tool of sediment quality and potential hazards to
               biota. They are not a replacement for dredge disposal



                                         182









              criteria or formal protocols. Additionally, they are not
              meant to be used as sediment quality criteria or to provide
              numerical attainment levels for cleanup of Superfund sites.


                                    Hazardous waste


              Hazardous waste sites and leaking underground storage tanks
              present a complex set of problems which are generally
              expensive to solve. DEP is actively involved in
              identifying, stabilizing and cleaning-up hazardous waste
              sites. Contamination of ground water, surface water, or
              soil is suspected at over 1,300 sites. Of that number, 39
              are State hazardous waste sites, 55 are EPA Superfund sites,
              and 548 are hazardous waste sites being addressed with
              Responsible Party Resources. Of the 1,300 suspected
              hazardous waste sites, confirmation of contamination has
              been made at approximately 400 of them. Approximately 775
              additional sites are being evaluated by DEP and EPA to
              determine the extent of contamination.


              Table 42 contains a list of Superfund sites, contaminant
              problems associated with each site, and the present status
              of each site. EPA has six status classifications for
              Superfund sites. They are defined as follows:

                   1. Initial Response. Emergency cleanup or initial
                      action has been completed.

                   2. Site.Studies. An investigation into the nature and
                      extent of contamination is underway.

                   3. Remedy Selection. A final cleanup strategy has
                      been selected.


                   4. Remedial Design. Technical specifications for
                      cleanup remedies and technologies are being
                      designed.

                   5. Cleanup Ongoing. Cleanup has been started and is
                      currently ongoing.

                   6. Construction Complete. All phases of site cleanup
                      have occurred. Some sites may need additional
                      monitoring and maintenance.






                                        183











                                Table 42. Progress Toward Cleanup at NPL Sites in Florida.



                                                                                                                                    Initial        Site           Remedy         Remedy        Cleanup       Construction               Size
                                Site Name                                             County               NPL      Date            Response       Studies        Selected       Design        Ongoing       Complete                   (ac) Contaminants				Threats



                                AGRICO CHEMICAL                                       ESCAMBIA             Final    10/04/89                       >>             >                                                                     6lead,sulfuric acid, floride		GW,SW,S
                                AIRCO PLATING CO., INC.                               DADE                 Final    02/21/90                       >>             >                                                                     1.5 heavy metals				GW,S
                                ALPHA CHEMICAL CORP.                                  POLK                 Final    09/01/83                       >>             >>             >>            >>                                       32 VOCs,xylene,ethylene benzene		GW,SW,S,Sed
                                AMERICAN CREOSOTE WORKS                               ESCAMBIA             Final    09/01/83        >>             >>             >>             >>                                                     18 PAHs,VOCs					GW,SW,S,Sed
                                ANACONDAIMILGO                                        DADE                 Prop.    11/15/89                       >>                                                                                   1.5 VOCs, heavy metals			GW,SW,S
                                ANODYNE, INC.                                         DADE                 Final    02/21/90                                      >                                                                     <1.0 VOCs, heavy metals			GW,S
                                B & B CHEMICAL COMPANY                                DADE                 Prop.    06/24/88        >>             >>                                                                                   2VOCs						GW
                                BEULAH LANDFILL                                       ESCAMBIA             Prop.    06/24/88                       >>             >                                                                     80 anthracene,pyrene, PCB's,zinc,	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        napthalene,PCPs, fluoranthene		GW,SW,S
                                BMI-TEXTRON                                           PALM BEACH           Prop.    06/24/88        >>             >>                                                                                   3.5 cyanide,fluoride barium		GW,S
                                BROWN WOOD PRESERVING                                 SUWANNEE             Final    09/01/83        >>             >>             >>             >>            >>                                       55 PAHs						S,SW,Sed
                                CABOTIKOPPERS                                         ALACHUA              Final    09/01/84        >>             >>             >              >                                                      170 VOCs,creosote,aresenic
                                CECIL FIELD NAVAL AIR STATION                         DUVAL                Prop.    07/14/89                                                                                                            heavy metals,trichlorothylene
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        solvents,paints				GW,S,SW
                         OD     CHEM-FORM, INC.                                       BROWARD              Final    11/11/89                       >>             >              >             >                                        4heavy metals					GW,S
                                CITY INDUSTRIES                                       ORANGE               Final    10/04/89        >>                                           >                                                      IVOCs,pthalates,heavy metals		GW,S,SW
                                COLEMAN-EVANS         WOOD PRESERVING                 DUVAL                Final    90/01/83                       >>             >>             >>                                                     11 PCPs,VOCs,heavy metals			GW,SW,S,Sed
                                DAVIE LANDFILL                                        BROWARD              Final    09/08/83                       >>             >>             >>            >>                                       118 sulfate,chloride,lead,NH3		GW,SW,Sed
                                DUBOSE OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY                           ESCAMBIA             Final    06/01/86        >>             >>             >>                           >>                                       20 VOCs,heavy metals			GW,S
                                FLORIDA STEEL CORPORATION                             MARTIN               Final    12/01/82        >>             >>             >                                                                     150 heavy metals,P
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        barium
                                A,GW,S,SW
                                GOLD COAST OIL CORPORATION                            DADE                 Final    09/01/83        >>             >>             >>             >>            >>                                       2VOCs methylene chloride			GW,S
                                HARRIS CORPJPALM BAY FACILITY                         BREVARD              Final    07/01/87        >>             >>             >                            >                                        345 VOCs,heavy metals			GW
                                HIPPS ROAD LANDFILL                                   DUVAL                Final    09/01/84        >>             >>                            >>            >>                                       14.5
                                VOCs,vinyl chloride, benzene                                               GW
                                HOLLINGSWORTH SOLDERLESS                              BROWARD              Final    09/01/83        >>             >>             >>                           >>                                       3.5 VOCs,heavy metals			GW
                                HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE                              DADE                 Prop.    07/14/89                       >>                                                                                   petroleum
                                JACKSONVILLE NAVAL AIR STATION                        DUVAL                Final    11/21/89                       >>                                                                                   VOCs,heavy metals				S,GW,SW
                                KASSOLF-KIMERLING BATTERY DISPOSAL                    HILLSBOROUGH         Final    09/01/83                       >>             >>             >             >                                        5heavy metals					GW,S,SW,Sed
                                MADISON COUNTY SANITARY LANDFILL                      MADISON              Prop.    06/24/88                       >>             >              >                                                      133 VOCs,TCE					GW,S
                                MIAMI DRUM SERVICES                                   DADE                 Final    90/01/83                       >>             >>             >>            >>                                       1VOCs,vinyl chloride,phenols
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        oil, pesticides, heavy metals		GW,S
                                MUNISPORT LANDFILL                                    DADE                 Final    09/01/83                                      >              >                                                      291 NH3,heavy metals,pesticides
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Vocs						GW,S
                                NORTHWEST 58TH STREET LANDFILL                        DADE                 Final    90/01/83                       >>             >>                           >>                                       640 heavy metals,VOCs,vinyl chloride	GW,S
 

0









                               Table 42. (Continued).




                                                                                                                                     Initial        site            Remedy         Remedy        Cleanup        Construction Size
                               Site Name                                             County                 NPIL     Date            Response       Studies         Selected       Design        Ongoing        Complete             (ac) Contaminants			Threats




                               PARRAMORE SURPLUS                                     GADSDEN                Delete   02/21/89                       >>              >>                                          >>                   25  PCBs,VOCs,heavy metals			S
                               PEAK OIL COMPANY                                      HILLSBOROUGH           Final    06/10/86        >>             >>              >              >                                                 15  PCBs,VOCs,heavy metals			S,SW,GW
                               PENSACOLA NAVAL AIR STATION                           ESCAMBIA               Final    11/21/89                                                                                                        5,675 VOCs,benzene,ethylbenzene,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         heavy metals,pesticides			GW,S,Sed,SW
                               PEPPERS STEEL AND ALLOY CO.                           DADE                   Final    09/01/84        >>                             >>             >>            >>             >                    30  PCBs,VOCs,lead arsenic			GW,SW,S
                               PETROLEUM PRODUCTS CORP.                              BROWARD                Final    07/01/87        >>                                                                                              2   oil,heavy metals, VOC,benzene		GW,S,SW
                               PICKETTVILLE ROAD LANDFILL                            DUVAL                  Final    D9/01/83        >>            >>              >                                                                52  VOCs,benzene,PCBs,heavy metals		GW,S,SW
                               PIONEER SAND COMPANY                                  ESCAMBIA               Final    09/01/83        >>             >>                             >>                                                11  heavy metals,VOCs,PCP,PCBs		GW,SW,S
                               PIPER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION                            INDIAN RIVER           Final    02/16/90        >>             >>                                                                               90  TCE,VOCs
                               REEVES SOUTHEASTERN GALVANIZING                       HILLSBOROUGH           Final    09/01/83                       >>              >              >                                                 28  heavy metals
                               SAPP BATTERY SALVAGE                                  JACKSON                Final    09/01/83        >>             >>              >>             >>                                                45  heavy metals,lead, cadmium		GW,SW,S
                               SCHUYLKILL METAL CORP.                                HILLSBOROUGH           Final    09/01/83                       >>              >              >             >                                   17.5 lead,sulfate,heavy metals		GW,SW,S
                               SHERWOOD MEDICAL                                      VOLUSIA                Prop.    09/01/83                                       >              >                            >                    43  VOCs,chromium				GW
                               STANDARD AUTO BUMPER                                  DADE                   Final    10/04/89                                                                                                        0.75 heavy metals				GW,S
                       
                       	       SYDNEY MINE SLUDGE POND                               HILLSBOROUGH           Final    10/01/89        >>                             >>                           >>                                  9.5 VOCs,toluene,heavy metals,	
                               TAYLOR ROAD LANDFILL                                  HILLSBOROUGH           Final    09/01/83       >>                                                                                               40  VOCs,heavy metals				GW,A
                               TOWER CHEMICAL COMPANY                                LAKE                   Final    09/01/83       >>              >>              >>             >>                                                30  pesticides,VOCs,copper			S,GW,SW			
                               TRI-CITY OIL CCONSERVATIONIST                         HILLSBOROUGH           Delete   01/19/88        >>             >>              >>             >                            >>                   0.25 VOCs,lead,heavy metals			GW,S
                               VARSOL SPILL SITE                                     DADE                   Delete   09/01/88                       >>                             >                            >>                       PAHs						SW,GW
                               WHITEHOUSE WASTE OIL PITS                             DUVAL                  Final    09/01/83        >>             >>              >>             >>                                                7   heavy metals,VOCs,lead,arsenic		GW,S
                               WILSON CONCEPTS OF FLORIDA                            BROWARD                Final    03/31/89                                       >              >                            >                    2   VOCs,heavy metals				GW,SW,S
                               WINGATE RD. MUNI. INCINERATOR                         BROWARD                Final    10/04/89                                                                                                        61  DDT,aldrin,chlordane			SW,S,Sed
                               WOODBERRY CHEMICAL CO.                                DADE                   Prop.    06/24/88        >>             >>              >              >                            >                    3   aldrin, dieldrin,chlordane		GW
                               YELLOW WATER ROAD PUMP                                DUVAL                  Final    06/01/86        >>             >>              >              >                                                 14  PCBs,Fe,Pb,arochlor			GW,S
                               ZELLWOOD GROUNDWATER                                  ORANGE                 Final    09/01/83        >>             >>              >>             >>            >                                   57  PAHs,pesticide,heavy metals		GW,SW,S
                               62ND STREET DUMP                                      HILLSBOROUGH           Final    09/01/83                       >>              >              >             >                                   5   heavy metals,PAHs				GW,S,SW
                               21 ST MANOR CITY LANDFILL                             DADE                   Prop.    07/91                          >                                                                                4.5 toluene,chromium,lead,zinc,dieldrin


                               *Source of information -             EPA's National Priorities List Site: Florida, EP/504/4-90/010, Sept. 1990 and Florida Specifier, Dec. 1991. Updated by DEP, 1994.
                               Definitions:
                               VOCs - Volatile Organic Compounds                                            GW - Groundwater                                        Prop. - Proposed
                               PAHs - Polynticlear Aromatic Hydrocarbons                                    S - Soil
                               PCBS - Polychlorinated Biphenyls                                             SW -Surface Water
                               TCE - Trichloroethylene                                                       A - Air
                               pCP - Pentachlorophenol                                                      SED - Sediment









                A study was contracted by DER with the University of Florida
                to determine off-site migration of Section 307(a) organic
                priority pollutants from Superfund sites. Thirty-one sites
                were selected by the University based on magnitude.of
                present contamination and probability of pollutant migration
                to surface waters and sediments. Waters were sampled for
                volatile and semi-volatile organics. Sediments were sampled
                for semi-volatile organics.

                In water, the-most common volatile compounds found were
                chlorinated solvents, halogenated methanes, and benzene    or
                toluene. Semi-volatiles were composed largely of base
                neutral and acid compounds. Sediments most commonly
                contained polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, phthalates,
                chlorinated pesticides, and phenols.

                The results of that study indicated that surface water
                adjacent to 10 sites did not appear to be chemically
                impacted, 16 study sites were moderately impacted, and    5
                sites were significantly impacted. Samples from these     last
                sites frequently exceeded either EPA Human Health Criteria
                or DEP Class III standards. Additionally, concentrations of
                organics in sediments were high compared to other sites.
                Areas where water quality criteria were exceeded (either EPA
                or State) included Bayou Chico off Pensacola Bay, L34/L35
                canals in Palm Beach County, Naval Air Station Jacksonville
                on the St. Johns River, Deer Creek at St. Johns River,
                Prince Creek and an unnamed tributary, a drainage canal to
                Lake Ellenor in Orange County, and Gulf County Canal off St.
                Joseph Bay.

                DEP's Bureau of Waste  Cleanup is also responsible for
                activities associated with remediation of leaking
                underground petroleum products storage tanks. These
                programs deal with waste cleanup: Early Detection Incentive
                Program, Petroleum Liability insurance Restoration Program,
                and Abandoned Tank Restoration Program.

                Shellfish Restrictions/Closures Currently in Effect


                In Florida, oysters and clams are important aquatic species
                with significant economic value. The Florida Department of
                Environmental Protection is responsible for classifying and
                managing State shellfish areas and has oversight of
                harvesting activities. The term "shellfish" in this context
                is limited to oysters, clams, and mussels. All State waters
                where either the propagating or harvesting of shellfish



                                           186









             occurs are designated as Class II, but not all Class II
             waters can be used for harvesting.

             Sections 370.021 and 370.071, F.S., delegate the authority
             to DEP to enforce laws of the State and regulations of the
             Department regarding shellfish. The Florida Marine
             Fisheries Commission recommends, revises, and reviews rules
             pertaining to marine fisheries. Chapter 17-302 of the
             F.A.C. describes the classification of waterbodies as Class
             II. Chapter 16R-7 of the F.A.C. describes the DEP's
             authority to regulate the harvesting, processing, and
             shipping of shellfish. This Chapter specifically addresses
             bacteriological water quality standards and the
             classification and management of shellfish harvesting areas.

             The DEP Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section has been
             delegated the responsibility of classifying and managing
             Florida's shellfish harvesting areas. The DEP Florida
             Marine Patrol is responsible for enforcement of shellfish
             regulations. Shellfish harvesting area classifications,
             boundaries, and status (open or temporarily closed) change
             from time to time depending on estuarine water quality. The
             harvesting season for oysters is from October 1 through June
             30. Exceptions to this season are Levy and Dixie counties;
             their season is from September 1 through May 31. Summer
             harvesting of oysters is only allowed in a specific area of
             Apalachicola Bay and on leased parcels statewide. There are
             no seasonal restrictions on the harvesting of clams.

             Consumption of shellfish harvested from polluted water poses
             a public health risk; hence, sanitary control of the
             shellfish industry is necessary. Florida is a member of the
             Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference (ISSC), a
             cooperative, voluntary association of states, U.S. Food and
             Drug Administration (FDA), National Marine Fisheries
             Service, EPA, and the shellfish industry. State
             responsibilities include adopting laws and regulations for
             sanitary control of the shellfish industry, formulating
             comprehensive shellfish harvesting area surveys, and
             adopting control measures to ensure that shellfish are
             grown, harvested, and processed in a safe and sanitary
             manner. FDA responsibilities include the incorporation of
             changes recommended by the ISSC into the National Shellfish
             Sanitation Program (NSSP) Manual of Operations that are
             consistent with good public health practice. The NSSP
             Manual of operations is used by FDA to determine compliance
             with NSSP standards and guidelines for classification and



                                       187









               management of shellfish harvesting areas. NMFS and EPA act
               as consultants to the ISSC. The shellfish industry
               participates by obtaining shellfish from safe sources,
               maintaining sanitary operating conditions, and keeping
               documentation of the origin and disposition of all
               shellfish.


               Freshwater drainage from land introduces contaminants into
               estuaries where shellfish grow, and as coastal development
               continues, water quality may be degraded. Sources of
               pollution include failing septic systems, stormwater runoff,
               wastewater treatment plant outfalls, and discharges from
               boats.


               Coastal waters are classified for harvesting by DEP based on
               sanitary and bacteriological surveys. The State of Florida
               follows the procedures for classification of a shellfish
               area as described in U.S. Department of Health and Human
               Services, Food and Drug Administration document, National
               Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) Manual of Operations
               Part I Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Areas, 1990.
               Sanitary surveys identify waters where contaminants may be
               present in amounts that present a health hazard, and hence
               should not be open to harvest. Surveys evaluate
               meteorological, hydrographic, and geographic characteristics
               that affect the distribution of pollutants throughout the
               proposed harvest area. They include a shoreline survey that
               identifies and evaluates the following: 1. location of
               actual or potential sources of pollution; 2. the distance of
               pollutant sources to growing area; 3. an assessment of the
               effectiveness and reliability of sewage treatment systems;
               and 4. a determination of the presence of poisonous or
               deleterious substances (e.g., industrial or agricultural
               waste). Other factors that are considered in the evaluation
               of a proposed harvesting area are impacts from small boat
               wastes, local wildlife and domestic animals, migratory birds
               and other uses of the area or nearby waters such.as waste
               dump sites. The bacteriological survey requires location of
               stations for the collection of water samples'for chemical
               and physical parameters and to determine if waters meet NSSP
               fecal coliform standards. Presently, there are 1,237
               bacteriological sampling stations located in 57 harvesting
               areas in the State's coastal and estuarine waters. Analysis
               of physical, chemical, and bacteriological data determines
               if an area or portion meets NSSP and State bacteriological
               water quality standards.




                                         188









              The shellfish harvesting classifications used for Florida
              waters are Approved, Conditionally Approved, Restricted,
              Conditionally Restricted, Prohibited, and Unclassified
              (therefore Unapproved). A general trend in Florida has been
              the reclassification of shellfish harvesting areas from
              Approved to Conditionally Approved, with management plans
              calling for temporary closure following rainfall.

              For Conditionally Approved and Conditionally Restricted
              areas, a management plan is developed based on one or more
              environmental parameters and its/their correlation to
              exceedances of fecal coliform standards. Examples of these
              parameters are river stage and rainfall. These management
              plans provide a mechanism for closing shellfish harvesting
              areas when NSSP and State standards are exceeded and the
              procedure for evaluating waters to reopen them to
              shellfishing activities.

              The NSSP014/43 fecal coliform standard (14/43 STANDARD) for
              waters approved for direct market of shellfish, at specific
              sampling@locations, is as follows: the median or geometric
              mean of fecal coliforms must not exceed 14 Most Probable
              Number (MPN) per 100 ml of water and MPN must not exceed
              43/100 mll more than 10% of the time. This standard must be
              met at all stations during adverse pollution conditions for
              Approved areas and when the area is open for harvesting for
              Conditionally Approved areas.

              The NSSP 88/260 fecal coliform standard (88/260 STANDARD)
              for waters approved for harvesting and relaying of
              shellfish, at specific sampling locations, is as follows:
              the median or geometric mean must not exceed 88 MPN/100 ml
              of water and MPN values must not exceed 260/100 ml of water
              more than 10% of the time. This standard must be met at all
              stations during adverse pollution conditions for Restricted
              areas and when the area is open for harvesting for
              Conditionally Restricted areas. Fecal material, other
              pathogenic organisms, or harmful chemicals do not exceed
              standards after shellfish are subjected to the appropriate
                           process. More complete definitions of
              purl
              shellfish harvesting area classifications are as follows:

                   1. Approved Area. Normally open to shellfish
                      harvesting; may be temporarily closed under
                      extraordinary circumstances such as red tides,
                      hurricanes, and sewage spills. The 14/43 standard




                                        189










                       must be met for all combinations of defined adverse
                       pollution conditions.

                    2. Conditionally Approved Area. Periodically closed
                       to shellfish harvesting based on pollution causing
                       events, such as rainfall or increased river flow,
                       and during other adverse pollution conditions. The
                       NSSP 14/43 standard must be met when-the management
                       plan parameter (rainfall, river stage, and/or
                       discharge) is less than the adverse pollution
                       condition during all other adverse pollution
                       conditions.


                    3. Restricted Area. Normally open to relaying
                       (transfer of shellfish to another area) or
                       controlled purification, allowed only by Special
                       permit and supervision; may be temporarily closed
                       under conditions such as red tides, hurricanes, and
                       sewaqe spills. The NSSP 88/260 standard must be
                       met for all combinations of defined pollution
                       conditions.


                    4. Conditionally Restricted Area. Periodically relay
                       and controlled purification activity is temporarily
                       suspended based on predictable pollution causing
                       events such as rainfall and increased river flow.
                       The NSSP 88/260 standard must be met when the
                       management plan parameter (rainfall, river stage,
                       and/or discharge) is less than the adverse
                       pollution condition during all other adverse
                       pollution conditions.

                    5. Prohibited Area. Shellfish harvesting is not
                       permitted due to actual or potential pollution.
                       This classification is least desirable, and is used
                       only when standards are exceeded for Approved,
                       Conditionally Approved, Restricted, or
                       Conditionally Restricted classification management
                       schemes.


                    6. Unclassified. Shellfish harvesting is not
                       permitted pending bacteriological and sanitary
                       surveys. NSSP guidelines require surveys be
                       reviewed annually, re-evaluated every 3 years, and
                       resurveyed every 12 years. Areas that do not
                       comply with the sanitary requirements are
                       reclassified.




                                         190









              Table 43 contains a list of presently classified and
              regulated shellfish areas and their acreages. Figure 9
              displays the locations of these areas. Table 44 lists
              portions of Florida's shoreline that are presently
              unclassified for shellfish harvesting; total acreages of
              these waters are not available. Table 4S lists shellfish
              waters where temporary reclassifications have occurred
              during calendar years 1992 and 1993. Information for these
              tables was obtained from the Shellfish Harvesting Area
              Atlas, DEP, May 6, 1993, and regional offices of DEP's
              Shellfish Evaluation and Assessment Section.


              There are 1,638,613 acres of coastal and estuarine-waters
              classified for shellfish harvesting. Of that amount,
              1,032,224 acres are classified Approved or Conditionally
              Approved for the harvest of shellfish for direct
              consumption. Relaying is allowed in 134,074 acres
              classified Conditionally Restricted and Restricted. For the
              remaining 472,315 acres, shellfish harvesting activities are
              prohibited.

              Excluding temporary closures imposed during the exceedance
              of management plan parameters or red tide events, 102,454
              acres of shellfish harvesting areas were reclassified to
              temporarily closed for the entirety of the 1992 and 1993
              reporting period. The areas are identified in Table 45.

              Conditionally Approved and Approved shellfish harvesting
              areas in Palma Sola Sound, Cockroach Bay, and Suwannee Sound
              remain temporarily closed because of elevated fecal coliform
              counts or the potential for fecal contamination of
              shellfish. Additionally, a cooperative study performed in
              1990 by Florida Department of Natural Resources, Florida
              Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the
              U.S. Food and Drug Administration obtained positive results
              for Salmonella from sediment, water, and oyster tissue
              collected from Suwannee Sound. The study was prompted by
              ten illness outbreaks (total of 91 cases) of gastroenteritis
              in 1989 associated with consumption of oysters from Suwannee
              Sound.


              An oil spill in Tampa Bay during August 1993 resulted in the
              closure of shellfish beds. Shellfish beds in Lower Tampa
              Bay and Sarasota Bay were closed as a precautionary measure.
              The oil spill never reached these areas. Boca Ciega Bay was
              closed as long as PAHs were found at detectable levels in
              shellfish meat.




                                        191








                            Table 43. Acreages of Florida Shellfish Harvesting Areas.
                              (Revised May 6, 1993)


                            Area                                                Cond          Cond
                                  Area name                      Approved       Approved     Restricted      Restricted.    Prohibited


                              1   Perdido Bay                           0         3,050              0            0           6,887
                              2   Pensacola Bay System                  0       43,474               0            0         62,457
                              3   BLackwater River                      0             0              0            0           5,126
                              4   Santa Rosa Sound                      0       20,759               0            0           1,M
                              5   East Bay River                        0             0              0            0           1,088
                              6   Choctawhatchee Bay
                                     Eastern                            0       13,435               0            0         15,973
                                     Western                            0       28,385               0            0                0
                                      Central                           0       26,187               0        13,363        11,515
                              7   Phillips Inlet                        0             0              0            0                0
                              8   West Bay                              0       16,713               0            0           7,196
                            10    North Bay, East and West              0         6,186              0            0         14,521
                            12    East Bay                              0       14,460               0            0         13,432
                            13    Crooked *                             0             0              0            0                0
                            14    St Joseph  Say                   34,137             0              0            0           6,088
                            15    Indian Lagoon                         0           448              0          210                0
                            16    Apalachicola Bay, Winter              0       39,754               0            0                0
                            16    Apalachicola Bay, Summer              0       26,963         8,765              0           1,028
                            18    Alligator Harbor                  3,660         .   0              0            0                0
                            20    OchLockonee say                       0         2,655        4,407              0             855
                            22    WakuLLa County                        0       17,037         1,635              0             737
                            25    Horseshoe Beach                       0       75,065               0        4,486           1,281
                            28    Suwannee Sound                        0       15,716        26,754          4,348           2,331
                            30    Cedar Key                             0       190,808              0        1,416           6,581
                            32    Waccasassa Bay                        0       42,956               0        6,687             450
                            34    WithLacoochee River                   0       91,542               0        2,154           1,559
                            37 38 CrystaL/Homosassa Rivers         42,432             0              0            0           4,534
                            42    Boca Ciega                       14,746             0              0            0           4,060
                            46    Cockroach Bay                     4,580             0              0            0                0
                            48    Lower Tampa Bay                       0       15,440               0            0         10,308
                            50    Passage Key                      13,358             0              0            0                0
                            52    Palma SoLa Sound                      0         1,949              0            0         29,979
                            53    Anna Maria Sound                      0             0              0            0             556
                            54    Sarasota Bay                          0         7,509              0        2,352         14,848
                            56    Lemon Say                             0           458              0            a           9,001
                            58    GaspariLLa Sound                      0       30,044               0            0           1,265
                            60    Myakka River                          0         5,488              0            0           4,641
                            62    Pine Island Sound                16,197             0              0            a         29,979
                            64    Estero Say                            0             0              0            0         27,257
                            65    Everglades                            0             0              0            0                0
                            &     Ten Thousand Islands             52,758         5,088              0            0         68,287
                            67    Rookery Bay                      16,898         9,357              0          295         66,472
                            68 69 Martin/South St. Lucie                0             0        5,474              0           2,608
                            70    Indian River/St. Lucie                0             0       12,921              0             186
                            71    St. Lucie County                  5,552             0        1,200              0           6,333
                            72    North Indian River                    0         5,108        6,401              0           3,590
                            74    Body   F                              0         6,381              0        2,834           3,056
                            75    Body   E                              0             0        7,805              0           1,390
                            76    Body   D                              0         4,393        6,274            683           3,447
                            77    Body C                                0         5,887        7,167              0             308
                            78    Body B                                0       10,899         4,093              0           2,864
                            80    Body A                           33,587             0              0          264                0
                            82    VoLusia                               0         1,561              0            0           3,440
                            86    FLagLer                               0             0              0            0             145
                            92    St. Johns North                      858        1,058              0            0           1,927
                            92    St. Johns South                      703        1,288              0            0           6,441
                            96    DuvaL County                          36        5,221        2,086              0                0
                            98    Nassau County                         0             0              0            0           4,511

                            TOTAL BY CLASSIFICATION               239,502       792,722       94,982          39,092        472,315
                            FLORIDA TOTAL 1,638,613
                                 Unclassified



                                                                                  192



                                  to@ aw. Now 0-0 I= No aw 00 am so tin




                                                    SZ@A                          HOLMES        JACKSON
                                                         A                                                                                                                         NASSAU
                                                              OKAU0OS^
                                                  A       03             WALTON         HINGTO                GADSDEN             JEFESR              HAMILTON
                                                                                     SAY          CALHOUN                LEON          N  MADISO@     SUWANNEE           BAKER
                                                                                                        LIBERTY      WAKULLA            TAYLOR                        UNION        CLAY
                                       01                                                                                                                                    0,               SAINT
                                                                5                                GULF                                             LA                         FOR               JOHN
                                                                                                          FRANKLIN
                                                    04                                                                                                        GIL-
                                                                                                                                                              CHRI    ALACHUA       PUTNAM
                                                                                                                                                   DIXIE                                        FLAGLER
                                   AREA           AREA NAME                   13        11                             8         22                          LEVY
                                   NUMBER                                                                                                                                    MAR
                                       01         PERDIDO SYSTEM                                                                                                                                     VOLUSIA
                                       02         PENSACOLA BAY                                                                           28
                                       03         BLACKWATER RIVER                                        16                                 30                                          LAKE
                                       04         SANTA ROSA SOUND                                                                                                   CITRUS
                                       05         EAST BAY RIVER                                                                                                                                    SEMINOLE
                                       06         CHOCTAWHATCHEE BAY                                                                                                          SUMTER
                                       07         PHILLIPS INLET                                                                                                                                ORANGE
                                       0          WEST BAY                                                                                            37             HERNANDO
                                       I          NORTH BAY. EAST
                                       1          NORTHBAY    'WEST                                                                                                     PASCO                        OSCEOLA
                                       12         EAST BAY
                                       13         CROOKED ISLAND                                                                                                      HILLSBOROUGH                                  OR
                                       14         ST. JOSEPH BAY                                                                                                                         POLK
                                       15         INDIAN LAGOON                                                                                      4
                                       16         APALACHICOLA SAY                                                                                                               6
                     Fj                is         ALLIGATOR HARBOR
                     %10               20         OCHLOCKONEE BAY                                                                                     48                                                    OKEECIIOBE
                     w                 22         WAKULLA COUNTY                                                                                      so                 MANATEE       HARDEE
                                       25         HORSESHOE BEACH                                                                                                                                  111014LAND
                                       28         SUWANNEESOUND
                                       30         CEDAR KEY                                             AREA         AREA NAME                            53               SARASOTA DE SOTO
                                       32         WACCASASSA BAY                                        NUMBER                                              54                                                      LAJ
                                       34         WITHLAO00CHEE BAY                                                  MARTIN COUNTY                            5                       CHARL E         GLADES    OKErc
                                       37         CRYSTAL RIVER
                                       42         BOCA CIEGA BAY                                                     SOUTH ST. LUCIE
                                       46         COCKROACH BAY                                         70           INDIAN RIVER/ST. LUCIE                      60                                     HENDRY
                                       48         LOWER TAMPA BAY                                       72           NORTH INDIAN RIVER                           58                      LEE
                                       so         PASSAGE KEY                                           74           BODY F
                                       52         PALMA SOLA BAY                                        75           BODY E
                                       53         ANNA MARIA SOUND                                      76           BODY D
                                       54         LONGBOAT KEYILIDO-ROBERTS BAY                         77           BODY C
                                       56                                                               78                                                                                            COL.E.
                                                  LEMON BAY                                                          BODY B                                             6.
                                       58         GASPARILLA SOUND                                      so           BODYA
                                       60         MYAKKA RIVER                                          82           VOLUSUk
                                       62         PINE ISLAND SOUND                                     as           ST. JOHNS. SOUTH
                                       64         ESTERO BAY                                            92           ST. JOHNS. NORTH                                                                         MONROE
                                       :
                                       6          TEN THOUSAND ISLANDS                                  96           DUVAL COUNTY
                                       7          ROOKERY BAY
                                       65         EVERGLADES
                                                                                                                                                                                             65




                                  Figure 9. Location of Shellfish Harvesting Areas in Florida.










                 Table 44. Location of State's Shellfish Resources not
                 Classified for Harvesting.



                 County             Waterbody Name           County      Waterbody Name


                 Franklin           St. George Sound         Collier        Choholoskee Bay
                                    Coastal
                                    Apalachee Bay

                 Monroe             Coastal                  Jefferson      Apalachee Bay
                                                                            Coastal

                 Dade               Coastal                  Broward        Coastal

                 Taylor             Coastal                  Palm Beach     Coastal

                 Dixie              Coastal                  Citrus         Homosass,a
                                                                             River/Bay

                 Martin             Coastal
                                    St. Lucie River/Inlet    Indian River   Indian River
                                    Indian River Lagoon                       Lagoon

                 Hernando           Coastal                  Pasco          Coastal

                 Brevard            Banana River             Gulf           St. Joseph Sound
                                    Coastal
                                    Indian River Lagoon

                 Pinellas           Clearwater Pass          Volusia        Coastal
                                    old Tampa Bay

                 Hillsborough       Tampa Bay                Flagler        Coastal

                 Manatee            Tampa Bay                St. Johns      Coastal
                 Charlotte          Gasparilla Sound                        Guano Lake

                 Lee                Gasparella Sound         Duval          Coastal
                                    Charlotte Harbor                        Mouth of St. Johns
                                    San Carlos Bay                             River
                                    Wiggins Pass
                                    Coastal

                 Nassau             Nassau River/Sound       Collier        Coastal
                                    Amelia River


















                                                   194



                                     I" on limit                       M so "a 11111111 WIN *0 am no milli





               Table 45. Reclassification of Shellfish Waters.

               Category I. Closures due to insufficient staff to properly manage these areas to protect
               human health. Closures began on October 12, 1991 and remain in effect.


               Waterbody                           Classified as:          Chancred to:            Acreacre

               Santa Rosa Sound                      Cond Appr             Temp Closed             20,759
               Alligator Harbor                      Approved              Temp Closed               3,660
               Crystal River/Homosassa River         Approved              Temp Closed             42,432
                 (now called Citrus)
               Passage Key                           Approved              Temp Closed             13,358


               Category II. Closures due to Potential for Pathogens.


               Waterbody               Classified as:    Changed to:     Acreage    Reason

         U1    Palma Sola Sound (1)    Cond Appr         Temp Closed       1,949    Elevated fecal coliform
               Cockroach Bay (2)       Approved          Temp Closed       4,580    Elevated fecal coliform
               Suwannee Sound (3)      Cond Appr         Temp Closed      15,716    Potential for contamination from
                                                                                    human waste. Salmonella found
                                                                                    in water and oyster.


               (1) Closed since 1980       (2) Closed since 1983         (3) Closed since August 31, 1991














               Table 45. (Continued).

               Category III. Closures due to red tide, Gymnodium breva.


               Waterbody                    Classified as:     Changed to:     Acreage     Duration

               Longboat Key                 Cond Appr          Temp Closed       7,509     9/5/92 -1/16/93
               Longboat Key                 Cond Restr         Temp Closed       2,352     9/5/9,2 -1/16/93
               Lower Tampa Bay              Cond Appr          Temp Closed     15,440      9/9/92 -1/16/93
               Gasparilla                   Cond Appr          Temp Closed     30,044      9/10/92-1/16/93
               Lemon Bay                    Cond Appr          Temp Closed         458     9/10/92-1/16/93
               Pine Island                  Approved           Temp Closed     16,197      9/10/92-1/16/93
               Boca Ciega                   Approved           Temp Closed     14,746      9/16/92-1/16/93


               Category IV. Closures due    to oil spill in Tampa   Bay during  August 1993.

         110
               Waterbody                    Classified as:         Changed to:       Acreage     Duration

               Lower Tampa Bay (1)          Cond Appr              Temp Closed       15,440      8/11/93- 9/23/93
               Boca Ciega Bay (2)           Approved               Temp Closed       14,746      8/11/93-11/30/93
               Sarasota Bay (3)             Cond Appr              Temp Closed         7,509     8/11/93- 8/26/93

               (1) oil never reached beds; they were closed as a precautionary measure.
               (2) Positive test for PAHs; beds not- reopened till tests came back as undetected.
               (3) oil never reached beds; they were closed as a precautionary measure.


               Definitions:
               Cond Restr =.Conditionally Restricted
               Cond Appr    =                 APproved
               Temp Closed = Temporarily Closed





                                               owl owl                                             40 0










              An additional 76,885 acres located on the Gulf coast were
              reclassified to temporarily closed from September 1992 to
              January 1993, because of a red tide bloom.

              A total of 80,209 acres were temporarily closed to
              harvesting October 12, 1991, because of staffing
              limitations, and remain closed. These areas include: Santa
              Rosa Sound in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, Alligator
              Harbor in Franklin County, Crystal River/Homosassa River in
              Citrus County, and Passage Key in Manatee County. Water
              quality, shellfish resources, and effort needed to manage
              them were the criteria used to select these areas for
              closure. These areas were under-used by commercial
              harvesters and sporadically used by recreational harvesters.
              Unlike DEP's temporary closures of short duration that are
              based on the introduction of contaminants into shellfish
              growing waters by rainfall, these closures are for an
              indefinite time period. In all cases, there are adjacent
              productive shellfish harvesting areas that will remain open.

              Sampling and survey activities to classify the following ten
              shellfish harvesting areas which are currently closed to
              commercial and recreational harvesting were discontinued:
              Blackwater River in Santa Rosa County, Phillips Inlet in Bay
              County, Crooked Island in Bay County, Cockroach Bay in
              Hillsborough County, Palma Sola Bay in Sarasota County,
              Lido/ Roberts Bay in Sarasota County, Estero Bay in Lee
              County, Rookery Bay in Collier County, and the Everglades in
              Monroe County. These actions were necessary because
              stringent sampling and survey standards for shellfish
              harvesting areas required by the National Shellfish
              Sanitation Program had not been consistently met under
              current levels of staffing and funding. Despite numerous
              hours of overtime and staff innovations, workload continued
              to exceed capabilities. The purpose of these standards and
              guidelines is to protect the shellfish consumer from
              shellfish-borne illnesses. Continued noncompliance is not
              in the best interest of Florida's shellfish industry and
              economy. The closures of areas that lack significant
              shellfish resources is part of DEP's action plan to bring
              the Florida Shellfish Program into compliance with the
              standards and guidelines of the National Shellfish
              Sanitation Program.

              A sanitary survey was performed on the Steinhatchee River in
              southern Taylor County in the winter of 1992-1993. The
              purpose of this survey was to evaluate a previously



                                        197








               unclassified waterbody to determine if it met water quality
               standards for shellfish harvesting. DEP action to perform
               this survey was generated by local citizens, interest in
               establishing leases for aquaculture. Activities to finalize
               the survey of the Steinhatchee River area have been
               discontinued indefinitely. This decision was made'because
               actual or potential pollution sources were documented along
               the shoreline, elevated fecal coliform levels were present
               in the inshore area, there was a lack of traditional
               commercial harvesting, and there was a lack of suitable
               bottom for aquaculture leases.

               The Body F shellfish harvesting area, located in the Indian
               River Lagoon, was reclassified May 6, 1992. The
               reclassification of this area yielded 6,381 acres of
               Conditionally Approved waters, 2,834 acres of Conditionally
               Restricted waters, and 3,056 acres of waters Prohibited for
               shellfish harvesting. Total acreage of classified waters
               for this area increased by 1,974 acres. Compared to the old
               classification, 3,603 acres of Conditionally Approved waters
               were lost, 2,834 acres of Conditionally Restricted waters
               were created, and Prohibited waters gained 2,742 acres.

               Bathing Area Closures/Advisories


               The regulation of programs related to the monitoring of
               public bathing areas is administered by the Department of
               Health and Rehabilitative Services. Authority is granted  to
               this agency through,Sections 381.006, 381.0011, and 514.021,
               F.S. Monitoring programs are implemented by each county's
               HRS public health unit and from January 1, 1992 through
               November 2, 1993, were performed in accordance with Section
               1OD-5.120, F.A.C. Under that rule, closure of a beach was
               advised when the average density of total coliforms exceeded
               1,000 MPN per 100 ml. only permitted beaches are monitored,
               Thus, large numbers of lakes and rivers used for swimming
               are left unmonitored or in the jurisdiction of municipal
               agencies. HRS does not permit or routinely monitor coastal
               beaches.


               Section 1OD-5.120 of the F.A.C. was repealed on November 2
               1993 and replaced with Section 1OD-5.145. The new rule
               requires an HRS permit for bathing areas in parks or other
               areas where there are plans to develop a public bathing
               area. As part of the permitting process bacteriological and
               sanitary surveys are performed. once a public bathing area
               is permitted, bacteriological samples must be collected



                                         198









              fortnightly and twice per year the bathing area must be
              inspected by the HRS county public health unit.
              Bacteriological standards that cannot be exceeded are:
              average as geometric mean of fecal coliform density of 200
              per 100 ml, or 400 per 100 ml in 100-. of the samples, or 800
              per 100 ml on one day, or monthly average total coliform
              count of 1,000 per 100 ml, or not exceed 1,000 per 100 ml in
              more than 2011 of monthly samples, or at any one time exceed
              2,400 per 100 ml. Beach closures or swimming advisories are
              issued when these standards are exceeded.


              Bathing areas closed and other waterbodies for which
              advisories were issued due to pollution events are listed in
              Table 46. In general, actions were taken on these
              waterbodies because of either direct contamination by
              rupture of sewer lines and overflow of sewage from lift
              stations or heavy rains and associated stormwater runoff.

              Stormwater and agricultural runoff from heavy rain storms in
              South and Central Florida during late June and early July of
              1992 caused many of the closures of bathing areas and public
              waterbodies. Runoff from pasture was the suspected cause of
              high coliform counts in Arbuckle Creek and portions of Lake
              I8tokpoga. Extensive flooding in the Sarasota Bay area
              literally submerged sewage treatment plants and led to the
              overflow of sewage in all stages of digestion into the bay.
              Records for this estuary do not indicate any closures of
              beaches as a direct result of the sewage spill.

              Southeast Florida has had persistent problems with releases
              of raw sewage into the State's coastal waters. The closures
              of beaches listed for Dade County, along the Atlantic Ocean
              and Biscayne Bay, resulted from sewer line breaks. A second
              problem area is the Miami River. Though not identified as a
              swimmable waterbody, the river's acute and chronic coliform
              bacterial contamination is a public health threat. The
              acute contamination is the result of direct discharges of
              large volumes of raw sewage. These discharges occur when
              the capacity of pump stations is exceeded, either because of
              mechanical failure or inflow of large quantities of
              stormwater runoff or ground water into the sewer system.
              During these events, concentrations of coliform bacteria
              hundreds of times higher than State criteria are found in
              the Miami River and adjoining portions of Biscayne Bay.
              Chronic contamination of the Miami River results in coliform
              bacteria levels ten times higher than allowed by State
              criteria. The sources of this contamination are illegal



                                         199












                      Tabl    e 46. Waterbodies Affected by Bathing Area Closures and Health Advisories.



                      County         Waterbody                                  Hydrologic    Waterbody     Size             Cause of                            Source  0f                      Comment
                                     Name                                       Unit Code     Type          Affected         Closure                             Pollutant                       Number


                      Broward        Quiet waters-Deerfield Beach               03090202      lake          1-2 acres        high total coliforms                wildlife                            I

                      Collier        Naples Bay                                 03090204      marine                         high  total  coliforms              houseboats, septic tanks

                      Dade           Tropical Park                              03090202      lake
                                     Amelia Ehrhart                             03090202      lake
                                     Thompson Tate Park                         03090202      lake
                                     Oleta river                                03090202      river         1 acre           high  fecal  coliforms              sewer line broke                    2
                                     Miami River                                03090202      river                                                                                                  3
                                     Biscayne Bay-Rickenbacker                  03090202      marine        -4 miles         high  total  coliforms              sewer line   broke                  3
                                       Cswy to Cape Florida
                                     Atlantic ocean - Cape Florida              03090202      marine        -17 miles        high  total  coliforms              sewer line   broke
                                       to Sunny Isles
                                     Biscayne Bay/Atlantic Ocean,               03090202      marine        -4 miles         high  total  coliforms              sewer line   broke                  4
                                       area of Crandon Park, Key
                                       Biscayne north to 10th Street
                                     Atlantic Ocean-Collins Avenue              03090202      marine                         high  total  coliforms              sewer line   broke                  5
                                       at 167th Street, Haulover Beach

                      Lee            Lake Park                                  03090205      lake          200 feet         high  total  coliforms              stormwater   runoff

                      Okaloosa       Lyons Park                                 03140102                    .300 feet        high  total  coliforms              stormwater   runoff
                 0                   Lincoln Park                               03140102                    0.5 mile         high  total  coliforms              stormwater   runoff
                 0
                      Okeechobee     Taylor Creek                               03090102      stream                         high  total  coliforms              settling pond overflowed            6

                      Osceola        East Lake Tohopekaligia                    03090101      lake          300 feet         high  total  coliforms              stormwater runoff                   7
                                     West Lake Tohopekaligia                    03090101      lake                                                               gas spill nearby                    8
                                     Brown Lake                                 03090101      lake          100 feet         high  total  coliforms              runoff

                      Polk           Lake Arianna                               03100101      lake                           high  total  coliforms

                      Seminole       Lake Mills                                 03080101      lake          250 feet         high  fecal  coliforms              probably stormwater runoff          9
                                     Lake Redbug                                03080101      lake          20 feet          high  fecal  coliforms              probably stormwater runoff          9
                                     Lake Sylvan                                03080101      lake          60 feet          high  fecal  coliforms              probably stormwater runoff          9

                      Santa Rosa     Pond Creek                                 03080101      stream        -2 miles         high  fecal  coliforms              sewage spill                        10

                      Orange         Clear Lake                                 03090101      lake                           high  total  coliforms

                      Highlands      Arbuckle Creek                             03090101      stream        -15 miles        high  total  coliforms              heavy rains and
                                                                                                                                                                   flooding of pasture
                                     Lake Istokopoga                            03090101      lake          500-800yard      high  -total coliforms              heavy rains and
                                                                                                                                                                   flooding of pasture
                                     Dinner Lake                                03090101      lake                           high  total  coliforms              lift station closed;
                                                                                                                                                                   overflow of sewage
                      St. Lucie      Moore's Creek/Indian                       03080203      estuary                        high  total  coliforms              sewage overflow
                                       River Lagoon



                                             WE, 00 an                                                   an so No d"                                                  on





                   Table 46. (Continued).



                   County        Waterbody                             Hydrologic   Waterbody    Size           Cause of                       Source of                     Comment
                                 Name                                  Unit Code    Type         Affected       Closure                        Pollutant                     Number


                   Palm Beach    Thompson River/ Earman River          03090202     river        1/4 mile       high total coliforms           sewer line broke                11

                   Bay           Martin Lake                           03140101     estuary                     occasional high coliforms      periodic problem with           12
                                                                                                                                                 nearby lift station
                   Citrus        Hunter Springs                        03100207     spring                      high fecal coliforms           unknown

                   Okaloosa      canal off Rocky Bayou                 03140102     estuary                     high total coliforms           unknown

                   Pasco         Lake Como Beach/Moss                  03100206     lake                        high total coliforms           unknown
                                 Hudson Beach                          03100207     marine                      high total coliforms           unknown
                                 East Lake Beach                       03100205     lake                        high total coliforms           unknown
                                 Florida Campland Pond                 03100208     lake                        high total coliforms           unknown
                                 Camp Indian Echo                      03100207     spring/lake                 high total coliforms           unknown
                                 Lake Padgett Beach                    03100205     lake                        high total coliforms           unknown
                                 Oelsner Beach                         03100205     marine                      high total coliforms           unknown
                                 Brasher Park Beach                    03100207     marine                      high total coliforms           unknown
                                 Green Key Beach                       03100207     marine                      high total coliforms           unknown
                                 Crystal Spring Recreation Area        03100205     spring                      high total coliforms           unknown
             [%j                 Moon Lake Beach                       03100207     lake                        high total coliforms           unknown
             0
                   Pinellas      Ft. Desoto Park                       03100206     marine       14 miles       oil spill                      tanker collision                13
                                 Coastal beaches  from Redington       03100207/    marine         of           oil spill                      tanker collision                13
                                   Shores to Passe-a-Grille Beach      03100206                  coast
                                 Egmont Key                            03100206     marine                      oil spill                      tanker collision                13


                   comments:

                   1.  No formal closure, but posted with cautionary signs since 1970s.
                   2.  Closed  10/18 - 10/25/1993, sewer line break in N. Miami.
                   3,  Closed  late November 1992; heavy rains caused many sewer overflows.
                   4.  Closed  one week in April 1993.
                   5.  Closed  during December 1992.
                   6.  Closed  six weeks, May-August 1993.
                   7.  Closed  when rainfall exceeds 2-3 inches.
                   S.  Precautionary closure, about 2-3 days in 1992.
                   9.  Every year during August coliform counts are high.
                   10. Failure of lift station, closed from US. 90 to Blackwater Bay.
                   11. Ruptured sewer pipeline.
                   12. Posted as no swimming area because of periodic break local lift station and sewage overflow to lake.
                   13. Only formal beach closures because of oil spill at Ft. Desoto Park and Madeira Beach. Fourteen miles of Gulf and Bay beaches affected.









               sewer connections to the stormwater system and broken or
               leaking sewer pipes. Dade County is under Enforcement
               Actions from both DEP and EPA because of the above listed
               problems.

               There are serious problems with old corroded and damaged or
               simply inadequate sewer lines throughout the City of Miami
               and Dade County. One very important stretch of pipeline
               that crosses Biscayne Bay to the treatment plant on 'Virginia
               Key is severely corroded. A rupture from this pipeline
               would severely impact Biscayne Bay. To address that
               problem, Miami is building a pipeline under the bay.

               The Miami Dade Sewer Authority has contracted with the Dade
               County Public Health unit to collect total and fecal
               coliform samples from Biscayne Bay. Stations are located
               along the pipeline and sampling is performed during both dry
               and wet season conditions. The purpose of this sampling is
               to establish the background levels of coliforms in Biscayne
               Bay.

               Dade County Department of Environmental Resources   Management
               has projects in place to televise both stormwater  and sewer
               lines to find illegal connections and breaks. Broken and
               damaged pipes are repaired. when an illegal connection is
               found, enforcement action is taken to have it corrected.

               An oil spill in Tampa Bay during August 1993 impacted many
               bathing beaches in that area. Approximately 14 miles of
               coastline in Pinellas County were affected.   This included
               the Intracoastal Waterway and Gulf of Mexico  from Redington
               Shores to Egmont Key in Lower Tampa Bay. Official closures
               were not always issued so much as heavy equipment and oil on
               the beach prevented public usage of those areas or boat
               ramps were closed to prevent access to impacted areas. Only
               two areas were formally closed: Ft. Desoto County Park and
               the City of Madeira Beach public beaches.

               Surface Drinking Water Supply Closures


               Fourteen counties in Florida obtain their drinking water
               from surface water supplies. This amounts to not more than
               13% of Florida's population. There were no closures of
               surface drinking water supplies during the current reporting
               cycle.






                                         202.










              Tissue Contamination


              This section provides an overview of fish and shellfish
              tissue toxicant work being performed in Florida. Mercury
              contamination in fish tissue has been the central issue for
              the past few years. That problem is discussed in detail in
              the Section on Fishing Advisories and Bans Currently in
              Effect.


              Several programs have either been initiated or proposed by
              the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for surveying estuarine
              areas in the Panhandle. A dioxin bioaccumulation study of
              marine fish in St. Andrew Bay has been completed.
              Detectable levels of dioxin were found in fish tissue,
              though results are still preliminary and need verification.
              A second bioaccumulation study of marine fish has begun in
              Perdido Bay. A five year study of St. Joe Bay was
              concluded, which examined at sediments for pH, heavy metals,
              and organic contaminants.

              The SJRWMD has been involved in a fish tissue and sediment
              study of the lower St. Johns River (Jacksonville to Palatka)
              and several of its tributaries. The program was initiated
              and coordinated as part of the District's SWIM work.
              Waterbodies were selected based on previous studies that
              indicated there were detectable levels of priority
              pollutants in their sediments and water columns. These
              waterbodies included the Arlington River, Ribault River,
              Moncrief River, Cedar River, Ortega River, Rice Creek,
              Goodbys Creek, and the St. Johns River at Naval Air Station
              Jacksonville. Fish collected from Rice Creek contained
              tissue concentrations of dioxin as high as 46.1 parts per
              trillion. Data indicate higher than expected levels of
              mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxin in
              fish collected from Rice Creek. Cedar River appears to have
              detectable levels of mercury and PCBs in tissue of its fish
              population. Both PCBs and dioxin have the effect of
              suppressing a fish's immune system.

              A disturbing sequence of events has been documented for the
              American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) population
              of Lake Apopka. While other populations in Florida have
              rebounded, numbers of juvenile alligators in Lake Apopka
              have declined. The population has experienced a general
              decline in reproductive success. This trend was first noted
              in the early 1980s. Joint studies conducted by the GFWFC
              and the University of Florida have revealed a reduction in



                                        203









               the viability of eggs and increased incidence of deformed
               embryos. Concentrations of DDT and its metabolites were
               measured in eggs. The mean DDE level was 3.5 ppm with a
               range of 0.89 to 29 ppm (Woodward et al., 1993). This was
               higher than found for neighboring Lake Griffin, but -a
               correlation could not be found between concentration of
               pesticide in eggs and egg viability.

               There are several historical events that may have led to the
               present decline in alligator populations. Lake Apopka is
               surrounded by vegetable farms and citrus groves.
               Agricultural activities have introduced pesticides into the
               lake since the 1940s, either by direct discharge or seepage
               into ground water. Common pesticides used were toxaphene,
               parathion, and chlorobenzilate. A chemical plant was also
               located near Lake Apopka. A documented spill of Kelthane
               occurred at the plant in 1980. Kelthane is composed largely
               of dicofol, which is DDT with a side chain chemical
               substitution to make it less harmful. The plant was closed
               in 1981 when EPA began investigating its operation. There
               is speculation that the spill may have caused the recent
               loss of reproductive success of alligators, but further
               study is needed.


               Since 1986 NOAA's National Status and Trends Mussel Watch
               Program has collected samples from 34 sites in Florida's
               coastal and estuarine areas. Sites are listed in Table 47.


               Oysters (Crassostrea virginica) are collected and tested for
               DDT and its metabolites, aldrin, dieldrin, lindane, mirex,
               cblordane (and its isomers), hexachlorobenzene, PAHs, PCBs,
               total butyl tins, and trace metals. Some general trends
               observed for Florida waters are listed in Table 48.


               The Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental
               Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) has been sampling
               estuaries within the Louisianian Province since 1991. The
               Louisianian Province extends along the Gulf of Mexico from
               Rio Grande, Texas to Anclote Anchorage, Florida. Within
               Florida, for 1992, including replicate sampling sites, 20
               different sites representing 14 estuarine and coastal areas
               were sampled. Table 49 lists the waterbodies sampled.








                                         204










               Table 47. Station Names and Locations of NOAA Mussel Watch
               Program Sampling Sites.



               Site ID  Estuary Name           Si te Name


               SJCB     St. Johns River        Chicopit Bay
               MRCB     Matanzas River         Crescent Beach
               IRSR     Indian River           Sebastian River
               NMML     North Miami            Maule Lake
               BBGC     Biscayne Bay           Goulds Canal
               BBPC     Biscayne Bay           Princeton Canal
               BHKF     Bahia Honda            Key Florida
               EVFU     Everglades             Faka Union Bay
               RBHC     Rookery Bay            Henderson Creek
               NBNB     Naples Bay             Naples Bay
               CBFM     Charlotte  Harbor      Fort Meyers
               CBBI     Charlotte  Harbor      Bird Island
               TBCB     Tampa  Bay             Cockroach Bay
               TBHB     Tampa  Bay             Hillsborough Bay
               TBKA     Tampa  Bay             Peter 0. Knight Airport
               TIBOT    Tampa  Bay             Old Tampa Bay
               TBPB     Tampa  Bay             Papys Bayou
               TBMK     Tampa  Bay             Mullet Key Bayou
               TBNP     Tampa  Bay             Navarez Park
               CKBP     Cedar  Key             Black Point
               SRWP     Suwannee River         West Pass
               AESP     Apalachee Bay          Spring Creek
               APCP     Apalachicola Bay       Cat Point Bar
               APDB     Apalachicola Bay       Dry Bar
               SAWB     St. Andrews Bay        Watson Bayou
               PCMP     Panama City            Municipal Pier
               PCLO     Panama City            Little Oyster Bar
               CBSR     Choctawhatchee  Bay    Off Santa Rosa
               CBPP     Choctawhatchee  Bay    Postil Point
               CBBB     Choctawhatchee  Bay    Boggy Bayou
               CBJB     Choctawhatchee  Bay    Joes Bayou
               PBSP     Pensacola Bay          Sabine Point
               PBIB     Pensacola Bay          Indian Bayou
               PBPH     Pensacola Bay          Public Harbor








                                          205








               Table 48. General Trends of Oyster Tissue Contaminants' for
               Florida's Estuarine Waters Detected by NOAA's Mussel Watch
               Program from 1986-1990.




               Site ID   Site Name              Trend          Contaminant



               CBBI      Charlotte Harbor       decrease       arsenic
               MRCB      Crescent Beach         decrease       PCB
               CBSR      Choctawhatchee Bay     increase       chromium
               CBPP      Choctawhatchee  Bay    increase       cadmium
               SJCB      Chicopit Bay           increase       copper
               PBIB      Indian Bayou           decrease       copper
               TBCB      Cockroach Bay          increase       lead
               EVFU      Faka Union Bay         increase       lead
               RBHC      Henderson Creek        decrease       nickel
               CKBP      Cedar Key              increase       silver
               NBNB      Naples Bay             decrease       chlordane
               SAWB      Watson Bayou           decrease       chlordane
               MRCB      Crescent Beach         decrease       PCB
               EVFU      Faka Union Bay         increase       PCB
               SAWB      Watson Bayou           decrease       PCB
               TBPB      Tampa Bay              decrease       PCB
               EVFU      Faka Union Bay         increase       DDT
               PBIB      Indian Bayou           decrease       PAH



               1. chlordane=sum of cis-chlordane, trans-nonachlor
                     heptachlor, and heptadhlorepoxide.
               2. PCB=sum of concentration of 18 individual PCBS.
               3. DDT=sum of DDT and metabolites DDE and DDD;
               4. PAH=sum of concentrations of 18 PAH compounds.

               Data obtained from: O'Connor, T. August 1992. Mussel Watch
                 Recent Trends in Coastal Environmental Quality.














                                           206









              Table 49. Location of EMAP Sampling Stations.




              Estuary              HUC Code Estuary               HUC Code


              Apalachee Bay        03120001  Waccasassa River     03110101
              St. Andrew Bay       03140101  Withlacoochee Bay    03100208
              Choctawhatchee  Bay  03140102  Carrabelle River     03130013
              Pensacola Bay        03140105  Bayou St. John       03140107
              Apalachicola Bay     03110014  Indian Bay           03100207
              Lake Wimico          03130011  St. George Sound     03130014
              St. Andrew Sound     03140101  Withlacoochee River  03100208




              EMAP Program objectives are to determine the ecological
              condition of estuarine resources within a single
              biogeographic area. Three different indicators of
              ecological integrity were used at each site sampled. These
              included estuarine biotic integrity, condition of the
              resource as perceived by the public, and pollutant exposure
              or environmental condition under which biota live.


              Biotic integrity was assessed by two indicators. The first
              measured condition of benthic organisms. The second
              measured condition of fish. Both indicators incorporate
              measures of abundance. In addition, the benthic indicator
              includes pollutant sensitivity as measured by presence of
              indicator species and the indicator of fish condition
              utilizes fish pathology.

              The public's perception of condition of the resource was
              assessed by surveying incidences of marine debris, clarity
              of water, and level of contaminants in edible portions of
              fish and shellfish tissue. Species utilized for contaminant
              studies were Atlantic croaker, brown and white shrimp, and
              three species of catfish: gafftopsail, hardhead, and blue
              catfish. General contaminant classes measured were heavy
              metals, PCBs, and pesticides.

              Pollutant exposure was measured by dissolved oxygen
              concentrations, sediment toxicity, and level of contaminants
              in sediment. General classes of sediment contaminants were
              heavy metals, alkanes and isoprenoids, PAHS, pesticides, and
              PCBS.




                                         207









               A summary of results for tissue and sediment contaminants
               follows. For fish and shellfish tissue, the pesticides
               measured above detection limit were mirex and DDT and its
               metabolites. For heavy metals, zinc, tin, cadmium, arsenic,
               silver, selenium, mercury, copper, and chromium were
               detected in most samples. PCBs were also present in most
               samples. Common PCB cogeners found were PCB 1-70, 180, 195,
               206, and 209.

               For sediment samples, PAHs and PCBS were detected in many of,
               the samples. Common PAHs were fluorenes, napthalenes, and
               phenanthrenes. The more abundant PCB cogeners found were
               PCB 28, 52, 110/77, 138, and 8.

               Several other contaminants were present in concentrations
               and abundances at the relatively high end of their
               distribution for the entire province. Tributlytin was
               present in 15% of the estuarine area at concentrations
               greater than 5 ppb. Total alkane concentrations greater
               than 7,000 ppb were found in 16'1 of the estuarine area
               sampled.






























                                         208











              PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT


              overview


              Sources of high quality potable water underlie virtually all
              of Florida. In some areas of the State, only one aquifer
              exists, whereas in other areas two or more aquifers are
              present.. The Floridan aquifer, which extends beneath the
              entire State, is Florida's the most important source of
              potable ground water. Much of its water, especially the
              upper portions, is of high quality (containing less than 500
              mg/1 total dissolved solids [TDSI). Another important
              aquifer is the "Sole Source" designated Biscayne Aquifer.
              This surficial aquifer provides generally high quality
              drinking water to three million Floridians in the
              southeastern region of the State.

              Ground water is one of Florida's most valuable natural
              resources. Large quantities of water are obtainable from
              each of the principal aquifers in most areas of Florida.
              The state also contains 27 of the 78 first-magnitude springs
              in the United States. Because of its abundance and
              availability, ground water is the principal source of fresh
              water for public supply, rural domestic, industrial,
              commercial, and irrigation use. Approximately one-half of
              the nearly 6,300 million gallons per day of fresh water used
              in Florida for all purposes comes from ground water sources,
              and over 8711 of Florida's population depends on ground water
              for its drinking water. Florida has over 7,265 public water
              systems. Nationally, Florida ranks sixth among states in
              total fresh ground water withdrawals for all uses, second
              for public supply, first for rural domestic and
              industrial/commercial uses, and seventh for irrigation
              withdrawals. In addition to its direct use, ground water is
              the source of water for spring discharges and the base flow
              of streams; ground water flow also maintains the water level
              in most of Florida's lakes (USGS summary).

              The hydrogeological make-up of Florida's aquifers and their
              water quality is described in the report Florida Ground
              Water Strategy submitted to EPA in January 1989. Below is a
              summary of the characteristics of the principal aquifers.
              The Floridan aquifer occurs throughout Florida in potable as
              well as nonpotable quality. The yield, geographic extent,
              and the population dependence of this aquifer renders it the
              most significant water resource in the State. The Floridan,




                                        209









               which is largely a limestone and dolomite aquifer, is found
               under both confined and unconfined conditions.


               The second most significant aquifer is the unconfined
               Biscayne which is largely limestone with some sandstone and
               sand formations. The Biscayne is the sole source aquifer
               for most of southeastern Florida including the populous
               counties of Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach.

               The Sand and Gravel Aquifer is a surficial aquifer which
               supplies the extreme northwestern counties of Escambia,
               Santa Rosa and much of Okaloosa with their drinking and
               other water needs. With the exception of locally deep and
               confined areas, this aquifer is largely surficial and
               unconfined.


               Unnamed, surficial, and unconfined aquifers underlie areas
               in southwest Florida and the eastern coastal areas of the
               State. These aquifers are largely sand, shell, and clayey
               sand, and can be locally significant as a drinking water
               source.


               Intermediate aquifers are confined limestone and shell beds
               with discontinuous clay layers and some interbedded sand.
               These aquifers, also referred to as secondary artesian, are
               an important source of public water supply in Sarasota and
               Lee Counties.


               Ground Water Quality

               The rapid growth in population and development that Florida
               continues to experience will increase both the demand for
               ground water resources and the number of potential sources
               of contamination. Due to Florida's unique hydrogeology,
               which allows swift movement of surface contaminants into
               aquifers, increased withdrawal of ground water will
               inevitably cause degradation of the resource unless
               preventive measures are taken.

               Some significant contamination events already have occurred.
               Ground water contamination with aldicarb, alachlor,
               bromacil, simazine, and the current-large-scale
               contamination with ethylene dibromide (EDB) and nitrates,
               all from agricultural activities, are but the obvious
               manifestations of the problems facing the resource. Of
               particular concern are ground water contamination events
               resulting from agricultural chemical use on road right-of-



                                         210









             ways and other highly permeable sandy soils in recharge
             areas, and contamination of surficial and Floridan aquifer
             resources used for drinking water supply. Contamination in
             highly populated areas served by single source aquifers such
             as the Biscayne is also a concern. Numerous point and
             nonpoint sources of pollution currently threaten Florida's
             ground water resources. The most important sources of
             contaminants are summarized below and are listed in Table
             50. Substances produced by these sources which contaminate
             ground water are listed in Table 51.

             An estimated 80,000 underground storage tanks containing
             industrial products (mostly gasoline) exist in Florida.
             Many of these steel tanks are periodically immersed in
             ground water and are expected to leak within the next twenty
             years. As many as 9,000 tanks are estimated to be leaking
             now. Several hundred leaking tanks have already been found
             and cleaned up. A State-wide tanks program requires the
             replacement of all metallic tanks with non-metallic ones or
             specially coated metallic ones. However, even aggressive
             cleanup does not capture all contaminants which have found
             their way into the ground water over the years of leaking.

             Florida's agriculture industry, transportation agencies, and
             the private sector apply large quantities of fertilizers,
             pesticides, and other agricultural chemicals to the land.
             Contamination of ground water by such chemicals is a problem
             when these compounds are used in geologically vulnerable
             areas. Pesticides may contaminate ground water as a result
             of normal application, improper storage and handling
             practices, and disposal activities. Ground water
             contamination from most pesticides is usually localized, but
             may occur on a regional scale. For example, the pesticide
             EDB has caused widespread ground water contamination in
             Florida. Infiltration of stormwater run-off from utilities
             and recreational areas and lawn care chemicals (pesticides
             and fertilizers) into ground water is also a threat to the
             Florida's water resources. Other agricultural activities,
             especially those associated with animal wastes (dairies,
             chicken farms, and swine feeding operations), may
             contaminate ground water with nitrates.

             Hazardous wastes are a major threat to Florida's waters, and
             while Florida is not thought of as an industrialized state,
             it generates a large amount of hazardous waste. Overall,
             including small generators and large generators of waste,
             such as electrical power plants and other major industries,



                                       211









                    Table 50. Major Sources of Ground Water Contamination.



                    Source                                   Priority       Factors




                    Animal Feedlots                              4          1,2,3,6,7
                    Deep Injection Wells                         5          5
                    Fertilizer Applications                      1          1,2,3,6,7
                    Irrigation practices (return flow)           5          1,2,3,4,6,-,?
                    Land Application                             5          1,2,3,6,7
                    Landfills (permitted)                        5          1,2,3,6,7
                    Landfills (unpermitted)                      4          1,2,3,6,7
                    Mining and Mine Drainage                     8          8 (Large areas)
                    Pesticide Applications                       3          1,2,3,4,6,7,8
                                                                            (Large areas)
                    Pipelines and sewer lines                    8          8 (Large areas)
                    Salt-water Intrusion                         5          3,8 (Large areas)
                    Septic Tanks                                 9          1,2,3,4,6,7
                    Storage Tanks (below  ground)                2          1,2,3,6,7
                    Surface Impoundments                         6          1,2,3,6
                    Urban Runoff                                 7          1,2,3,6
                    Waste Tailings                               8          2,4,5,6,7
                    Waste Piles                                  8          2,4,5,6,7




                    Factors for Establishing Relative Priority


                    1. Number of sources.
                    2.  Location of sources relative to ground water used as drinking water.
                    3.  Size of the population at risk from contaminated drinking water.
                    4.  Risk posed to human health and/or the environment from released
                          substances.
                    5.  High to very high priority in localized areas of State, but not over
                          majority of State.
                    6.  Hydrogeologic sensitivity.
                    7.  Findings of the State's ground water protection strategy or other
                          reports.
                    8.  Other criteria.























                                                     212









                 Table 51.    Ground Water Contaminants.




                 Category                             Priority       Factors


                 Organic Contaminants
                 Pesticides                             1            1,2,3,4,5,6,7
                 Other Agricultural Chemicals           1            2,3,4,5,6,7
                 Petroleum Compounds                    2            1 , 3,4,5,6,7
                 Other Organic Chemicals:               3            1,3,4,5,6,7
                   volatile                             2            1,3,4,5,6,7
                   Semi-volatile                         .2          1,3,4,5,6,7


                 Microbial Contaminants
                   Bacteria                             4            2,3,5

                 Inorganic Contaminants
                 Pesticides                             1            1,2,3,4,5,6,7
                 Other Agricultural Chemicals           1            2,3,4,5,6,7
                 Nitrate                                1            1,2,3,4,5,6,7
                 Brine/Salinity                         4            1,2,3,7
                 Metals                                 5            2,3,5
                 Radionuclides                          5            2,4,5




                 Factors for Establishing Relative Priority

                 1.  Number of sources.
                 2.  Location of sources relative to ground water used as drinking water.
                 3.  Size of the population at risk from contaminated drinking water.
                 4.  Risk posed to human health and/or the environment from released
                       substances.
                 5.  High to very high priority in localized areas of State, but not over
                       majority of State.
                 6.  Hydrogeologic sensitivity.
                 7.  Findings of the State's ground water protection strategy or other
                       reports.
                 8.  Other criteria.
























                                                 213








                more than 3 million tons of hazardous wastes are genE=ted
                in Florida every year. (See Chapter Seven of the Surface
                Water Assessment for more information on hazardous.waste
                sites).


                The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
                estimates that 60,000 septic tanks and other on-site sewage
                treatment systems are permitted each year. Septic tanks
               ,often are linked with water quality problems. Tanks
                frequently have been installed or maintained improperly, or
                they have been used in areas where dense development with
                individual treatment systems has overloaded the ability of
                the soil to treat the wastes before they reach ground water.

                There are 106 active landfills in Florida that receive
                household and other degradable wastes, and another 50 that
                receive only trash and yard trash. There are more than 500
                inactive landfill sites. Only 66 of the active landfills
                are lined. of the active and inactive sites, 309 have
                monitoring wells to detect possible ground water pollution.
                Ground water contamination is known or suspected at '76
                sites.


                Water quality can be significantly degraded by mining.    Of
                the materials mined in Florida, phosphate is by far the   most
                important. Waste clays from phosphate mining are near
                colloidal in size and can remain suspended in water for   many
                years, tying up large quantities of water. Some 50,oOO    to
                60,000 acres (equivalent to about one-eighth the area of
                Lake Okeechobee) are now clay settling areas.. Gypsum,
                another waste product of phosphate mining and associated
                chemical manufacturing, is piled in large mounds, up to 170
                feet in height, and these cover over 4,000 acres of land.
                Radionuclides and other contaminants in the gypsum mounds
                pose potential threats to ground water as rain water and
                process water wash over the mounded gypsum and then soak
                into the ground. The threat from gypsum stacks is magnified
                by the fact that such stacks are generally located in mined
                out areas where the ground water has been exposed due to
                removal of the phosphatic material. Sand and rock mining
                have made significant   generally non-health related,   impacts
                on the quality of ground water in locaiized areas.

                Over 9,600 drainage wells which directly discharge.
                wastewater of lower quality than the receiving aquifer have
                been located, primarily in the central and southeastern
                parts of the Florida.



                                           214










             Ground Water Indicators


             Exceedances of Maximum Contaminant Levels as Ground Water
             Ouality Indicators


             The Safe Drinking Water Act and the Florida Safe Drinking
             Water Act provide Florida with the primary responsibility
             for a public water system program. Since most of Florida's
             drinking water comes from ground water sources, DEP's Bureau
             of Drinking Water and Ground Water Resources manages the
             State program which provides for the testing of public water
             supplies. The State has also adopted by rule additional
             standards for contaminants in community drinking water
             systems. The three categories of Public Water Systems under
             DEP authority are Community (2,205), Non-Transient/Non-
             Community (1,228), and Non-Community (3,831).

             Additionally, general supervision and control over-all
             private water systems and public water systems not covered
             or included in the Florida Safe Drinking Water Act are given
             by State Statute to the Department of Health and
             Rehabilitative Services. Compliance with the drinking water
             maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) provides a mechanism for
             evaluating the ground water quality as it relates to impacts
             on human health. Tables 52, 53, and 54 present DEP Drinking
             Water Program data for treated water for 1992.

             Table 55 lists the number of wellhead protection programs
             currently in place. About 90 such programs are
             administrated by local and county agencies and governments.


             Exceedances in Raw Ground Water


             Florida's Water Quality Assurance Act (Section 403.OG3,
             F.S.) required the establishment of a ground water quality
             monitoring network designed to detect or predict
             contamination of the State's ground water resources. The
             Department has worked cooperatively with federal and state
             agencies, including the five water management districts, to
             establish the network.













                                       215








                 table 52. Florida Community Public Water System Maximum
                 Contaminant Level (MCL) Exceedances for Selected Contaminant
                 Groups.




                                                 Number of           Number of
                 Contaminant                     Exceedances         Samples



                 METALS
                 Sodium                                11               1,126
                 mercury                                3               1,051
                 Lead                                   2               1,074
                 VOCS,                                  1               2,170
                 Vinyl Chloride

                 PESTICIDES
                 1,2-Dibr-omoethane (EIjB)              3               1,641


                 NITROGEN
                 Nitrate                                0               2,592








                 Table 53. Number of Ground Water Based or Partial Ground
                 Water Supplied Community Public Water Supplies (PWSs),with
                 Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) Exceedances.




                                         Number of               Number of
                                       Community PWSs          MCL Exceedances



                 Total PWSs                   2,181                  11
                 Population Served      13,144,400               40,588
                   (includes tourists)










                                              216









               Table 54. Number of Sampling Detections Between 50 and 100
               Percent of Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for Four
               Contaminant Groups.



               Contaminant Group           Contaminant           MCL Samples
                                                                   50-100%



               Metals:                     Sodium                   71
                                           Mercury                  32
                                           Lead                     16
                                           Cadmium                  14
                                           Chromium                 10
                                           Fluoride                  9
                                           Selenium                  6
                                           Barium                    2
                                           Arsenic                   1
                                           Silver                    1


               VOCS                        Trichloroethylene        29
                                           Tetrachloroethylene      12
                                           1,1-Dichloroethene        5
                                           Vinyl Chloride            4
                                           Benzene                   2


               Pesticide                   1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)   1


               Nitrate                     Nitrate as N             10







               Table 55. Number of Ground Water Based or Partial Ground Water
               Supplied Community Public Water Supplies (PWSs) that have Local
               Wellhead Protection Programs in Place.




               Number of Communities               Number of Wellhead
               with Ground Water                   Protection Programs
               Supplied PWSs


                     2,181                         County - 30
                                                   Municipal - 90






                                            217









               The three basic goals of the Ground Water Quality Monitoring
               Program in Florida are:

                    1. To establish the baseline water quality of major
                       aquifer systems in Florida.

                    2. To detect and predict changes in ground water
                       quality resulting from the effects of various land
                       use activities and potential sources of
                       contamination.


                    3. To disseminate  to local governments and the public,
                       water quality data generated by the network.

               DEP's Ground Water Network has three components: the
               Background Network (BKN), the Private Well Survey conducted
               by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative
               Services, and the Very Intense Study Area (VISA) Network.
               Sampling details of these programs are contained in Table 56
               and Figures 10, 11, and 12. The Background Network was
               designed to help define background water quality through a
               State-wide grid of wells that collectively tap all major
               aquifers (surficial, intermediate and Floridan). One-third
               of the wells are sampled annually with a complete rotation
               of wells every three years. All data go through a quality
               assurance check and analysis protocol. Some sampling of the
               Background Network began in 1985. The analysis included in
               this report covers 1877 wells sampled from 1985 to early
               1993. Approved data from the Background Network are
               available to the public an the Florida Ground Water Quality
               Monitoring Network Electronic Bulletin Board at 904/487-
               3592. Three publications also assist in achieving the goals
               of the program: Florida State of the Environment Ground
               Water Quality Monitoring Network, 1986, Florida Department
               of Environmental Regulation; Florida's Ground Water Quality
               Monitoring Program Hydrogeological Framework, 1991, Special
               Publication #32, Florida Geological Survey; and Florida's
               Ground Water Quality Monitoring Program Background
               Hydrogeochemistry, 1992, Special Publication #34, Florida
               Geological Survey.

               The results of Florida's Background Network samplings were
               queried for State-wide exceedances of State Primary and
               Secondary Drinking Water Standards and Florida's Ground
               Water Guidance Concentrations from 1985 to present (some of
               1993). The number of exceedances for four selected
               contaminant groups is found in Table 57.



                                          218



    IM1.6m an w9nift an IM401M M Now mommamm so


                Table 56. Ground Water Quality Monitoring Network Parameters.


                Parameter Group                                  Network                                      standard Method "2
                Parameter Name                  BacFg-roUn-d     VISA      HRS     Quarterly       Monthly

                 MAJOR IONS

                 Bicarbonate                        B              V                   Q                       406
                 Carbonate                          B              V                                           406
                                                    B              V       H           Q                       407A, 407B, or 407D
                 Chloride                           B              V                                           412B, 412C, or 412D
                 Cyanide                            B              V       H           Q                       413A, 413B, 413C, or 413E
                 Fluoride                           B              V       H           Q                       418C  or 418F
                 Nitrate                                           V       H           Q                       424F  or 424G
                 Phosphate                                                             Q                       426A  or 426C
                 Sulfate


                     METALS

                 Arsenic                            B              V       H                                   303E
                 Barium                             B              V       H                                   303C
                 Cadmium                            B              V       H                                   303A  or 303B
          tj     Calcium                            B              V       H           Q                       303A  or 311C
                 Chromium                           B              V       H                                   303A  or 303B
                                                    B              V       H                                   303A
                 Copper                                                                                        303A  or 315B
                 Iron                               B              V       H           Q
                 Lead                               B              V       H                                   303A  or 303B
                 Magnesium                          B              V       H           Q                       303A  or 319B
                 Manganese                          B              V       H           Q                       303A  or 319B
                 Mercury                            B              V       H                                   303F
                 Nickel                             B              V                                           303A  or 322B
                 Potassium                          B              V                   Q                       303A  or 322B
                 Selenium                           B              V                                           303E
                 Silver                             B              V       H                                   303A  or 303B
                 Sodium                             B              V       H           Q                       303A  or 325B
                 Strontium                                         V                                           303A  or 303B
                 Zinc                               B              V       H           Q


                 FIELD PARAMETERS

                 Conductivity                       B              V                                 M         205
                 pH                                 B              V                                 M         423
                                                                                                     M
                 Eh                                                                                  M
                 Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
                 Temperature                        B              V                   Q             M         212
                 Water levels                       B              V       H           Q             M
                 odor










                Table 56. (Continued). .



                Parameter Group                                 Network                                    Standard Method  1,2

                Parameter Name                 Background       VISA     HRS     Quarterly      Monthly

                    MICROBIOLOGICAL


                 Fecal Coliform                    B             V                                          908C or 909C
                 Total Coliform                    B             V                                          908A or   909A


                    ORGANICS AND PESTICIDES

                 Total Organic Carbon (TOC)        B             V                   Q                      505
                 volatile organic Carbon (VOC)     B                                                        EPA 601 and 602, or EPA 624
                 Aldicarb & related compounds                    V                                          EPA 531
                 Purgeable Halocarbons                           V                                          EPA 601
                 Purgeable Aromatics                             V       H                                  EPA 602
                 Pesticides                                      V                                          EPA Alt. 614
                 PCB's, Chlorinated Pesticides                   V       H                                  EPA Alt. 617
                 Pesticides                                      V                                          EPA Alt. 619
                 Organophosphate Pesticides                              H                                  EPA 622
                 Mixed Purgeables                                        H                                  EPA 624
                 Base/Neutral/Acid Extractables                  V       H                                  EPA 625
                 Carbamate Pesticides                            V       H                                  EPA 632
                 Pesticides                                      V                                          EPA 644
                 Herbicides                                              H
                 Fumigant Pesticides                             V       H

                    RADIOMETRICS


                 Gross Alpha                       B             V                                          703
                 Gross Beta                        B             V                                          703
                 Radon                             13*
                 Radium                            B *


                    OTHERS


                 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)      B             V                   Q                      209B
                 Ammonia                                         V
                 Silica                                          V

                    Methods are from: American Public Health Association.     1980.   Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
                       Wastewater, 15th edition; or Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. . !98!. Suppleriiei-at "A" to
                       Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual.
                 2  Other approved methods with the same or better minimum detection limits, accuracy and precision are also
                     acceptable.
                     A subset of approximately 100 Background Network wells is being sampled for radon and/or radium.



   man                                     M#=MM wft Wft Now Mw




                                         BACKGROUND NETWORK WELLS (BKN)

               Florida Department of Environmental Protection Ground Water Ouality Monitoring Proo-

                                           1919 wells sampled as of Januarg, 1993











        N)
                   surf icial                                              Floridan
                                             intermediate
                   aquif er
                                               aquif er                     aquif er
                   system
                                               system                      system
                 (538 wells)                 (205 wells)                  (1073 wells)




                    - N -               Claiborne (sub-Floridan) aquifer (3 wells)
                                             in Jackson & Holmes counties




              Figure 10. Locations of Ground Water Quality monitoring Program Background Network
              Wells (BKN).



















                                                                                                      WALTON        JACKSON



                                                                                                                                        LEON     MADIMN SUW      E

                                                                                                                                                                                       DWAL
                                                                                                        RAY                                                                           ALACHUA
                                                                                                           CALHOUN                                                                              N -



                                                                                                                                           GILCHRIST


                                                                                                                                                 LEVY
                                                                                                                                                   MARION


                                                                                     T                                                             HERNANDO                                         IREVARD




                                                  PRIVATE WELL SURVEY
                                                                                                                                                                                                        St. LUCIE

                                                                                                                                                        SARASOTA
                                           4, ("'ountles with sample data available                                                                       De SOTO                                           PALM NEACH
                                                              as of February, 1994

                                                                                                                                                                                                           RROWARD


                                                                                                                                                                     CO-LIER


                                                                                                                                                                                                          DADE

                                                                                SCALE

                                                         0            so           100          ISO   MILES


                                                         0            80          160          240    KILOMETERS



                                       Figure 11.               Locations           of Counties Surveyed for the Department                                                 of Health and
                                       Rehabilitative Services Private Well Survey.





                                                                                                                                go            in            go



     wwwom soon man MOB0440 1"M swmtmw


                                                                                                                                   A



                                                                                                                                                                                       9
                                                                                                                            3                                     6+

                            Verg Intense Studg Areas (VISAs)
                                                                                                                                                                                        10

                                                                                                                                                                                11
                              Ground Water Qualitg Monitoring Program

                                       VISA LOCATION              AOUTFER        PREDOMINANT LAND USE                                     GULF OF MEXICO                             12
                                                                                                                                                                                           18
                                      NORTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT:                                                                                                         +                    00
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 I"
                                      1) Pensacola            Sand & Gravel      Heavy Industrial                                                                         *16                        13
                                      2) Gulf Breeze          Sand & Gravel      Mixed Urban / Suburban                                                                               "A
                                      3) Panama City          Surficial          Mixed Urban / Industrial                                                             17
                                      4) NE Jackson County    Floridan           Cropland Agricultural                                                                                 15A
                                      5) South Tallahassee    Floridan           Light Industrial

                                      SUWANNEE RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT:

                                      6) Live Oak             Floridan           Mixed Urban / Industrial
                                      7) Lafayette County     Floridan           Agricultural / Dairies
                 LA)                  ALACHUA COUNTY:
                                                                                                                                                                                                            21
                                                                                                                                                                                                            A
                                      8) West Gainesville .   Floridan           Mixed Urban / Suburban                                                                                                    22+
                                      ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT:                                                                             N
                                      9) Talleyrand           Surficial          Heavy Industrial
                                      10) Putnam / Volusia    Floridan           Agricultural / Ferneries                                                                                                230
                                      11) Ocala               Floridan           Urban / Suburban
                                      12) North Lake Apopka   Surficial          Cropland Agricultural
                                      13) Palm Bay            Surficial          Single Family                                                     0   20 40 60      80 MILES
                                      SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT:                                                                                                                 r:
                                      14) E. Polk County      Surficial          Orchards / Citrus
                                      15) E, Polk County      Floridan           Orchards / Citrus
                                      16) Hillsborough Co.    Surf/Floridan      Single Family
                                      17) Pinellas County     Surficial          Light Industrial

                                      SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT     DISTRICT:
                                      18) S. Orange County    Surficial          Mixed Urban / Industrial                                             URBAN          SUBURBAN AREAS
                                      19) S. Lee County       Surficial          Single Family
                                      20) Martin County       Surficial          Orchards / Citrus                                                    INDUSTRIAL AREAS
                                      21) Palm Beach County   Surficial          Sludge / Citrus
                                      22) NE Broward County   Biscayne           Mixed Urban / Industrial                                        A AGRICULTURAL AREAS
                                      23) NE Dade County      Biscayne           Heavy Industrial                                                + MIXED LAND USES

                                      Figure 12. Locations                     and Descriptions of Ground Water Quality Monitoring Program
                                      Very Intense Study Areas (VISAs).










                Table 57 also includes the results from the HRS Private Well
                Survey. Counties surveyed for this program are shown in
                Figure 11. Again the results indicate good water quality.
                Exceedances at public supply wells were removed from these
                totals. Also, data with questionable values due to
                deviations from quality control protocol, equipment
                problems, or outlier protocol, have not been reported.
                Total sample numbers reported for HRS contain some
                replicates of the same parameter, but well duplicate sample
                data has been removed. The results generated by DEP's
                Background Network do include some wells that have been
                sampled more than once.

                HRS's Private Well Survey was undertaken from 1986   to 1991.
                The goal of the study was to analyze ground water quality
                from 50 private drinking water wells in each of Florida's 67
                counties. The purpose of the survey was to determine the
                quality of water typical of private wells serving families
                in Florida. The Department of Environmental Regulation
                a*ssisted with the survey and the data were supplemental to
                the Background Network. Sampling was completed in 23
                counties before funding ran out. Results indicate that the
                water supplied by private wells is generally very good. The
                most common problems are aesthetic (appearance factors which
                do not have health importance); significant threats to the
                health of individuals consuming their well water are few.
                Data from the one time sampling of 942 wells in 20 counties
                was queried for the prevalent exceedances to Primary and
                Secondary Drinking Water Standards and Florida's Ground
                Water Guidance Concentrations. These results were included
                with the'Background Network results in Table 57. Only three
                primary exceedances were above 1%.

                The VISA Network is designed to monitor the effects of
                various land uses on ground water quality within aquifers in
                selected areas. Twenty three areas believed to be highly
                susceptible to ground water contamination based on
                predominant land use and hydrogeology are being studied.
                The sampling is designed to monitor the effects of multiple
                sources of contamination on water quality within a segment
                of the aquifer. The land uses represented are urban,
                suburban, industrial, agricultural and mixed. Cumulative
                data from VISA wells will be compared to like parameters







                                           224









                Table 57. Florida Ground Water Quality Background Network
                (BKN) and Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
                (HRS) Private Well Survey Exceedances for Select Contaminant
                Groups.




                                                         Number of         Number of
                Contaminant                              EXceedances        Samples


                                                         BKN      HRS      BKN     HRS




                METALS
                Iron, total                              983       39      3,460   942
                Manganese, total                         396               3,052   942
                Lead, total                              409               3,098   942
                Sodium, total                            130       8       2,988   942
                Cadmium, total                             58              2,698   942
                Zinc, total                                23              2,911   942
                Mercury, total                             30              1,853   942


                VOCS
                Benzene                                    18              2,539   942
                Vinyl Chloride                              8              2,690   942
                Ethylbenzene                                3              2,083   942
                1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane                   3              2,233   942
                Tetrachloroethene                           2      2       3,164   942
                Styrene                                            3          120  942


                PESTICIDES
                1,@2-Dibromoethane (EDB)                           5       1,223   942
                Methoxychlor                                1                  23  942


                NITROGEN
                Nitrate, total as N                        24      8       2,246   942
                Nitrate + Nitrite, dissolved as N           9              2,164      0



















                                              225









                to like parameters in the Background Network repreSE!nting
                the same aquifer segment to determine the effects of land
                use and site hydrogeology upon ground water quality.,

                Since 1986, all of the VISAs have been sampled once and all
                but two sampled twice. The release data sets were queried
                for selected exceedances and the results are found.-Ln Table
                58. There are 461 wells in the VISA Network. The Florida
                Ground Water Quality Monitoring Program monitors the raw
                ground water resource not processed water delivered by
                drinking water facilities. Depending upon the aquifer
                characteristics, some of the "contaminants" or secondary
                drinking water standard exceedances noted in Tables 57 and
                58 are natural conditions in Florida. Iron and manganese
                fall into that category, also pH and turbidity which are not
                in the selected criteria. However, iron and manganese are
                applied in fertilizer. The lead levels in the Background
                Network may be artificially elevated because of the use of
                monitoring wells with water level recorders that use or have
                used lead weights. High sodium and corresponding chloride
                ions may indicate the presence of salt water from intruding
                sea water or connate sources. The benzene may be from
                gasoline sources since many monitoring wells are located
                near roads. It is significant to note the few volatile
                organic compounds (VOC) and pesticide exceedances for this
                seven years of ambient monitoring data. The Very Intense
                Survey Network has more pesticide findings since
                agricultural areas were selected for study. Sources of the
                contamination are not documented.


                The Agricultural Sources and Water Well Management Program
                at DEP delineates areas of ground water contamination in
                Florida. A search of the cumulative data base for this
                program resulted in the list of pesticide exceedances
                described in Table 59. The DER publication Pesticides and
                Ground Water Investigations, S. Dwinell and D.M. Tterlikkis,
                August 1992, lists the pesticides commonly used in (crop
                production in Florida as of 1991.

                Florida Drinking Water Standards were revised as of January
                1993 to include new trace metals detection levels and focus
                on pesticide contaminants. The parameters listed in Table
                60 are used as indicators of degradation in the quality of
                ground water. The presence of any listed parameter above
                the level of concern constitutes a well which demonstrates  a
                degradation of water quality.




                                          226









               Table 58. Florida Ground Water Quality Very Intense
               Study Area (VISA) Network Exceedances for Selected
               Contaminant Groups.




                                         Number of            Number of
               Contaminant               Exceedances          Samples



               METALS
               Iron, dissolved              183                    612
               Manganese, dissolved          60                    442
               Lead, total                   23                    167
               Aluminum, dissolved           24                    139
               Cadmium, total                 6                    168


               Vocs
               Vinyl Chloride                 3                    380
               1,1,1 Tetrachloroethane        2                    380


               PESTICIDES
               Dieldrin                       7                   1,228
               Endosulfan Sulfate             6                   1,028
               Beta BHC                       5                    871
               Alpha BHC                      5                   1,000
               Diuron                         2                    524


               NITROGEN
               Nitrate + Nitrite, dissolved      32                521
                 as N





               Table 59. Florida Agricultural Sources Exceedances
               for Selected Contaminant Groups.




               Pesticide                      Number of      Number of
               Contaminant                   Exceedances      Samples


               1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)          2,243          16,743
               Bromacil                            38          1,994
               Aldicarb                            19          2,004
               Simazine                             4          2,027
               1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane         11          6,788




                                             227









                 Table 60. Indicator Parameters of Ground Water Quality.




                 Parameter                                         Level of
                                                                   Concern



                 Fluoride                                             2 mg/l
                 Sulfate                                            250 mg/l
                 Chloride                                           250 mg/1
                 Nitrate                                             10 mg/1
                 Trihalomethane                                     0.1 mg/l

                 Pesticides-608, 614, 619 Approved Methods          * FGTAfGC

                 VOC-601, 602 Approved Methods not                  *FGWGC
                   including pesticides and trihalomethanes

                 Arsenic                                            0.50 Ag/1
                 Barium                                            2,000 Ag11
                 Cadmium                                              5 Ag11
                 Chromium                                           100 Agli
                 Copper                                            1,000 Agli
                 Manganese                                            50 Ag11
                 Mercury                                              2 Ag1l
                 Nickel                                             100 AgIl
                 Silver                                             100 AgIl
                 zinc                                              5,000 Ag1l


                 *FGWGC-FDER. February 1989. Florida Ground Water      Guidance
                   Concentrations. (updated by DEP in 1994)



                 The level of concern for each parameter was obtained from
                 the document Florida Ground Water Guidance Concentrations,
                 FDER, 1989.(updated in 1994). The listed concentrations are
                 not necessarily standards and without Environmental
                 Regulation Commission adoption cannot be used as standards.
                 They are solely used as a screening tool for the
                 interpretation of analytical results.

                 The guidance concentrations are based on health effects.
                 They were derived from published public health information.







                                             228









             The following documents, on a priority basis, were'used to
             develop numeric values:

                  1. Maximum Contaminant Levels proposed by EPA as
                     primary drinking water standards.

                  2. Health advisories issued by EPA Office of Drinking
                     Water.


                  3. Recommended Protective Concentrations for the
                     protection of human health identified in the
                     Toxicant Profile Series.


                  4. Concentrations identified from the EPA Ambient
                     Water Quality Criteria Document (AWQCD) and
                     Table 1 of the EPA draft Preliminary Protective
                     Concentration Limits (PPCLs) for ground water.


                  5. Where taste and odor threshold concentrations were
                     less than the above health based concentrations,
                     taste and odor threshold concentrations were used
                     as guidance.

                  6. Priority Pollutant List of 129 chemicals and the
                     Florida Primary and Secondary Drinking Water
                     Standards were the final documents used.


             Conclusi on


             Florida has a variety of programs aimed at protecting ground
             water quality. They need to be combined with other
             indicators that offer insight into the sources abrogating
             the good quality of ambient water in Florida. The first
             Strategic Assessment of Florida's Environment report was
             published in 1993 by the Department of Environmental
             Regulation. This report attempted to define indicators of
             environmental quality and establish an environmental
             baseline for the State of Florida. Water quality was one of
             the nine major categories included in the report. The
             indicators used combined data from the various ground water
             and surface water programs into 34 indicators which included
             VOCs, trace metals, trihalomethanes, nitrate, sulfate,
             fluoride, pesticides, chloride, and toxic chemicals. As a
             whole this report attempted to link resource protection with
             infrastructure and investment while laterally comparing
             water, air, and biological quality and quantity. Federal




                                        229









               and State management programs also need this kind of access
               to a broader perspective of indicators.

               Florida's ground water programs are strong because they are
               legislatively mandated with dedicated funds. Florida has
               also developed a strong quality control/quality assurance
               program requiring laboratory and sampling protocols. Access
               to data from inside and outside of government is keeping
               pace with the use of electronic media and publications.

               Intergovernmental exchange is the area needing improvement.
               Examples are the exchange of contaminant site maps and
               restoration data, the completion of mapping of vulnerability
               areas, and more access to federal data analysis and storage.
               The new age of environmental management supported by new
               mapping and data exchange tools allows for a spatial
               approach to environmental quality instead of a programmatic
               approach.

               Future direction of ground water protection efforts in
               Florida will include the development and implementation of a
               Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program.
               Elements of this program, which is highly advocated and
               encouraged by EPA, include the following:

                    1. State-wide Well Head Protection Program.

                    2. High Recharge Area Protection Program.

                    3. Delineation of watersheds inclusive of grourld water
                       and surface water with emphasis directed at
                       defining the dynamics of interaction of the two
                       media for maximum protection.

                    4. Closer coordination between water resource related
                       programs within the DEP and with other State,
                       regional, and local agencies.

                    5. A more streamlined, uniform and efficient
                       monitoring data gathering directed toward an
                       ecosystem approach to achieving environmental
                       protection.








                                          230











             PART V: WATER POLLUTION CONTROL     PROGRAM


             Chapter One: Point Source Control Program

             Facility Permitting

             The State of Florida has a well-established point source
             permitting process which acts independently of but
             coordinates with EPA's NPDES program. The State permits
             surface and ground water discharge facilities totaling about
             4,600 permits; whereas there are only about 850 NPDES
             permits in Florida. The permitting process is primarily
             handled by the local DEP district offices with the'
             Tallahassee office providing technical assistance, NPDES
             coordination, issuance of relief mechanisms, and permit
             consistency oversight. Facility permits include:

                  1. Construction Permit. These permits are required
                     for the construction and stabilization period of
                     either a new or modified facility. For domestic
                     wastewater permits, construction permits require
                     close coordination with the Bureau of Local
                     Government Wastewater Financial Assistance. This
                     Bureau is responsible for developing and
                     prioritizing grants lists, as well as conducting
                     detailed engineering review of plans and
                     specifications. Construction permits will not be
                     required following delegation of the NPDES program
                     to Florida.


                  2. Operating Permit. These permits are issued for a
                     period of up,to five years. They set effluent
                     limitations and monitoring requirements. if
                     requested and granted, a permit may contain a
                     provision for a mixing zone at the "end of pipe"
                     where water quality criteria are relaxed. Mixing
                     zones are only granted in cases where adequate
                     dilution is available such that designated uses
                     will not be adversely affected. In other special
                     cases, a variance or exemption may be issued which
                     allows certain water quality criteria to be
                     exceeded in a defined area of the receiving waters.

                  3. Temporary Operating Permit (TOP). These permits
                     are generally issued for facilities which have been
                     operating out of compliance and have submitted
                     plans which would rectify the situation. However,


                                       231









                        they cannot be issued to facilities discharging to
                        Outstanding Florida Waters, and are limited to five
                        years in duration for any one non-compliance issue.

                     4. Consent Order. This is an Administrative
                        enforcement action rather than a permitting action,
                        but is similar to a TOP except that it provides a
                        strict schedule of actions required to bring the
                        facility into compliance and establishes penalties
                        for failing to meet the schedule.

                Any modifications requested by the perrftittee to change the
                quantity or quality of their discharge act8 to renew the
                permitting evaluation process. Depending on the category of
                the discharger, exact permit procedures vary. Categories
                include municipal, publicly owned treatment works (POTWs),
                privately owned domestic facilities, and industrial
                discharges. Additionally, the size of the facilities and
                the type of industry may affect the permitting process.

                During the process of issuing or modifying a permit for   a
                discharger, it may become necessary to establish water
                quality based effluent limitations (WQBELs). Level II
                WQBELs generally involve an intensive sampling survey Of   the
                area, a characterization of the effluent,.and the adaptation
                of an existing computerized model to provide predictions of
                waterbody responses to point source inputs.

                In the last few years, the permitting staff has pl,'aced a
                higher emphasis on dechlorination and whole effluent,
                toxicity issues. Many of the recently renewed major
                industrial and domestic discharge permits contain provisions
                for conducting whole effluent bioassays to determine the
                toxicity on aquatic life. Domestic dischargers have also
                been required to either dechlorinate or disinfect the
                effluent by alternative means.

                The Department is moving toward obtaining authorization to
                administer the NPDES program. The target date for
                authorization is October 1994. Recent legislative charges
                and current rule development will result in a State program
                that closely follows NPDES. Significant changes include the
                elimination of Temporary Operating Permits and the
                consolidation of Construction Permits and Operation Permits
                into one permit.





                                           23@










             Permit Compliance


             The objective of DEP's compliance assurance effort is to
             protect the quality of surface and ground waters by
             identifying the sources not in compliance with water quality
             standards or specific permit conditions. The DEP District
             compliance and enforcement staff attempt to work with the
             offending facility to resolve minor problems before
             beginning legal enforcement action.

             Inspections are performed to assure compliance with permit
             requirements for domestic and industrial wastewater
             treatment plants. Inspections also verify compliance with
             ground water provisions which are included in permits.

             Compliance assurance activities include reviewing monthly
             operating reports and compliance schedule progress reports
             from facilities, conducting municipal operation and
             maintenance inspections, mini-surveys, reconnaissance
             inspections, and sampling inspections. Additionally,
             activities required to assure NPDES permit compliance are
             performed. When toxicity of effluent is suspected, static
             or flow-through bioassays are conducted, and the effluent is
             analyzed for priority pollutants. If toxicity is indicated,
             follow-up compliance assurance is conducted and enforcement
             action is initiated as necessary.

             The State's goal is to inspect all surface water dischargers
             annually. At present, in the year of permit expiration, a
             Fifth Year Inspection (FYI) is conducted, as resources
             allow. The FYI includes several inspection types that
             examine the facility, its effluent (including priority
             pollutants), and the impact, if any, on the receiving
             water's quality and ecology.


             Enforcement


             Because Florida does not administer the NPDES Program,
             enforcement activities are directed toward violations of
             State permit conditions and water quality standards.
             However, the State works closely with EPA in the preparation
             of NPDES compliance enforcement actions by providing
             technical and legal interpretations of State law. This is
             especially important in cases where EPA proceeds with legal
             action and in cases where State laws are more stringent than
             federal laws.





                                        233









               For permits other than NPDES, the State prioritizes
               violations into roughly three categories based on the
               potential for environmennal damage or threat to public
               health. The DEP assigns those violations which pose a
               significant environmental danger or threaten public health a
               high priority. Those violations which do not involve major
               environmental damage or threat to public health, but involve
               infractions such as failure to obtain necessary permits or
               failure to comply with permit conditions, are classified as
               intermediate priority. Low priority violations include
               situations involving repeat offenses against State laws,
               failure to file monthly operations reports, or other types
               of violations which do not pose a public health threat or
               cause environmental damage.

               The District offices of the Department of Environmental
               Protection investigate and document all violations, prepare
               case reports, issue warning letters and notices of
               violations, enter consent orders, conduct informal
               conferences, and provide testimony at administrative and
               judicial hearings. A warning letter is usually the first
               response from DEP to most violations. A notice of violation
               may be appropriate for serious or repeat violations, for
               violations of high visibility, or for violations which
               remain unresolved after the issuance of a warning letter.
               Violations of a more serious nature require preparation and
               submittal of a case report to the Office of General'Counsel
               in Tallahassee so that the appropriate legal action may be
               taken.






























                                         234









              Chapter Two: Nonpoint Source Control Program

              An update of the 1988 Nonpoint Source Assessment survey was
              conducted in early 1994. Data collected from the survey was
              integrated into the 1994 305(b) report (Part,III, Chapter
              Two). The use of a Geographic Information System and a
              scannable data form allowed for rapid processing of
              information. maps of each basin and its watersheds were
              created which depicted the 1988 assessment results.
              Respondents were provided with the 1988 data and asked to
              update it for each watershed based on 1994 conditions.
              Approximately, 150 organizations and individuals were asked
              to participate in the 1994 assessment. Of that number,
              about 50 actually responded to the survey. Information was
              collected for 1,400 watersheds, approximately 33% of the
              area of the State. More details about the Nonpoint Source
              Assessment are provided in Appendix A.

              Florida's myriad of nonpoint source management programs are
              summarized in Chapter 8 of the NPS management plan. In
              1989, the Florida Legislature enacted a comprehensive
              stormwater management bill which strengthened the State's
              stormwater regulatory program, especially with respect to
              reducing pollutant loads discharged from older drainage
              systems. The Stormwater Legislation further integrates
              on-going programs under the Surface Water Improvement and
              Management Act of 1987 and the Local Government
              Comprehensive Planning Act of 1985. As a result, stormwater
              management shifted from a single site focus to a
              comprehensive watershed approach in which land use planning
              and stormwater management are fully integrated. The
              Legislation also created the State Stormwater Demonstration
              Grant Program which provided $2 million in grants to local
              governments which have implemented stormwater utilities. In
              response, over 20 Florida communities have implemented a
              stormwater utility.

              Florida has received nearly $2.4 million in EPA nonpoint
              source grant funds which allowed a wide variety of Best
              Management Practice demonstration projects, BMP research,
              and public education programs to be undertaken. Priority
              waterbodies to receive nonpoint source grants are the SWIM
              designated priority waters (Tables 7 and 8). Nearly all of
              the State's Fiscal Year 90 319(H) grant funds were applied
              to investigating the effects of dairy, hog, and poultry
              production on the groundwater resources of the middle
              Suwannee River basin. In addition, BMP research was



                                        235









               conducted to determine the best ways of reducing NPS
               pollutants associated with these farming activities,
               especially animal waste management. A composting
               demonstration project was established to show how animal
               wastes can be developed into a marketable product.















































                                         236









             Chapter Three: Cost/Benefit Assessment

             The DEP's Economic Analysis Section analyzes the costs and
             benefits of proposed rules and proposed revisions to
             existing rules. Section 120.54, F.S., mandates that the DEP
             must prepare an economic impact statement if one of the
             following conditions are met. First, the DEP determines
             that the proposed rule or revision would impose an
             incremental economic impact upon the agency, other public
             agencies, and/or affected parties. Second, the DEP can
             rec eive a written request to prepare an economic impact
             statement from the Governor, a body corporate and politic,
             at least 100 individuals who sign a request, an organization
             which represents at least 100 individuals, or any domestic
             non-profit corporation or association. The economic impact
             statement includes the following components: 1. the cost of
             implementation to the DEP; 2. the costs and benefits of
             implementation to other affected parties; 3. the proposed
             rule or revision's impact upon competition, employment, and
             small businesses; 4. a comparison of the costs and benefits
             of the proposed rule or revision vis-a-vis the costs and
             benefits of not adopting the proposed rule or revision; 5.
             analysis of alternative methods which achieve the proposed
             rule or revision's objectives; and 6. the rationale for
             rejecting the alternative methods.

             During 1993, the Economic Analysis Section prepared an
             economic impact statement for approximately 60 proposed
             rules or revisions to existing rules. The primary
             objectives of many rules are: 1. to make significant
             improvements to water quality; 2. to provide increased
             protection to the State's natural resources; and 3. to
             enhance human health. The rules of revisions for which
             economic impact statements were prepared in 1993 were
             mitigation banking, wetland delineation, groundwater
             monitoring, State water policy, degradable materials,
             mercury emission limits, and classification of water bodies
             as Outstanding Florida Waters. The economic impact
             statements allow policy makers to make sound, unbiased,
             practical decisions with respect to the adoption of the
             State's environmental rules.


             DEP's Bureau of Local Government Wastewater Financial
             Assistance which manages the State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan
             program for sewage treatment facilities analyzes costs and
             benefit when evaluating applications for the SRF loan
             program. Pursuant to Section 403.1835, F.S., the SRF loan



                                       237









                program assists local government agencies with financing of
                facilities necessary for the collection, treatment, and
                disposal of wastewater and reclaimed water reuse facilities.

                Financial assistance includes refinancing existing debt
                obligations, guaranteeing loans, insuring bonds, and.
                constructing publicly-owned wastewater treatment plants.
                The SRF loan program can also extend assistance for
                secondary, advanced, and stormwater treatment facilities,
                interceptor sewers, collection sewers, essential components
                to a recycled supply system, land and facilities for land
                treatment systems, nonpoint source pollution control., and
                estuary conservation projects.

                As of 31 December 1993, the SRF loan program has committed
                $353.8 million for low interest loans to 25 local
                governments for 33 projects. These projects include
                wastewater treatment facilities, reclaimed water reuse
                facilities, major sewer rehabilitation, transmission
                facilities, and collection sewers. The local governments
                that have received funding from the SRF loan program and the
                projects involved are as follows:

                    1.  Tampa: $88.1 million. Expansion (36 mgd) of
                        Hooker's Point Wastewater Treatment Plant, influent
                        transmission main and major sewer rehabilitation.

                    2.  Metro-Dade: $78.5 million. Addition (20 mgd) to
                        the North District wastewater treatment plant,
                        expansion of the South District wastewater
                        treatment plant and effluent discharge wells at the
                        South District wastewater treatment plant.

                    3.  Plantation: $12.0 million. S.0 mgd expansion of
                        the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant,
                        construction of deep well injection facilities and
                        modification of Gulfstream Master Pump Station.

                    4.  Sanford: $9.6 million. Replacement of the master
                        pump station at the treatment plant, expansion of
                        the wastewater reclamation facility, extension*of
                        the reclaimed water reuse system, construction of
                        effluent, and influent transmission facilities.


                    S. Oldsmar: $2.4 million. Upgrading the existing
                        Oldsmar wastewater treatment plant to provide a
                        2.2S mgd advanced wastewater treatment facility.



                                          238









                  6. Bal Harbour Village: $.6 million. Upgrade two
                      pump stations.

                  7.  Arcadia: $3.1 million. Upgrade and expand the
                      City's wastewater treatment plant to 1.2 pgd.

                  8.  Jacksonville: $1.9 million. Rehabilitation of
                      3,590 feet of transmission sewers.

                  9.  Haines City: $0.9 million. Upgrade four pump
                      stations and extension of force main.


                  10  St. Cloud: $1.5 million. Upgrade and expansion of
                      the wastewater treatment plant to provide a
                      capacity of 2.2 mgd.

                  11. Lake Alfred: $5.8 million. Construction of a 0.6
                      mgd wastewater treatment plant and reclaimed water
                      reuse system.

                  12. Okaloosa County: $5.9 million. Construction of a
                      1.0 mgd wastewater treatment plant, collection
                      sewers, and transmission facilities.

                  13. Collier County: $14.2 million. Construction of
                      the collection sewers.


                  14. Largo: $12.8 million. Upgrade the City's
                      wastewater treatment plant.

                  15. Lee County: $10.0 million. Refinance the
                      construction of collection sewers.


                  16. Cape Coral: $42.5 million. Construction of
                      Southwest sewage treatment plant and influent
                      transmission facility.

                  17. Edgewater: $27.2 million. Expand and upgrade the
                      sewage treatment plant to provide advanced
                      wastewater treatment, collection sewers, influent
                      transmission, and reuse facilities.


                  18. Kissinmiee: $4.3 million. Influent transmission
                      facility.






                                        239









                   19. West Miami: $4.0 million. Construction of
                       collection sewers and inf luent transmission
                       facility.

                   20. Manatee County: $13.2 million. Construction of
                       collection sewers, influent transmission facility,
                       and reuse facility.

                   21. Opa"Locka: $0.4 million. Expansion of a pump
                       station.


                   22. St4 Petersburg Beach: $8.8 million. Construction
                       of the reclaimed water reuse facilities.


                   23. South Pasadena: $1.9 million. ConstructiOrL Of the
                       reclaimed water reuse facilities.


                   24. North Say Village: $0.4 million. Construction of
                       influent transmission facility and
                       infiltration/inflow correction.

                   25. Sarasota: $3.8 million. Major   sewer
                       rehabilitation.





































                                         240









             Chapter Four: Special State Concerns and
             Reconmiendat ions


             This section consists of two parts. First, it addresses
             special concerns of the State of Florida and/or strategic
             issues that have not been specifically discussed or
             identified as special concerns in other parts of this
             document. Second, recommendations are provided that outline
             Florida's goals in meeting the objectives of the Federal
             Clean Water Act.


             Special  State Concerns


                  1.  The State spent five years embroiled in a
                      lawsuit with the U.S. Department of Justice for
                      allowing water quality violations in the Everglades
                      National Park and Loxahatchee National Wildlife
                      Refuge. That lawsuit was settled at the beginning
                      of 1992. Water quality of the Everglades System is
                      a special State concern.

                      DEP review of Everglades water quality data has
                      identified nutrient enrichment as the primary
                      impact on that system. Enrichment has caused or
                      contributed to at least four major violations of
                      Class III water quality criteria. These include
                      imbalances of aquatic flora or fauna, dominance of
                      nuisance species, biological integrity, and
                      dissolved oxygen.

                      The Everglades Bill, recently passed by the Florida
                      Legislature and signed by Governor Chiles, ends the
                      lawsuit filed by the Sugar Industry against the
                      original Everglades SWIM Plan. The bill permits
                      and authorizes immediate commencement of the
                      Everglades Construction Project. This project is
                      designed to provide for the cleanup and restoration
                      of the Everglades Protection Area; this area
                      includes Loxahatchee, Everglades National Park and
                      the Water Conservation areas.


                      Restoration activities outlined in the bill consist
                      of four key components. The first is an improved
                      quality and increased amount of water to and
                      through the Everglades system. To accomplish this,
                      over 40,000 acres of filtration marshes (stormwater
                      treatment areas, STAs) will be built to treat



                                        241









                        agricultural runoff. The goal is to reduce 'Levels
                        of phosphorus entering the water conservation
                        areas. Farmers will be required to reduce runoff
                        25% by 1997. Additionally, discharges of water to
                        the Rotenberger Tract and to Holeyland will Joe
                        treated by the STA's.

                        The second is the establishment of a scientifically
                        derived and numerically based criteria for
                        phosphorus. A default value has been set at 10
                        ppb, if DEP does not set a criteria by the year
                        2003. The bill specifically states that the
                        phosphorus criteria imposed must not cause an
                        imbalance in the natural populations of flora and
                        fauna.


                        Third is the implementation of Best Management
                        Practices for on-site treatment of farm discharges.
                        The Best Management Practices Program must provide
                        that discharges me-et all applicable water quality
                        standards and criteria, not just phosphorus, by
                        December 31, 2006. The South Florida Water
                        Management District will amend its rules to require
                        certain lands to implement additional BMPs.

                        Fourth is the initiation of the restoration of
                        Florida Bay. The bill authorizes the condemnation
                        of three sections of the Frog Pond. The Frog Pond
                        is best described as a wet area. Presently, it is
                        used for tomato crops. To keep the land dry, water
                        levels in neighboring canals have been kept
                        artificially low. Water levels in these canals
                        must be raised and subsequently flood Frog Pond to
                        allow delivery of adequate water to Florida Bay.
                        The bill also directs the SFWMD to implement an
                        Emergency Interim Plan to release more water into
                        Taylor Slough and Florida Bay by up to 800 cubic
                        feet per second. Additional aid for the
                        restoration of Everglades and Florida Bay is
                        provided through SWIM Plans for Lake Okeechobee and
                        the Kissimmee River.


                        The bill also established a mechanism to fund
                        restoration work. Estimated cost of the Everglades
                        cleanup is $685 million. It is to be split as
                        $230-$320 million from agricultural interests, up
                        to $62 million from tolls collected from Alligator



                                          242










                      Alley, and the remainder from ad valorem taxes
                      collected by SFWMD.

                   2. The maintenance of the quality of surface and
                      ground waters by the prevention of pollution is an
                      important State concern. Significant pollutant
                      sources are stormwater and agricultural runoff,
                      dairies, septic tank leachate, and point source
                      discharges. Incidences of wide spread ground water
                      contmaination by EDB have alrady occurred.

                      Most Floridians depend on ground water for their
                      drinking water. The karst topography of Florida
                      makes understanding the interaction of ground water
                      and surface water of critical importance. Surface
                      waters receive a portion of their discharge from
                      ground water, either by direct discharge from
                      springs or seepage and baseflow. Protection of
                      surface water indirectly protects ground water and
                      vice versa.


                      A disturbing trend has been the increase in nitrate
                      levels found in spring discharges in several parts
                      of Florida. This represents not just contamination
                      of ground water, but also the potential for
                      additional nutrient loading to surface waters.
                      This contamination is of particular concern for
                      waters of the State for which productivity is
                      nitrogen limited and receive a substantial portion
                      of their discharge from ground water.

                   3. Mercury contamination of fish tissue is a concern
                      of the State because of health and socioeconomic
                      impacts on residents and its economic impact on the
                      fishing industry. Consumption advisories have been
                      issued for a large number of waterbodies.

                      The majority of Florida's major surface fresh
                      waters have been inventoried to determine fish
                      tissue levels of mercury. Less information is
                      available for estuarine and marine waters. There
                      is concern that marine fish species may also
                      contain high tissue concentrations of mercury.

                      Priority of the program has shifted from defining
                      the extent of the problem to understanding why it
                      exists. of particular importance is addressing the



                                        243









                        unusually high levels of mercury found in fish from
                        the Everglades. Numerous investigations are under
                        way including trend monitoring of fishery
                        resources, investigations of atmospheric fluxes of
                        mercury, and aquatic and wetland studies.

                    4.  Estuaries are an important economic and
                        recreational resource of Florida, however problems
                        have arisen in many of these waterbodies.
                        Ulcerative Disease Syndrome in fish has beena
                        persistent problem in the Lower St. Johns River for
                        the past decade. In many areas of the river and
                        its tributaries, sediments are contaminated with
                        toxic organic compounds and heavy metals. Similar
                        toxic sediment contaminant problems exist for Tampa
                        Bay, Miami River, and Pensacola Bay. High coliform
                        counts are a problem in the Miami River. Problems
                        with breakage of sewer lines or overloads of' the
                        sewer system have resulted in high coliform
                        bacteria counts and repeated closures of bathing
                        beaches. The polluted discharge of this river is a
                        threat to Biscayne Bay. Large fish kills continue
                        to occur in tributaries of Pensacola Bay. These
                        kills have occurred periodically over the past 20
                        years. The loss of fish habitat (particularly
                        seagrass beds) from dredge and fill activities has
                        been a common occurrence in estuaries.
                        Additionally, nutrient enrichment has been
                        identified as a problem in most of Florida's
                        estuaries.


                        Most of Florida's estuarine systems are under study
                        to determine the extent of existing problems and to
                        plan rehabilitation efforts. An appropriate means
                        of undertaking the rehabilitation of estuaries is
                        by an integrated watershed or system approach.
                        This approach allows the development of
                        partnerships between government and the private
                        citizen and the integration of scientific knowledge
                        and management practices. Examples of such an
                        approach are the National Estuary Program and SWIM.
                        Within Florida, there are three active National
                        Estuary Programs: Indian River Lagoon, Tampa Bay,
                        and Sarasota Bay.

                     5. Florida Bay and the Florida Keys are ecosyst6ms of
                        special State concern. The continued die offs of



                                          244









                      mangrove, seagrass, and coral reefs in Flo rida Bay
                      and around the Keys have raised concerns.
                      Immediate causes of the problem are believed to
                      include lack of flushing of organic-rich sediment
                      from the bay by hurricanes, high water
                      temperatures, high salinity, and nutrient
                      enrichment. Historically, water from across the
                      Everglades was delivered to the bay as a sheet
                      flow. Channelization and diversion of fresh water
                      to agriculture have reduced freshwater inputs to
                      the bay. The reduction of fresh water is believed
                      to be the cause of high salinities and
                      temperatures.

                      Florida Bay is the last link in the Kissimmee
                      River-Lake Okeechobee-Everglades chain. The
                      problems exhibited reflect the extensive habitat
                      and hydrological modifications that have occurred
                      throughout the system. The bay's health is also a
                      critical factor in the maintenance, of the viability
                      of the Florida Keys, this country's only emergent
                      coral reef ecosystem.

                      The Florida Keys were designated Areas of Critical
                      State Concern. Several problems are evident for
                      this resource. The mangrove shorelines of the Keys
                      have been modified by dredge and fill operations.
                      More than 700 canals and access channels have been
                      dredged; the greater part of this activity took
                      place in the 1960s and 1970s. Coral reefs located
                      on the east side of the Keys have been plagued by
                      coral bleaching and reef die off. Losses of
                      seagrass meadows have been attributed to nutrient
                      enrichment. (DEP, 1993)

                   6. In general, Florida continues to lose wetland
                      acreage. A wetland area of considerable importance
                      to the State and under threat is the Green Swamp in
                      central Florida. The swamp was designated an Area
                      of Critical State Concern in 1974. Green Swamp is
                      the headwater for four major river systems as well
                      as an important zone of groundwater recharge for
                      the central region of Florida. The coastal area   of
                      Florida just west of the swamp has over the past
                      years experienced serious water shortage problems.
                      Developments, both proposed and existing, have
                      encroached into the Green Swamp. At present, DEP



                                         245









                       permitting activities do not provide any different
                       rules for this area than for urban Orlando and
                       Tampa.

                       08P in its Report on the Green Swamp Area of
                       Critical State Concern, December 1993, to the
                       Florida Administration Commission made several
                       recommendations in support of the Area of Critical
                       Concern Designation. Most notable are the
                       designation of the swamp as an Outstanding Florida
                       Water and the development of a "Green Swamp Rule".
                       OFW designation, if established, would ensure that
                       future permitting actions emphasize the long-term
                       maintenance of existing water quality. A "Green
                       Swamp Rule" would address DEP functions related to
                       surface and ground water permitting and management
                       actions. issues that should be considered under
                       such a rule are wastewater disposal, mining
                       permitting, ground water monitoring, wetlands
                       protection, and the establishment of buffer
                       distances to protect aquatic and wetland wildlife
                       from the impacts of development. In essence, a
                       "Green Swamp Rule" would ensure that any permitted
                       activities would not substantially alter the
                       swamp's hydroperiod.


               Recommendations


                    1. Under the Florida Env ironmental Reorganization Act
                       of 1993, DEP is required to develop and implement
                       measures that will:


                           "Protect the functions of entire ecological
                           systems through enhanced coordination of public
                           land acquisition, regulatory, and planning
                           programs 11 .

                       The manner in which this objective will be achieved
                       is through a management concept known as 11ECosystem
                       Management". As defined by DEP, Ecosystem
                       Management is an integrated,*flexible approach to
                       management of Florida's environments. The goal of
                       DEP is to create a management technique that will
                       be based on a holistic integrated approach to
                       addressing environmental issues. This is a
                       conscious redirection of the Department away from
                       reaction to environmental crises, to exploring ways



                                         246









                      to prevent such crises. The tools available to DEP
                      to implement Ecosystem Management include planning,
                      land acquisition, environmental education,
                      regulation, and pollution prevention.

                      Six different systems have been selected as
                      prototypes to test Ecosystem Management. These
                      include Apalachicola River and Bay, Suwannee River,
                      Wekiva River, Lower St. Johns River, Hillsborough
                      River, and Florida Bay/Everglades. Lessons learned
                      from these pilot projects will be applicable to the
                      remainder of Florida.


                   2. Environmental integrity is best protected when
                      pollution is not allowed to occur in the first
                      place. In the past, emphasis has been placed on
                      control of pollution by permitting, compliance
                      monitoring, and enforcement. A broader strategy is
                      needed which includes market incentives and source
                      controls that minimize the generation of
                      pollutants. Source controls can include land use
                      planning, site planning, protection of wetland and
                      riparian areas, minimizing impervious surface areas
                      to reduce the volume of stormwater runoff, more
                      efficient industrial plant operation that
                      encourages reuse rather than discharge of
                      materials, reuse of wastewater, and reduced use of
                      fertilizers and pesticides through integrated pest
                      management and best management land practices.

                      Tremendous effort has been made to eliminate point
                      sources. Threats to surface and ground water still
                      exist from septic tanks, discharge of waste
                      materials from boats, and domestic waste package
                      plants.


                      A DEP Enforcement Committee has been established to
                      address the lack of pollution prevention projects
                      and to produce a draft Enforcement Pollution
                      Prevention Policy. One proposed recommendation
                      from the Committee is to make available to parties
                      in violation of State water quality standards, the
                      option of implementing pollution prevention
                      activities, rather than paying a fine.

                   3. To assess the condition of State surface waters and
                      support ecosystem management adequate water quality



                                        247









                       data collection is needed. To provide centralized
                       coordination, a state-wide coordinator of DEP's
                       Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP)
                       was appointed. STORET has been designated the
                       surface water quality database. DEP's Standards
                       and Monitoring Section is developing contacts and
                       actively training other agency staff to use STORET .
                       The revised State Water Policy, Chapter 17-40,
                       F.A.C., will require the use of STORET as the
                       central repository for water quality data.

                       The SWAMP program is being designed to-provide a
                       balanced approach to environmental assessment.
                       Traditional water chemistry together with
                       biological community and habitat assessment, and
                       tissue and sediment contaminant analyses, provide
                       the backbone for a strong interdisciplinary systems
                       approach to assessing environmental integrity. The
                       ongoing bioassessment program is developing
                       protocols to provide one means of assessing
                       ecological integrity. Geographic Information
                       System (GIS) plays a key role in the development of
                       SWAMP. GIS will provide a means of linking
                       different types of information regarding a
                       resource.


                       Many,other Florida organizations and governmental
                       entities have active monitoring programs. The most
                       efficient means of expanding DEP's data assessment
                       capabilities, to provide more complete state
                       coverage, is by developing collaborative efforts
                       with these other programs. The benefits of a
                       coordinated expanded program will be DEP's enhanced
                       ability to assess State waters in a timely and
                       statistically rigorous manner.
















                                         248











              APPENDIX A


              1994 Nonpoint Source Assessment

              Nonpoint source pollution is generally associated with land
              use activities which do not have a well-defined point of
              discharge, as do a pipe or smoke stack. Nonpoint
              contaminants are carried to waterbodies by direct runoff or
              percolation through the soil to groundwater. There are many
              different types of potential source areas. Some of the
              common activities and sources which were considered in the
              nonpoint source assessment of surface waters include:

                   1. Construction Site Runoff. This type of source can
                      provide sediment, chemicals, and debris to surface
                      waters.


                   2. Urban Stormwater. Runoff from buildings, streets
                      and parking lots carries with it oil, grease,
                      metals, fertilizers, and other pollutants.

                   3. Land Disposal. Leachate from septic tanks and
                      landfills may pollute groundwater or local surface
                      waters. Contamination of surface waters can be by
                      either by direct runoff or discharge from
                      groundwater.

                   4. Agricultural Runoff.. Runoff from fields and
                      pastures carries with it sediments, pesticides, and
                      animal wastes ( which can be a source of bacteria
                      and viruses and nutrients).

                   5. Silviculture Operations. Logging activities which
                      erode forest soils add turbidity and suspended
                      solids to local surface waters.


                   6. Mining. This type of activity can cause siltation
                      in nearby waterbodies, release of radioactive
                      materials to groundwater, discharge of acid mine
                      drainage, and depletion of water supplies in
                      aquifers.

                   7. Hydrologic Modification. Dams, canals,
                      channelization, and other alternations to the flow
                      of a waterbody result in habitat destruction and in
                      general water quality deterioration.

              Florida's 1994 nonpoint source assessment was performed
              using a qualitative, best professional judgment approach.
              Unlike point source pollution, there is rarely any


                                           249









                convenient database of water quality data that can be used
                for reporting nonpoint source pollution in surface waters.
                Therefore, the assessment procedure was designed to make use
                of the knowledge of experienced field personnel who had
                information about individual waterbodies.


                The assessment of nonpoint source impacts on Florida's water
                was conducted through the use of a questionnaire provide to
                all major state, local, county, and federal agencies,
                citizen environmental groups, and professional outdoor
                guides. Respondents identified nonpoint sources of
                pollution, environmental symptoms of pollution (fish kills,
                algal blooms, etc.), degree of impairment (rating) of a
                waterbody, and miscellaneous comments. A total of 1,400
                watersheds or 33% of the total number were qualitatively
                assessed.


                The impairment rating of a waterbody was defined as status
                of waters within a watershed as determined by support of
                designated use. The status of a watershed was dependent on
                making a determination of designated use support that
                applied to all surface waters within the areal extent of
                that watershed. Designated use refers to the classification
                or standards and criteria applied  to all Florida waters.

                Impairment rating categories used  were as follows:

                     1.  Good. All surface waters  in the watershed Eire
                         supporting their use classification with no
                         evidence of nonpoint source problems.

                     2.  Threatened. All surface waters in the watershed
                         are attaining their use classification, but in the
                         absence of any future management activities, it is
                         suspected that within five years at least some of
                         the surface waters in the watershed will not attain
                         their designated use.

                     3.  Fair. Some, but not all, surface waters in the
                         watershed are not attaining their designated use.

                     4.  Poor. All surface waters in the watershed are not
                         attaining their designated use.









                                             250









              Respondents were provided with 15 choices of pollutants and
              9 choices of symptoms for use in characterizing the status
              of a watershed. Pollutant choices or categories and their
              descriptions are provided below:

                   1.  Nutrients. An imbalance of nitrogen and or
                       phosphorus which resulted in algal blooms or
                       nuisance aquatic plant growth. Standards for Class
                       III waterbodies are based on this criteria.


                   2.  Bacteria. This refers to the presence of high
                       levels of coliform, strep, and enteric fecal
                       organisms which cause the closure of waters to
                       swimming and shellfishing.

                   3.  Sediments. Soil erosion which results in high
                       levels of turbidity.

                   4.  Oil and Grease. Hydrocarbon pollution resulting
                       from highway runoff, marina, and industrial areas.
                       Their presence is evidenced as a sheen on the water
                       surface.


                   5.  Pesticides.  These class of chemicals can be found
                       in runoff from agricultural lands and some urban
                       areas.


                   6.  Other Chemicals. General category for other
                       chemicals besides pesticides, oil, and grease.
                       Typically associated with landfills, industrial
                       land uses, and hazardous waste sites.

                   7.  Debris. This category includes trash ranging from
                       styrofoam plates and cups to yard clippings and
                       dead animals.


                   8.  Oxygen Depletion. Low levels of dissolved oxygen
                       in the water column resulting in odor problems
                       (anoxic waters) and fish kills.

                   9.  Salinity. Changes in salinity caused by too much
                       or too little freshwater inflows. Typical results
                       are declines in the fishery and changes in species
                       composition.

                    10. pH. Change in the acidity of surface waters with
                       resultant declines in fisheries and other changes
                       to flora and fauna, such as reductions in diversity
                       or abundance.




                                            251









                   11.  Metals. Anthropogenically enriched levels of trace
                        metals commonly associated with urbanized
                        watersheds and marinas.


                   12.  Habitat Alteration. Landuse activities which
                        adversely affect the resident flora and faun.a.
                        Included with habitat alteration is habitat loss.


                   13.  Flow Alteration. Landuse activities which
                        influence the flow characteristics of a watershed
                        resulting in adverse affects upon flora and fauna  .

                   14.  Thermal Pollution. Activity which changes local
                        temperature of receiving water relative to ELmbient
                        temperature.

                   15.  Other Pollutants. General category used to
                        describe activities and impacts not described in
                        the other 14 categories.

               Responses of waterbodies to the above listed sources; of
               pollutants were defined as symptoms. The nine symptoms    used
               for categorization are defined as follows:

                    1. Fish Kills. Dead and dying fish caused by
                        designated source of pollution.

                    2.  Algal Blooms. Excessive growth of algae resulting
                        from nutrient enrichment.


                    3.  Aquatic Plants. Density of exotic and nuisance
                        plants such that impairment of the waterbody
                        occurs. Nutrient enrichment is usually the cause.

                    4.  Turbidity. High suspended sediment loads in water
                        column resulting from soil erosion. EffectS on the
                        waterbody include smothering of benthos and reduced
                        light penetration with resultant loss of plant and
                        algal productivity.

                    S.  Odor. Unpleasant smells resulting from low
                        dissolved oxygen conditions (anoxia) and or fish
                        kills.


                    6.  Declining Fisheries. Reduction in landings of or
                        increases in catch per unit effort to catch game
                        and commercial species indicating loss of
                        productive fishery.




                                            252









                   7. No Swimming. Closure of recreational swimming
                      areas due to public health risks, usually caused by
                      high coliform bacteria counts.

                   8. No Fishing. Closure of recreational or commercial
                      fishing areas because of threats to human health
                      from elevated bacteria counts or levels of
                      contaminants.


                   9. Other Symptoms. General category used for
                      information that cannot be placed in any other
                      category.















































                                           253











                   APPENDIX B


                   Florida Lakewatch Data



                   Table 61. Trophic State Index (TSI) for 391 Florida Lakes
                   Monitored by Florida Lakewatch during 1993.




                        Lake Name                 County                        TSI


                        Adair                     Orange                        66
                        Adelaide                  Seminole                      67
                        Alice                     Hillsborough                    9
                        Alligator                 Osceola                       32
                        Alto                      Alachua                       40
                        Ann                       St Lucie                      64,
                        Arbuckle                  Polk                          53
                        Armistead                 Hillsborough                  39
                        Arrowhead                 Leon                          47
                        Asbury North              Clay                          36
                        Asbury South              Clay                          35
                        Ashby                     Volusia                       52
                        Back                      Walton                        33
                        Banana                    Putnam                        37
                        Barton                    Orange                        45
                        Bass                      Pasco                         45
                        Bay                       Orange                        62
                        Bear                      Seminole                      26
                        Beauclaire                Lake                          88
                        Bell                      Orange                        43
                        Belmont                   Leon                          56
                        Bennett                   Orange                        40
                        Beresford                 Volusia                       64
                        Bessie                    Orange                        13
                        Bethel                    Volusia                       52
                        Big Bass                  Polk                          75
                        Bingham                   Seminole                      33
                        Bivans Arm                Alachua                       86
                        Blairstone                Leon                          66
                        Blanche                   Orange                        22
                        Blue                      Volusia                       59
                        Blue                      Putnam                        15,
                        Blue 2                    Polk                          66
                        Blue Cove                 Marion                        61
                        Blue Heron                Leon                          59
                        Boca Cove                 Polk                          75
                        Bockus                    Leon                          33
                        Bradford                  Leon                          43
                        Brant                     Hillsborough                  44
                        Brick                     Osceola                       43
                        Broken Arrow              Volusia                       11
                        Brooklyn Bay              Clay                          48
                        Broward                   Putnam                        16
                        Bryant                    Marion                        61



                                                        254










                 Table 61. (Continued).



                      Lake Name                 County                        TSI


                      Bugg Springs              Lake                          34
                      Butler                    Orange                        18
                      C                         Orange                        62
                      Calm                      Hillsborough                  21
                      Camp Creek                Walton                        34
                      Carroll                   Hillsborough                  26
                      Cay Dee                   Orange                        39
                      Center                    Osceola                       64
                      Chapman                   Hillsborough                  32'
                      Charles                   Marion                        57
                      Charles                   Volusia                       21
                      Chase                     Orange                        29
                      Cherokee                  Orange                        67
                      Cherry                    Lake                          29
                      Chipco                    Putnam                        22
                      Christina                 Pasco                         49
                      Church                    Hillsborough                  33
                      Clear                     Alachua                       54
                      Cliff Stephen             Pinellas                      52
                      Como                      Putnam                        17
                      Concord                   Orange                        54
                      Conway North              Orange                        39
                      Conway South              Orange                        30
                      Coon                      Osceola                       56
                      Cowpen                    Putnam                        18
                      Crenshaw                  Hillsborough                  39
                      Crescent                  Hillsborough                  35
                      Croft                     Citrus                        22
                      Crooked                   Lake                          44
                      Crystal                   Clay                          38
                      Crystal                   Orange                        69
                      Daniel                    Orange                        50
                      David                     St Lucie                      26
                      Davis                     Orange                        84.
                      De Witt                   St Lucie                      55
                      Dead Lady                 Hillsborough                  53
                      Deborah                   St Lucie                      40
                      Deer                      Clay                          14
                      Deer                      Hillsborough                  37
                      Deer  Point               Bay                           27
                      Deerback                  Marion                        34
                      Dexter                    Polk                          24
                      Diane                     Leon                          30
                      Disston                   Flagler                       53
                      Dodd                      Citrus                        26
                      Doe                       Marion                        38
                      Dolores                   St Lucie                      35
                      Dora East                 Lake                          83
                      Dora West                 Lake                          80
                      Dorr                      Lake                          53







                                                      255










                   Table 61. (Continued).



                        Lake Name                County                         TSI


                        Dosson                   Hillsborough                   56
                        Dot                      Orange                         43
                        Down                     Orange                         23
                        Dunes                    Lee                            60
                        Eagle                    Polk                           52
                        East                     Pasco                          42
                        East Bay                                                28
                        East Crooked             Lake                           27
                        East Crystal             Seminole                       33'
                        East Rocks               Lee                            62
                        East Twin                Seminole                       39
                        Eaton                    Marion                         49
                        Echo                     Marion                         49
                        Egypt                    Hillsborough                   50
                        Elbert                   Polk                           30
                        Emma                     Lake                           24
                        Emporia                  Volusia                        27
                        English                  Putnam                         42
                        Eola                     Orange                         62
                        Erie                     Leon                           19
                        Estelle                  Orange                         65
                        Estelle East             Orange                         59
                        Eustis                   Lake                           59
                        Fannie                   Polk                           63
                        Fanny                    Putnam                         15
                        Farrah                   Orange                         30
                        Fauna                    Polk                           64
                        Flora                    Polk                           74
                        Floy,                    Orange                         61
                        Floyd                    Pasco                          32
                        Fore                     Marion                         .28
                        Forest                   Brevard                        37
                        Formosa                  Orange                         58
                        Fox                      Brevard                        64
                        Francis                  Highlands                      37
                        Fredrica                 Orange                         31
                        Fruitwood                Seminole                       58
                        Garden                   Hillsborough                   37
                        Gaskin's Cut             Polk                           74
                        Geneva                   Pasco                          43
                        Gentry                   Osceola                        35
                        Georges                  Putnam                         34
                        Georgia                  Orange                         24
                        Gertrude                 Lake                           18
                        Giles                    Orange                         56
                        Gillis                   Putnam                         33
                        Gold Head Branch         Clay                           11
                        Grace                    Hillsborough                   21
                        Grandin                  Putnam                         56.
                        Grasshopper              Lake                             9
                        Griffin                  Lake                           77





                                                       256










                Table 61. (Continued).



                      Lake Name                County                        TSI



                      Griffin                  Seminole                      60
                      Gulf Pines               Lee                           57
                      Gulf Shores              Lee                           49
                      Gumbo Limbo              Lee                           47
                      Haines                   Polk                          77
                      Halfmoon                 Hillsborough                  35
                      Halfmoon                 Marion                        44
                      Hall                     Leon                          27
                      Hamilton                 Polk                          53
                      Hampton                  Bradford                      34
                      Harbor                   Pinellas                      42
                      Harney                   Volusia                       51
                      Harris                   Lake                          63
                      Hart                     Orange                        48
                      Hartridge                Polk                          20,
                      Haven                    Walton                        41
                      Hayes                    Seminole                      58
                      Henry                    Polk                          58
                      Hernando                 Citrus                        27
                      Hiawatha                 Hillsborough                  41
                      Hiawatha                 Leon                          42
                      Hickorynut               Orange                        14
                      Higgenbotham             Putnam                        22
                      Highland                 Orange                        52
                      Holiday                  Pasco                         49
                      Horne Springs            Leon                          26
                      Howard                   Polk                          61
                      Howell                   Seminole                      66
                      Hunter                   Polk                          so
                      Hunter                   Hernando                      36
                      Iamonia                  Leon                          40
                      Idlewild                 Lake                          42
                      Island                   Marion                        35
                      Ivanhoe East             Orange                        57
                      Ivanhoe Middle           Orange                        54
                      Ivanhoe West             Orange                        58
                      Jackson                  Hillsborough                  30
                      Jean                     St Lucie                      26
                      Jeffery                  Columbia                      39
                      Jessamine                Orange                        50
                      Jessamine North          Orange                        55
                      Jessamine South          Orange                        50
                      Jessup                   Seminole                      84
                      Joanna                   Lake                          19
                      Joes                     Marion                        29
                      John's                   Orange                        51
                      Johnson                  Clay                          30
                      Johnson Pond             Alachua                       82
                      Joyce                    Pasco                         38
                      Juanita                  Hillsborough                  29
                      Karen                    St Lucie                      37





                                                     257










                   Table 61. (Continued).



                        Lake Name                County                         TSI


                        Keystone                 Hillsborough                   27
                        Killarney                Orange                         50
                        Kingsley                 Clay                             9
                        Kirkland                 Lake                           17
                        La Grange                Orange                         29
                        Lady                     Lake                           31
                        Laguna                   St Lucie                       67
                        Lake of the Woods        Seminole                       66
                        Lancaster                Orange                         68
                        Lawsona                  Orange                         60
                        Lily                     Clay                           24
                        Little Bass              Polk                           74
                        Little Bear              Seminole                       33
                        Little Crystal           Clay                           55
                        Little East              Pasco                          44
                        Little Fairview          Orange                         47
                        Little Halfmoon          Hillsborough                   25
                        Little Harris            Lake                           58
                        Little Hickory           Orange                         20
                        Little Johnson           Clay                           38
                        Little Mary              Lake                           28
                        Little Moon              Hillsborough                   16
                        Little Murex             Lee                            57
                        Little Orange            Alachua                        58
                        Little Portion           Lee                            55
                        Little Santa             Alachua                        39
                        Little Spirit            Polk                           39
                        Little Vienna            Pasco                          35
                        Little Wauseon Bay       Orange                         26
                        Little Weir              Marion                         42
                        Lizzie                   Osceola                        39
                        Loch Haven               Pinellas                       66
                        Lochloosa                Alachua                        76
                        Long                     Seminole                       33
                        Long                     Putnam                           7
                        Lorna Doone              Orange                         63
                        Lorraine                 Lake                           63
                        Lou                      Marion                         40
                        Louisa                   Lake                           48
                        Louise                   Orange                         40
                        Lulu                     Polk                           65
                        Lurna                    Orange                         60
                        Maclay                   Leon                           23
                        Magdalene                Hillsborough                   24
                        Margaret                 St Lucie                       33
                        Marsha                   Orange                         20
                        Mary                     Marion                         12
                        Mary                     Seminole                       28
                        Mary  Jane               Orange                         50
                        Mathews                  Lake                           39
                        Maude                    Polk                           40






                                                       258










                   Table 61. (Continued).



                         Lake Name                  County                           TSI


                         Maurine                    Hillsborough                     43
                         May                        Lake                             37
                         Mc Kenzie                  Volusia                          46
                         Mc Meekin                  Putnam                           46
                         Melrose Bay                Alachua                          36
                         Mill Stream  Swamp         Lake                             49
                         Mills                      Seminole                         37
                         Minnehaha                  Lake                             34
                         Minnehaha                  Orange                           55
                         Minneola                   Pasco                            43
                         Minniehaha                 Leon                             43
                         Moccasin                   Pinellas                         66
                         Monkey Business            Leon                             56
                         Moore                      Leon                             19
                         Mound                      Hillsborough                     20
                         Moxie                      Orange                           30
                         Murex                      Lee                              70
                         Nan                        Orange                           42
                         Newnan                     Alachua                          86
                         Noname                     Seminole                         28
                         North                      Marion                           36
                         North  Bay                                                  30
                         North  Blue                Polk                             10
                         North  Estella             Putnam                           28
                         North  Lotta               Orange                           58'
                         North  Twin                Putnam                           37
                         Ola                        Orange                           24
                         Ola Little                 Orange                           22
                         Olivia                     Orange                           61
                         Olympia                    Orange                           36
                         Opal                       Clay                             22
                         Orange                     Alachua                          53
                         Osborne                    Palm Beach                       64
                         Osceola                    Hillsborough                     21
                         Padgett  North             Pasco                            40
                         Padgett  South             Pasco                            40
                         Panasoffkee                Sumter                           33
                         Pansy                      Polk                             56
                         Park                       Orange                           57
                         Parker                     Pasco                            36
                         Peach                      Orange                           35
                         Peach Creek                Walton                           24
                         Pebble                     Clay                             52
                         Pegram                     Marion                           25
                         Petty Gulf                 Leon                             56
                         Picciola                   Lake                             74
                         Pierce                     Polk                             49
                         Pineloch                   Orange                           53
                         Pocket                     Orange                           37
                         Poinsett,                  Brevard                          53
                         Porter                     Orange                           31




                                                           2S9










                   Table 61. (Continued).




                        Lake Name                County                         TSI


                        Powell                   Bay                            36
                        Primavista               Orange                         59
                        Punchbowl                Putnam                         42
                        Rabama                   Orange                         so
                        Rainbow                  Hillsborough                   21
                        Red Beach                Highlands                      41
                        Redwater                 Highlands                      46
                        Redwater                 Putnam                         61
                        Ribbon North             Flagler                        33
                        Richmond                 Orange                         67
                        Riley                    Putnam                         31
                        Rochelle                 Polk                           65
                        Rock                     Seminole                       26
                        Rosa                     Putnam                         19.
                        Rose                     Orange                         51
                        Rose                     St Lucie                       53
                        Roseate                  Lee                            68
                        Rowena                   Orange                         54
                        Ryan                     Clay                           31
                        Saddleback North         Hillsborough                   33
                        Saddleback South         Hillsborough                   35
                        San Susan                Orange                         33
                        Sanibel River            Lee                            79
                        Santa Fe                 Alachua                        36
                        Santiago                 Orange                         60
                        Sarah                    Orange                         48
                        Sawyer                   Orange                         .60
                        Saxon North              Pasco                          23
                        Saxon South              Pasco                          21
                        Sellers                  Lake                             7
                        Seminary                 Seminole                       24
                        Seminole                 Pasco                          51
                        Shannon                  Orange                         25
                        Sheelar                  Clay                             8
                        Sheen                    Orange                         26
                        Silver                   Putnam                         49
                        Silver                   Orange                         41
                        Silver                   Polk                           .43
                        Silver Glenn             Marion                         14
                        Silver Paisley           Lake                           24
                        Smith                    Marion                         36
                        South Blue               Polk                           15.
                        South Estella            Putnam                         25
                        South Lake               Brevard                        46
                        South Lotta              Orange                         56
                        South Talmadge           Volusia                        48
                        South Twin               Lake                           30
                        Spirit                   Polk                           47
                        Spring                   Orange                         63
                        Spring                   Clay                           41
                        Spring                   Walton                         37




                                                       260










                 Table 61. (Continued).



                       Lake Name                County                        TSI


                       Spring 2                 Orange                        24
                       Spring Garden            Volusia                       50
                       St. Andrew Bay                                         22
                       St. Kilda                Lee                           44
                       Stanley                  Walton                        33
                       Star                     Putnam                        42
                       Starke                   Orange                        57
                       Sunset Harbor            Marion                        40'
                       Susannah                 Orange                        40
                       Swatara                  Lake                          35
                       Tallavana                Gadsden                       61
                       Talquin                  Gadsden                       54
                       Taylor                   Hillsborough                  41
                       Tibet                    Orange                        28
                       Todd                     Citrus                        26
                       Tomahawk                 Marion                        27
                       Treasure                 Pasco                         21
                       Trout                    Lake                          77
                       Trout                    Osceola                       46
                       Trout Pond               Leon                          22
                       Unity                    Lake                          59
                       Van Ness                 Citrus                        24
                       Wacissa                  Jefferson                     22
                       Wade                     Orange                        61
                       Wauberg                  Alachua                       74
                       Waunatta                 Orange                        32
                       Wauseon Bay              Orange                        25
                       Weir                     Marion                        36
                       Weohyakapka              Polk                          40
                       West Bay                                               34
                       West Crystal             Seminole                      32
                       West Rocks               Lee                           36
                       Wildcat                  Lake                          26
                       Willis                   Orange                        23
                       Wilson                   Hillsborough                  35
                       Winnemissett             Volusia                       13
                       Winnott                  Putnam                        26
                       Winona                   Lake                          27
                       Winyah                   Orange                        67
                       Woodward                 Lake                          27
                       Wooten                   Jefferson                     37
                       Yancey                   Brevard                       38















                                                      261




                                                                                                                                 MOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY            I
                                                                                                                                 3 6668 14111663 4                            1
                                                                                                                                                                              1
                                                                                                                                                                              1
                                                                                                                                                                              1
                                                                                                                                                                              1
                                                                                                                                                                              1
                                                                                                                                                                              1
                                                                                                                                                                              1
                                                                                                                                                                              1
                                                                                                                                                                              1
                                                                                                                                                                              1
                                                                                                                                                                              1
                                                                                                                                                   -                          I
                                                                                                                                                                              I
                                                                                                                                                                              I
                                                                                                                                                                              I
                                                                                                                                                                              I
                                                                                                                                                                              t