[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
NORTHEAST FLORIDA DISTRICT WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT 1994 305 (b) TECHNICAL APPENDIX Sr. JOHNS RIVER AT.ACKSOMR.LE WATER QUALITY GOOD THREATENE DAYTONA FAIR BEACH SUWMNEE RnNfEl@ POOR UNKNOWN JOE HAND, JANA COL, AND ERIC GRIMISON BUREAU OF SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NOVEMBER, 1994 INDEX TO RIVER BASINS WITHLACOCHEE R. E 108 ALAPAHA NASSAU R. AUCILLA R. AGE 17 PAGE 44 PAGE 13 UPPER SUWANNEE R. PAGE 93 ST. MARY'S R PAGE 79 LOWER SUWANNEE R. PAGE 86 SANTA FE R. ST. JOHNS RIVER INA-FENHOLLOWAY R. PAGE 50 PAGE 57 EAST COAST PAGE 37 PAGE 30 WACCASSASSA R. PAGE 101 ..... ... ......... c JALICILLA 1994 WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA TECHNICAL APPENDIX Submitted in accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act Section 305(b) November, 1994 Standards and Monitoring Section Bureau of Surface Water Management Division Of Water Facilities TABLE OF CONTENTS Index to River Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Executive Summary/Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Introduction and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Watershed as the Assessment Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Inventory of STORET Data . . . . . . . . . . 2 Florida Stream Water Quality Index P;ocedu;e . . . . . . . . . 5 Trophic State Index Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Screening Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Trend Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Toxic Pollutant Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Nonpoint Source Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Making Use Support Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Alapaha River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Aucilla River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 East Coast Basin, Upper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Econfina/Fenholloway/Steinhatchee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Nassau River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Santa Fe River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 St. Johns River, Lower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 St. Marys River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Suwannee River, Lower . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Suwannee River, Upper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Waccasassa River . * * , * * * , , * , * , , * * , , * , , * * * * * 101 Withlacoochee River, North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 PREFACE This report is produced to inform'Floridians and the EPA about surface water quality conditions and trends in Florida. Originally produced in 1978, this report has been updated every two years since, and has gone through many changes. The items listed below identify the major format changes which distinguish this report from its predecessor. � Regional Rellorts - The large size of the statewide report (550 pages) necessitated its subdivision into 5 regional reports which correspond roughly with Department of Environmental Protection District Office boundaries (South and Southeast District Office reports are under one cover). � Watersheds versus Reaches In 1992 the State's rivers, lakes and,estuaries were subdivided into 1600 'reaches' and the assessment was based on this reach structure, however much of the State's waters were not contained within the reaches. For 1994, the assessed area has been enlarged to cover the entire State by dividing the State into 4400 watersheds. The original 1600 reaches remain pretty much intact within the new watersheds, and the terminology now includes watershed and waterbody rather than reach. � ARC/INFO Water Quality Color Maps-- GIS techniques were used to produce color maps depicting water quality (designated use support) in each river basin. Watersheds were color coded based on good, threatened, fair or poor water quality designations. � New Nonvoint Source Oualitative Survey - A nonpoint source qualitative @survey was performed in 1988 and has been updated and included in this report for 1994. The survey used the same watersheds which were used to assess the water quality data and the qualitative results were integrated into this report to both supplement the quantitative information and to provide information when no quantitative information was available. Current versus Historic Data - Water quality data were examined for two time periods: current data from 1989-1993 and historic data from 1970-1988. Flistoric datawere used to assess waterbodies only when there was no current data available. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to express our gratitude to all of the professionals that supplied us with water quality data and reports, responded to surveys, and answered telephone inquiries concerning the status of waterbodies in their area. The quality of this report has been greatly enhanced by their efforts. A committee thoroughly reviewed and commented on the 1992 305 (b) report and their comments were incorporated into this report. Individuals in this committee include: Catherine Krestalude, Ernie Frey, Jerry Owen, Lee Banks, Rich Bowman, Jan Brewer, Scott Bulgrun, Teresa Frame, Angela Halfacre, Mike Hollingsworth, Amy Kalmbacher, Tim Mckelvey, Mary Nogas, Lindy Payne, and Jim Wright of the Northeast District; Rob Mattson of the Suwannee River Water Management; District, John Hendrickson of the St. Johns Water Management District: and Betsy Deuerling, Don Roberson, Allan Flood and Margaret Walsh of the City of Jacksonville. The Nonpoint Source Stormwater Section put in a tremendous amount of work on the 1994 Nonpoint Source Assessment Survey. This team included Kent Cain, Ellen McCarron, and Mike Scheinkman. Don Foose, recently retired from the USGS , spent four years delineating and digitizing the new watersheds. Bernadette Howe, formerly with the St. Johns River Water Management District, provided much of the foundation work on GIS techniques for handling watersheds and water quality data and mapping the information. Several of the DEP Tallahassee staff are to be thanked for their support and review of the final document including Don Axelrad, Vivian Garfein, Mark Latch and Richard Harvey, and Machelle Jarmon, who produced numerous draft copies of this text. iv List of Abbreviations AWT advanced wastewater treatment BAS DEP basin water quality study BMPs best management practices BOD biochemical oxygen demand cfs cubic feet per second DEP Department of Environmental Protection DO dissolved oxygen EAA Everglades Agricultural Area EPA Environmental Protection Agency FGFWFC Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission MGD millions of gallons per day NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPS nonpoint source NWFWMD Northwest Florida Water Management District OFW Outstanding Florida Waters REACH an EPA-designated waterbody or portion of a waterbody SFWMD South Florida Water Management District SJRWMD St. Johns River Water Management District SRWMD Suwannee River Water Management District STORET EPA's water quality data STOrage and RETrieval system SWFWMD Southwest Florida Water Management District swim Surface Water Improvement and Management TKN total Kjeldahl nitrogen (organic nitrogen and ammonia) TSI trophic state index WIA wasteload allocation WMD Water Management District WQI water quality index WWTP wastewater treatment plant V EXECUTTVE SUMMARY70VERVEEW The 3 05(b), Technical Report provides useful surface water quality related information in a. format that is helpful-to managers, planners, permit staff, and laymen, as well as water quality experts. For each.of the 52 basins, a narrative summary, a map, and data tables identify the quality and trends. of Florida's waterbodies, the causes of water quality problems, and the present regulatory activities, conducted by DEP and EPA to improve the.problem areas. It is the most widely circulated water quality assessment in the State, and also serves as the support document for the Surface Water Section of the 1994 305(b) Water Qualfty Assessment Main Report submitted'to EPA. The assessment required analysis of the available STO-RET water quality data for the 1970-1993. time period (STORET is EPA!s computerized water quality database). Data from approximately 4,000 stations are assessed in this report, necessitating the extensive use of computerized assessment techniques. Water quality assessment techniques used to identify problem areas included: water quality indices, screening level exceedances, statistical trend analysis,, information from special studies, and interviewing local experts. The 305(b) assessmentalso includes information from the 1994 DEP Nonpoint Source Assessment Survey (which is based on the. responses of 50 Florida agencies). Statewide Results From the Main Report In the 1992 305(b) assessment report, Florida was subdivided into 1600 reaches which were based on EPA's RF2 (river reach file #2). A reach was defined as a 5 mile long section of river, or 5 square mile section of lake or estuary. Only major waterbodies were assessed in the 1992 report: due to the resolution limitations imposed by the RF2 file. For 1994, Florida has been subdivided into 4400 watersheds based. on EPX s- RF3, and USGS watershed delineations. Many more miles of Florida waterbodies were assessed (50% more river miles, 30% more, lake miles, and 20% more estuary miles) due to the increased number of watersheds available for assessment and due to efforts to collect more. ambient data and store the data into STORET. Table- I and Figure I show the mileages of Florida waters which were assessed in this year's report. A striking feature shown in.Figure I is that 77% of river miles have unknown quality. This large, percentage- is due, to the fact. that EPA classified Florida's many ditches and canals as. rivers, which were@ not assessed in this report. A quantitative summary of the State's water quality was accomplished by determining the degree of designated use support for the different waterbody types. The vast majority of assessed Florida waterbodies meet or partially meet their designated use (92% of the river-miles, 81% of the lake miles, and 96% of the estuary miles). Figure 2 shows that the river and estuary results are fairly similar, however the lake results show generally worse overall quality than the rivers and estuaries with fewer miles in the "meets use" category and more miles in the "does, not meet use" category. Interestingly -enough, this year's lake assessment brought in many more small lakes with good overall quality, however, Florida's largest lakes (Lake Okeechobee and Lake George) still overwhelm the State average with their large mileages 6f fair to poor quality. Vi 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. Recently, however, nonpoint sources accounted for the majority of Florida's water quality problems. This is due to the fact that point source treatment processes have improved while there has been an increase in acreage of agricultural and urban developed land and their associated runoff. Water quality trend analysis was performed on waterbodies which had sufficient data for analysis (467 out of 4400 waterbodies). The majority (70%) of these waterbodies (as seen in Figure 3) exhibited no significant trends. Five times as many waterbodies (241/6) have improving water quality trends as have degrading trends. The improved water quality trends were generally the result of wastewater treatment plant upgrades or the additions of new regional WWT?s and nonpoint source controls in Tampa, Orlando and several other cities (as seen in Figure 4). Five percent of the waterbodies assessed for trends showed degrading trends; however, 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 are assessed for trends. 2. The primary focus of our monitoring network is not trend assessment; most of our stations are frequently moved, and there are very 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. Table 1. Mileages of Florida Waters Assessed Monitored 1. Evaluated 2. Unknown 3. Total River (miles) 7,025 4,855 39,9782. 51,858 Lake (sq. miles) 1,541 400 124 2,064 Estuary (sq. miles@ 2,417 1,290 347 4,054 1. Monitored data includes 1989-1993 STORET data. 2. Qualitative information or older STORET data (1970-1999) 1. This number includes 25,909 miles of ditches and canals which have not been assessed. vii Table 2. Overall Designated Use Support Summary RIVERS (All size units in Miles) Degree of use support Evaluated Monitored Total Fully Supporting 1116 4378 5495 Supporting but Threatened 2259 0 2259 Partially Supporting 1139 2093 3232 Not Supporting 342 554 895 Total Size Assessed 4856 7025 11881 LAKES (All size units in Square Miles) Degree of use support Evaluated Monitored Total Fully Supporting 213 494 707 Supporting but Threatened 100 0 100 Partially Supporting 53 714 766 Not Supporting 34 332 366 Total Size Assessed 400 1541 1940 ESTUARIES (All size units in Square Miles) Degree of use support Evaluated Monitored Total Fully Supporting 501 1427 1928 Supporting but Threatened 402 0 402 Partially Supporting 358 851 1209 Not Supporting 28 139 167 Total Size Assessed 1290 2417 3707 Evaluated means qualitative information or older STORET data (1970-1988). Monitored means recent STORET data (1989-1993). viii FIGURE 1. MILES MONITORED, EVALUATED AND UNKNOWN 77 so 70 .... ...... 60 47 BMONITORED ............... 50 41 ........... 0 EVALUATED ......... .. 40 2 0 UNKNOWN uj OC 30 .... ......... .. . .. .... ...... 10 z 8 19 20 ............ . ..... ...... ......... .. ......... ...... ....... . ...... IML lo 0 . ...... RIVERS LAKES ESTUARIES FIGURE 2. DESIGNATED USE SUPPORT IN FLORInA WATERBODIES 70- 65 63 60- 50-'X 42 BYES 40- 33 0 PARTIAL z 30-'--" ONO ui 20 ul 4 loV 0- RIVERS LAKES ESTUARIES FIGURE 3. TEN YEAR WATER QUALITY TREND ANALYSIS FOR FLORIDA WATERBODIES (1984-1993) 72 72 68 w 70V ....... ...... ............ ......... ...... 60- ul 50-Z 8 RIVER ..... ...... 40-z 0 LAKE z 24 23 ... .. ...... 30- DESTUARY Lu ........... .......... . .......... ..... .....- 20- .......... ...... ................ .......... .... 10V . . ..... . 4 .... ....... ....... .. ...... 0 ... ... BETTER NO CHANGE WORSE WATER QUALITY TREND ix TEN YEAR WATER QUALITY TREND IV . .. .... ... .... . .. ......... WATER QUALITY TREND . ...... . ..... . BETTER NO CHANGE WORSE #6 m ift fm;l ift ow 406 aw AM WWI AIM ow do aw I" ken m up low Ten Year Florida Water Quality Trends (1984-1993) 10 year water quality trend Better M No change M Worse Florida!s surface water quality is displayed on the map on the cover of the main 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. 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 has undergone rapid population growth over the past two decades and this continues. This has resulted in more pollution sources associated with residential development. Florida's major surface water quality problems can be summarized into five general categories: I . Urban Stormwater. Stormwater carries a wide variety of pollutants from nutrients to toxicants. Siltation and turbidity associated with construction activities can also be a major problem. Problem areas are concentrated around urban centers and mirror, 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. Ap-ricultural 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. 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 Xi mejor pollution sources (both point and nonpoint) in several of Florida's surface water basins. In EAdition, the mining of phosphate causes surface water hydrological modifications and major land ust@ di_,@Urbances. 5. H orm of damming running waters, ydrological Modifications. This can take the f channelizing slow@moving waters, or dredging, draining and fillingwetlands. 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 th,- effect of hydrologic modification is difficult. Dredge and fill activities result in a loss of lni7citat. 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. The assessment of public health and aquatic life impacts uncovered several areas of concern. 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, major fish kills (as many as I million fish) occurred in the Pensacola Bay system over the past two years. The more massive of these kills occurred, in Bayou Chico. Bacterial contan-dnation in the water and contaminated sediments of the Mami, River threaten Biscayne. Bay. Many urban estuaries throughout the State. have elevated levels of metals 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 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. On the positive side, seagrasses have increased in area in Tampa Bay and there has been an improvement in water quality in Hillsborough Bay. 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 stream. This waterbody receives effluent from a pulp mill. The third problem is the coliform bacteria contamination of the Miami River. Sources of this contamination are illegal sewer connectiuns 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 Mami River and adjoining waters of Biscayne Bay are hundreds of times higher than State criteria. Efforts are being made by the City of Miami and Dade County to correct these problems. Xii Northeast Region Basin-by-Basin Evaluation of Water Quality The quality of Florida waters is graphically depicted on basin maps which follow each basin description. Areas of good, fair, and poor quality are readily discernible on these maps. The following is a summary of the status of the quality of waters in northeast Florida: The Steinhatchee River basin's major water quality problem area is the Fenholloway River which is seriously affected by the effluent from a large paper mifl. Although the discharge quality improved in the early seventies, the river still has high nutrients and color and low DO and biological diversity. An EPA study indicated impacts to the bay at the mouth of the Fenholloway. DEP conducted a use attainability study of the river, and has changed its classification from Industrial (Class V) to Recreation (Class III). The upper and lower Suwannee River basins, which receive a considerable quantity of ground water spring flow, have good water quality. Exceptions are those upper river tributaries that receive mining wastewater from Occidental Chemical Company. Sections of the Suwannee below these tributaries have some elevation in fluoride and phosphorus concentrations. Other direct threats to the Suwannee include agricultural and silviculture runoff, septic tank leachate, and nitrates from dairy farms. Major tributaries of the Suwannee are generally of good quality, but are threatened by local pollution sources. The North Withlacoochee River receives agricultural runoff and effluent from a paper mill (indirectly), and before entering Florida receives discharges of industrial effluent and municipal wastewater. The Alapaha River basin has good water quality. The Santa Fe River has several major springs and very good water quality. A tributary of the Santa Fe River, New River, receives discharge from a WWTP at Raiford and indirectly from the Town of Lake Butler. Bacteria, nutrient, and turbidity values are elevated near the discharge. The water quality of the Santa Fe River below New River reflects the reduced quality of the New River. Alligator Lake in the upper basin is degraded from the Lake City WWTP discharge and urban runoff and is the focus of a SWIM study. Lake Rowell (in the Santa Fe basin) has a eutrophication problem. In general, the St. Marys River has good water quality. The South Prong of the St. Marys, Little St. Marys River, and Turkey Creek receive effluents from WWTP. 11istorically, problems of low DO, high nutrient levels, and high bacteria counts were present. Several pulp mill operations are located near the mouth of the river and along the estuarine Amelia River. Nassau River has good water quality except for Mills Creek which receives dairy farm runoff. Downstream of Lake George, the St. Johns River is wide, shallow and sluggish with frequent, tidally influenced reverse flows. Many of the tributary systems have water quality problems which impact the river. Agricultural runoff and domestic discharge affect the Haw Creek/Crescent Lake tributary drainage. A paper mill causes problems in the Rice Creek tributary system. Agricultural and urban runoff affect Black Creek and Peters Creek. The Julington Creek, Durbin Creek, and XW Doctors Lake watersheds are highly developed and water quality problems due to urban runoff and septic tank leachate are evident. Water quality problems arising ftorn septic tank leachate and WMrTP discharge are common throughout the Jacksonville area of the river and its tributaries. In addition, numerous industries discharge to the river system. As a result, most of the tributaries, notably the Ortega, Cedar and Trout Rivers, have fair to poor water quality from Lake George to its mouth due to the polluted tributaries, direct discharge and significant urban runoff. A persistent problem in the lower St. JoIms basin has been the presence of fish with Ulcerative Disease Syndrome. The east coast estuarine waters from Jacksonville to Ft. Pierce have localized impacts from wastewater discharges, stormwater runoff, causeways which reduce hydraulic flushing, and shoreline vegetation disruption. Areas of greatest impact are the intracoastal waterway near Palm Valley (below Jacksonville Beach), the Matanzas River at St. Augustine, and the Halifax River between Ormond Beach and Port Orange. )dV INTRODUCTION AND M@THODS This section describes the water quality assessment procedures used by the Bureau of Surface Water Management to prepare the 1994 Florida Water Quality Inventory [305(b)]. The procedures are: I . Divide State into Assessment Watersheds. 2. Inventory STORET data. 3. Calculate Stream Water Quality Index (WQI). 4. Calculate Lake/Estuary Trophic State Index (TSI). 5. Apply Screening Levels. 6. Conduct Trend Analysis. 7. Conduct Toxic Pollutant Assessment. 8. Conduct Nonpoint Source Assessment. Florida's 52 major river basins were subdivided into 4400 watersheds of approximately five square miles each. The predominate watterbody within each watershed was identified and classified as a lake, stream, or estuary. Each watershed and its waterbody formed an assessment unit and all water quality stations within the watershed were aggregated as if they were from the same site (the stations were screened for unwanted sites, such as, point source discharge sites). A water quality inventory was performed on EPA!s STORET database. The inventory included the years 1970 through 1993 and was classified as recent (1989-1993) or historic (1970-1988). Tables of water quality data were prepared for each of Florida!s 52 basins. Three procedures were then used to assess the water quality data. A Water Quality Index was calculated to determine the overall quality of Florida streams and rivers. The Water Quality Index summarizes information from six categories including water clarity (turbidity and total suspended solids), dissolved oxygen, oxygen demanding substances (biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, and total organic carbon), nutrients (total nitrogen and total phosphorus), bacteria (total coliform and fecal coliform), and macroinvertebrate diversity index (based on natural substrate samples, artificial substrate samples and Beck's Biotic Index). The water quality of lakes and estuaries is described by the Trophic State Index which is a measure of the potential for algal or aquatic weed growth. The components which make up the Trophic State Index include total nitrogen, total phosphorus, chlorophyll and Secchi depth. Screening levels for 19 water quality parameters were also used to determine the quality of Florida lakes, estuaries and streams. The water quality indices and screening levels have all been tailored to Florida's water quality by using the actual distribution of Florida data to determine the water quality criteria used by the procedures. Specific information on each of the procedures is described in the following sections. Watershed as the Assessment Unit In the 1992 305(b) assessment report, Florida was subdivided into 1600 reaches which were based on EPA's RF2 (river reach file #2). A reach was defined as a 5 mile long section of river, or 5 square mile section of lake or estuary. Only major waterb6dies were assessed in the 1992 report due to the resolution limitations imposed by the RF2 file. For 1994, Florida has been subdivided into 4400 watersheds based on EPA's RF3 and USGS watershed delineations. The original 1600 reach delineations have been kept intact, however, many additional watersheds have been added due to the increased resolution of RF3 and the USGS watersheds which cover the entire State. USGS was contracted to develop useable, small watersheds (approximately 5 square miles) using watershed boundaries identified on USGS topological maps and ARC/INFO GIS techniques. USGS completed 75% of the State, but unfortunately they did not delineate watersheds in south Florida (USGS subregion 0309). Watersheds for South Florida were adapted from a much coarser delineation developed by the South Florida Water Management District. The resulting watersheds in this area are about 50 square miles each, ten times larger than those for the rest of the State. The major waterbody within each watershed was identified and named. Usually each watershed encompassed one major or one minor named waterbody (similar to the 1992 reach structure). The length of each stream waterbody and the area of lake and estuary waterbodies is essential information. The length of stream waterbodies was determined by GIS measurements of the RF3 trace ( or assigned a length of 5 miles if no RF3 trace was avOable). The area of lake and estuary waterbodies was determined with crude GIS aerial measurement techniques (if estuary waterbodies had no RF3 traces, their area was set to 5 square miles and unknown lake waterbodies were assigned an area of I square mile). The water quality within each waterbody is assumed to be homogenous (if data prove this assumption to be wrong, then the waterbody was subdivided). GIS techniques were used to assign STORET sites to their respective watersheds and the location of each site was visually inspected on a GIS map. If more than one named waterbody showed up in a watershed (based on the STORET data within a watershed), then the watershed was subdivided. Inventory of STORET Data An inventory of data was retrieved from STORET for the 1970-1993 time period. If data within a watershed were available for the current time period (defined as 1989-1993), then historical data was not examined, except for trend analysis. If no current data were found, then historic data (defined as 1970-1988) were used for the assessment. Fifty STORET parameter codes representing 21 different water quality parameters were inventoried (Table 3). There are about 8000 Florida stations in STORET which were sampled in 1970-1993. These stations are located in 1500 of the 4400 watersheds. Annual average (median) water quality was calculated for each of these stations and the data were stored on a local EBM Personal computer. In order for an annual average to be calculated for a station, the station had to be sampled at least twice within each year. STORET remark 2 Table 3. Storet Water Quality Assessment Parameters. Category Storet Parameter Name Storet Parameter Code Coliform Fecal Coli MPN-FCBR/100ml 31616 Coliform Fecal Coli MPNECMED/100ml 31615 Coliform Total Coli MGIMENDO/100ml 31501 Coliform Total Coli MPN CONG/100m.1 31505 Conductivity Conductivity at 25c micromho 95 Conductivity Conductivity Field micromho 94 Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen % saturation 301 Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen mg/1 300 Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen Probe mg/l 299 Diversity Index Biotic Index BI 82256 Diversity Index Diversity Index Artificial substrate 82251 Diversity Index Diversity Index Natural substrate 82246 Flow Stream Flow cfs 60 Flow Stream Flow inst.-cfs 61 Oxygen Demand BOD 5 day mg/1 310 Oxygen Demand COD Hi Level mg/1 340 Oxygen Demand Tot Organic Carbon C mg/l 680 pH-Alkalinity PH SU 400 pH-Alkalinity PH SU lab 403 pH-Alkalinity Total Alkalinity CaC03 mg/l 410 Temperature Temperature Water cent 10 Trophic Status Chlorophyll A mg/l 32230 Trophic Status Chlorophyll A mg/l 32217 Trophic Status Chlorophyll A mg/l 32210 Trophic Status Chlorophyll A mg/l corrected 32211 Trophic Status Chlorophyll Total mg/l 32234 Trophic Status Chlorophyll . total ug/l 32216 Trophic Status Nitrogen ammonia Diss-N02 mg/1 71846 Trophic Status Nitrogen NH3+NH4- N Diss mg/l 608 Trophic Status Nitrogen NH3-NH4- N total mg/l 610 Trophic Status Nitrogen Nitrate Diss-N03 mg/l 71851 Trophic Status Nitrogen Nitrate Tot-N03 mg/1 71850 Trophic Status Nitrogen N026N03 N-Diss mg/1 631 Trophic Status Nitrogen N026NO3 N-Total mg/l 630 Trophic Status Nitrogen N03-N Diss mg/l 618 Trophic Status Nitrogen N03-N Total mg/1 620 Trophic Status Nitrogen Org N N mg/l 605 Trophic Status Nitrogen Tot Kjel N mg/l 625 Trophic Status Nitrogen Total N As N03 mg/1 71887 Trophic Status Nitrogen Total N N mg/l 600 Trophic Status Phosphorus OrthoPO4 mg/l 660 Trophic Status Phosphorus Total As P04 mg/1 71886 3 Table 3. Storet Water Qu ality Assessment Parameters (continued). Category Storet Parameter Name Storet Parameter Code Trophic Status Phosphorus Total mg/1 P 665 %Trophic Status Transparency Secchi Inches 77 Trophic Status Transparency Secchi Meters 78 Water Clarity Color PT-CO Units 80 Water Clarity Color-AP Pt-CO Units 81 Water Clarity Residue Tot NFLT mg/1 530 Water Clarity Turbidity JKSN JTU 70 Water Clarity Turbidity TRBIDMTR HACH FTU 76 codes also present a problem in data analysis when a data value is recorded as "less than" the actual value reported. In these cases the reported value was multiplied by 0.5 to adjust for the "less than" condition. Data with STORET remark codes indicating that the reported value was "greater than" the actual value were dropped from further analysis. A Water Quality Index value was calculated for each stream/river annual median and a Trophic State Index value was calculated for each lake/estuary annual median. Florida Stream Water Quality Index Procedure To assess Florida stream water quality, a Florida stream Water Quality Index (WQI) was developed and first used in the 1988 305(b) report. The WQI is based on the quality of water as measured by six water quality categorie& (water clarity, dissolved oxygen, oxygen demanding substances, bacteria, nutrients and biological diversity). Each category may have more than one parameter as shown in Table 4. Raw (annual average) data are converted into index values which range from 0 to 99 for the six categories. Index values correspond to the percentile distribution of stream water quality data in Florida (Table 4). [The percentile distribution of STORET water quality data were determined in 1987 for 2,000 ambient, stream STORET locations in Florida.] For example, Table 4 shows the BOD concentrations ranged from 0.8 mg/1 (10 percentile) to 5.1 mg/ (90 percentile) with a median value of 1.5 mg/1 (50 percentile). A BOD concentration of 0 to less than 0.8 mg/1 is assigned an index value of 0 to 9, etc. The overall WQI is the arithmetic average of the six water quality index categories. The index for each category is determined by averaging its component parameter index values. NEssing water quality parameters and missing water quality categories are ignored in the final calculation. Therefore, the final WQI is based on an average of anywhere from I to 6 water quality index categories. Table 5 shows an example calculation of the WQL The WQ1 can be calculated from just one index category; however, it becomes more reliable as more categories are used in its calculation. In order to determine the range of values of the WQI which correspond to good, fair and poor quality, the WQI was correlated with the EPA National Profiles Water Quality Index for Florida data. (The EPA WQI was used in the 1986 305(b)). Based on this correlation, the cutoff values for the WQI were determined as follows: 0 to less than 45 represents good quality, 45 to less than 60 represents fair quality, and 60 to 99 represents poor quality. The Florida stream Water Quality Index has several advantages over indices used previously. First, the index is tailored to Florida water quality data, since it is based on the percentile distribution of Florida stream data. Second, it uses the water quality categories which are felt to be the most important measures of water quality in Florida: water clarity, dissolved oxygen, oxygen demanding substances, nutrients, bacteria and biological diversity. Third, it is simple to understand and calculate and does not require a mainframe computer or any complex data transformations or averaging schemes. Finally, the index 5 Table 4. Florida Stream Water Quality Index Criteria. Percentile Distribution of STORET Data. Parameter Best Quality Median Value Worst Quality Unit 1096 2096 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Category: Water Clarity Turbidity JTU 1.50 3.00 4.00 4.50 5.20 8.80 12.20 16.50 21.00 Total Suspended Soldis mg/l 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.50 6.50 9.50 12.50 18.00 26.50 ** Category: Dissolved oxygen Dissolved Oxygen mg/l 8.00 7.30 6.70 6.30 5.80 5.30 4.80 4.00 3.10 ** Category: Oxygen Demand Biochemical Oxygen Demand mg/l 0.80 1.00 1.10 1.30 1.50 1.90 2.30 3.30 5.10 Chemical oxygen Demand mg/l 16.00 24.00 32.00 38.00 46.00, 58.00 72.00 102.00 146.00 Total Organic Carbon mg/l 5.00 7.00 9.50 12.00 14.00 17.50 21.00 27.50 37.00 Category: Nutrients Total Nitrogen mg/1 as N 0.55 0.75 0.90 1.00 1.20 1.40 ql.60 2.00 2.70 Total Phosphorus mg/l as P 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.16 0.24 0.46 0.89 ** Category: Bacteria Total Coliform #/100 ml 100.00 150.00 250.00 425.00 600.00 1100.00 1600.00 3700;00 7600.00 Fecal Coliform #/100 ml 10.00 20.00 35.00 55.00 75.00 135.00 190.00 470.00 960.00 ** Category: Biological Diversity Diversity Index Nat. Substrate Index 3.50 3.10 2.80 2.60 2.40 2.15 1.95 1.50 1.20 Diversity Index Art. Substrate Index 3.55 3.35 3.20 3.05 2.90 2.65 2.40 1.95 1, 35 Beck's Biotic Index Index 32.00 28.00 23.00 18.50 14.00 11.00 8.00 5.50 3.50 am M do, an low an mom= MMMMMMMM M Mmw M Table 5. An Example Calculation of the Florida Stream Water Quality Index (WQI). Parameter Water Quality Category' Water Quality Parameter 2 ValUe3 Index Value 4 Index Average5 Water Clarity Turbidity 3.9 mg/l 29 40 Water Clarity Total Suspended Solids 7.0 mg/1 52 Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen 5.4 mg/l 58 58 oxygen Demanding Substances BOD 2.8 mg/l 75 Oxygen Demanding Substances COD 31.0 mg/1 29 52 Oxygen Demanding Substances TOC Nutrients Total Nitrogen 1.87 mg/l 77 79 Nutrients Total Phosphorus 0.56 mg/l 82 Bacteria Total Coliform 1800 MPN/100 ml 71 70 Bacteria Fecal Coliform 1900 MPN/100 ml 70 Macroinvertebrate Diversity Natural Substrate 1.7 76 Macroinvertebrate Diversity Artificial Substrate 2.3 72 69 Macroinvertebrate Diversity Beck's Biotic Index 11.0 60 WQI = 61' 1- These are the 6 water quality categories. 2_ These are the 13 water quality parameters which make up the 6 categories. 3_ These are the actual data values (1.1 indicates no measurement was taken for this parameter). 4_ The index value is based on the percentile distribution values shown in Table 4. 5_ The category average is based on an average of each of the water quality parameter values. 6- The WQI is an average of the category index values, i.e., WQI = (40+58+52+79+70+69)/6=61. works; it nicely identifies areas of good, fair, and poor water quality that correspond to professional and public opinion. A toxic pollutants category would be a valuable addition to the index; however, toxic pollutants were not included in the index since there is relatively little data in Florida (compared to the amount of data for conventional pollutants ). Toxic pollutants were assessed separately as discussed later in this section of the report. Trophic State Index Procedure The Trophic State Index procedure provides an effective method of classifying lakes based on the lake's chlorophyll, Secchi depth, nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations. The index was developed in 1982 in response to the EPA Clean Lakes Program and is documented in the Classification of Florida Lakes Report by the University of Florida, Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences. This index remains unchanged from the 1988 305(b) report. The index is based on a trophic classification scheme developed in 1977 by R.E. Carlson. It relies on three trophic indicators to describe the trophic status of a lake. The goal was to have each indicator relate to algal biomass such that a 10 unit change in the index would represent a doubling or halving of algal biomass. Carlson developed indices based on Secchi disc transparency, chlorophyll concentration and total phosphorus' concentration. The Florida Trophic State Index (TSI) is based on the same rationale, but also includes total nitrogen concentration as a fourth index. Criteria were developed for Florida lakes from a regression analysis of data on 313 Florida lakes. The desirable upper limit for the index is set at 20 ug/l chlorophyll which corresponds to an index of 60. Doubling the chlorophyll concentration to 40 ug/l results in an index increase to 70 which is the cutoff for undesirable (or poor) lake quality. Index values from 60 to 69 represent 'fair' water quality. The criteria for chlorophyll, Secchi depth, total phosphorus and total nitrogen concentrations are shown in Table 6. A nutrient index is also calculated based on phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations and the limiting nutrient concept. The lirr@iting nutrient concept identifies a lake as phosphorus limited if the nitrogen to phosphorus concentration ratio is greater than 30, as nitrogen limited if the ratio is less than 10, and balanced (depending on both nitrogen and phosphorus) if the ratio is 10-30. Thus, the nutrient TSI is based solely on phosphorus if the ratio is greater than 3 0, solely on nitrogen if less than 10, or based on both nitrogen and phosphorus if the ratio is between 10 and 30. An overall index (TSI) is calculated based on the average of the chlorophyll TSI, the Secchi depth TSI and the nutrient TSI. For this index to be calculated, both nitrogen and phosphorus measurements are required for the sample. The lake trophic state index was also applied to Florida estuaries to describe estuarine water quality. The criteria for the estuary quality ratings is 10 less than the lake ratings (i.e., good estuarine water quality is a TSI value of 0-49, fair quality is 50- 59, and poor quality is a value of 60-100). Table 7 shows an example TSI calculation. 8 Table 6. Trophic State Index 'TSI' for Lakes and Estuaries. For Lakes: 0-59 is good, 60-69 is fair, 70-100 is poor For Estuaries: 0-49 is good, 50-59 is fair, 60-100 is poor Trophic State Chlorophyll Secchi Depth Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen Index CHLA SD TP TN TSI (ug/1) (M) (Mgp/l) (mgN/1) 0 0.3 7.4 0.003 0.06 10 0.6 5.3 0.005 0.10 20 1.3 3.8 0.009 0.16 30 2.5 2.7 0.01 0.27 40 5.0 2.0 0.02 0.45 50 10.0 1.4 0.04 0.70 60 20.0 1.0 0.07 1.2 70 40 0.7 0.12 2.0 80 80 0.5 0.20 3.4 90 160 0.4 0.34 5.6 100 320 0.3 0.58 9.3 TSI equations which generate the above criteria: CHLATs, = 16.8 + [14.4 x LN (CHIA)] (use Natural Log) SDTSI = 60- (30 x LN (SD)] TNTSI = 56 + (19.8 x IN (TN)) TPTSI @ 111.6 x IN (TP x 1000)1 -11*4 TSI (CHLATs, + SDTSI + NUTRTSI-) /3 Limiting Nutrient considerations for Calculating NUTRTSI: If TN/TP > 30 then NUTRTs, = TPTsj If TN/TP < 10 then NUTRTSI = TNTsj If 10 < TN/TP <30 then NUTRTs, = (TPTSI + TNTSO /2 9 Table 7. An Example Calculation of the Trophic State Index (TSI) (See Table 6 for Formulas). Annual Average TSI Calculation Average TSI Chlorophyll 6.0 ug/l 42.6" 42.1 Secchi Depth 1.8 meters 42.3 2. 42.3 Phosphorus* 0.04 mg P/l 50.2 3- Nitrogen* 0.67 mg N11 48. 14- 4 9. 2'- 4 5. 0'- 1. CHIA = 16.8 + (14.4 x LN (6.0)] = 42.1 (use Natural Log) 2. SD = 60 - [30 x LN (1.9)] = 42.3 3. TP = [18.6 x IN (0.04 x 1000H - 18.4 = 50.2 4. TN = 56 + (19.8 x LN (0.67)] -- 48.1 5. TN/TP Ratio = 0.67/0.04 = 16.7 therefore, TSI NUTR an average of TSI Phosphorus and TSI Nitrogen = (50.2 + 48.1)/2 = 49.2 6. (42.6 + 42.3 + 49.2)/3 = 45 Note: If either phosphorus or nitrogen sampling information are missing, then the index is not calculated. Chlorophyll and/or Secchi Depth may be missing and the index will be calculated. 10 Screening Levels Screening levels were used to determine water quality problems caused by each of nineteen water quality parameters (Table 8). Screening levels were based on either Florida criteria or on criteria established by professional judgment when quantitative Florida criteria are absent. Different screening levels were developed for streams, lakes and estuaries to take into account the natural differences among these waterbodies. The criteria which were established by professional judgment were based on the percentile distribution of Florida data. The eightieth percentile was chosen as the cutoff between acceptable and unacceptable water quality. This means that 80% of Florida's water quality data will have acceptable levels. Table 8 identifies the screening levels used, the typical values measured and the Florida criteria for streams, lakes and estuaries. Screening level exceedances are noted in the data tables for each watershed in each basin. Trend Analysis Water quality trend analysis was performed on 12 water quality parameters (plus the overall stream water quality index and the trophic state index) for 460 watersheds. The time frame for the analysis is from 1984-1993. The analysis was quite simple; a non- parametric correlation analysis (Spearman's Ranked Correlation) was used to analyze the ten-year trend of the annual STORET station medians for each watershed. There may have been only one station analyzed within a watershed resulting in a maximum of ten years of data, or there may have been many stations sampled within the watershed resulting in the analysis of many more yearly station medians and a more meaningful trend analysis. A separate trend assessment technique was used to analyze stream, lake, and estuary waterbodies. Stream trend analysis utilized the trend information from eight water quality parameters (bacteria, turbidity, total suspended solids, BOD, dissolved oxygen, Secchi depth, nitrogen and phosphorus) plus the overall water quality index. Lake and estuary trend analysis focused on four trophic state parameters (chlorophyll, Secchi depth, nitrogen and phosphorus) plus the trophic state index. The overall trend of each waterbody was determined by comparing the number of improved water quality parameters to the number of degraded water quality parameters. Some waterbodies showed quite strong trends. If a waterbody showed no trends, or just one parameter showed a trend (or the number of improved trends minus the number of degraded trends is zero or one), then the trend is classified as "no change". This trend analysis must be considered preliminary due to the simplicity of the technique. Table S. Water Quality Assessment Parameters For Florida Streams, Lakes and Estuaries, Screening Levels-Typical Values-Florida Criteria. Parameter Units Screening Typical Values Florida Criteria (17-302) Level 10% (Median) 90% Class III Water Body Type: Stream Alkalinity CaC03 Mg/1 13 (75) 150 20.0 mg/l min. Beck''s Biotic Index Index <5.5 4 (14) 32 BOD 5 Day mg/1 >3.3 0.8 (1.5) 5.1 Not cause DO<5 mg/l Chlorophyll ug/1 1 (6) 30 COD mg/1 >102 16 (46) 146 Coliform-Fecal #/100 ml >470 10 (75) 960 200/100 ml Coliform-total #/100 ml >3700 100 (600) 7600 1000/100 ml Color Platinum-Color Units 21 (71) 235 No nuisance conditions Conductivity micromho >1275 100 (335) 1300 1275 or 50% abv background Dissolved Oxygen mg/1 <4.0 3.1 (5.8) 8.0 5.0 mg/l Diversity Artificial Sub index <1.95 1.4 (2.9) 3.6 min. 75% of DI Diversity Natural Substr index <1.50 1.2 (2.4) 3.5 min. 75% of DI (marine) DO % Saturation % 36 (68) 90 Fecal Strep #/100 ml 20 (15) 1700 Fluoride mg/l 0.1 (0.2) 0.8 10.0 mg/1 Nitrogen-total mg/l as N >2.0 0.5 (1.2) 2.7 Not cause imbalance pH standard units 6.1 (7.1) 7.9 <6.0 >8.5 Phosphorus-total mg/1 as P >0.46 0.02 (0.09) 0.89 Not cause imbalance Secchi Disc Depth meters 0.4 (0.8) 1.7 min. 90% background Temperature centigrade 19 (23) 28 No nuisance conditions Total Organic Carbon mg/1 >27.5 5 (14) 37 Total Suspended Solids mg/1 >18.0 2 (7) 26 Turbidity JTU FTU >16.5 1.5 (5) 21 29 NTUs above background ** Waterbody Type: Lake Alkalinity CaC03 Mg/l >20. 2 (28) 116 20.0 mg/l min. Chlorophyll ug/1 >40. 1 (12) 70 Nitrogen-total mg/l as N >2.0 0.4 (1.1) 2.5 Not cause imbalance Phosphorus-total mg/1 as P >0.12 0.01 (0.05) 0.29 Not cause imbalance Secchi Disc Depth meters <0.7 0.4 (0.9) 2.7 Min. 90% background ** Waterbody Type: Estuary Chlorophyll ug/l >40 1 (9) 36 Nitrogen-total mg/1 as N >2.0 0.3 (0.8) 1.6 Not cause imbalance Phosphorus-total mg/1 as P >0.12 0.01 (0.07) 0.20 Not cause imbalance. Secchi Disc Depth meters <0.7 0.6 (1.1) 3.0 Min. 90% background Toxic Pollutant Assessment The assessment of toxic pollutants in Florida's waters was accomplished by an inventory of 9 STORET toxic metal parameters for 1991-93 (Table 9). The Florida surface water quality standards (Chapter 17-302, Florida Administrative Code) were used to assess whether the toxic pollutant was found at an elevated level. Several standards are based on hardness levels, however, since hardness levels were not available in all cases, a hardness value of 100 mg/I as calcium carbonate was assumed. An elevated level was defined as any exceedance of the standard for any of the nine metals. Generally, each waterbody was sampled two or three times for several of the metals during the last three years. Nonpoint Source Assessment An extensive assessment of nonpoint source impacts on Florida's waters was conducted in 1988 through the use of a questionnaire sent to all major State agencies (Water Management Districts, Division of Forestry, Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission), city and county offices, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Forestry Service, Regional Planning Councils, local Soil and Water Conservation Districts, citizen environmental groups (Sierra Clubs, Audubon Society and others) and professional outdoor guides. The respondents (approximately 150 agencies and 350-400 participants) to the questionnaire identified nonpoint sources of pollution, environmental pollution symptoms (fish kills, algal blooms, etc.) pollutants and miscellaneous comments. The assessment has been updated in 1994. The 1994 nonpoint source assessment was performed more efficiently than the 1988 version due largely to the use of GIS technology for compiling and displaying the data, and also advancements in the questionnaire methodology. Scannable forms were used eliminating the need to key punch data and integration with the 305b report was much improved. Florida's 1994 nonpoint source assessment was performed using a qualitative, best professional judgment approach. Unlike point source pollution analysis and its readily available STORET ambient data, there is rarely any convenient database of water quality monitoring data that has been designed for analyzing impacts of nonpoint source pollution on 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 1994 survey was sent to essentially the same group of professionals as the 1988 report and approximately fifty 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 1720 watersheds or about 40 % of the total watersheds were qualitatively assessed by the respondents. Data tables summarizing the 1994 NPS survey are presented for each basin in this report. The remainder of this section describes the information presented in these tables. 12 Table 9. Toxic Metals in the Water Column. Storet Number of Parameter Waterbodies Florida % of Waterbodies Metal Number Sampled Criteria (ppb) With Exceedances Arsenic 1002 162 50 0% Cadmium 1027 211 1.1 17% Chromium 1034, 155 207* 0% Copper 1042 330 12* 10% Iron 1045 378 1000 22% Lead 1.051 240 3.2* 30% Mercury 71900 129 0.012 47% Nickel 1067 130 158* 0% zinc 1092 253 106 10% actual criteria is dependent on. water hardness which was assumed to be 100 mg/I as calcium carbonate since hardness was not available in. all wate rbodies 13 The impairment rating of a waterbody was defined as status of waters within a watershed as determined by support or nonsupport 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 aerial 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: I . Good (meets designated use). All surface waters in the watershed are supporting their use classification with no evidence of nonpoint source problems. 2. Threatened (meets designated use). 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 support their designated use. 3. Fair (partially meets designated use). Some, but not all, surface waters in the watershed are not supporting their designated use. 4. Poor (does not meet use). All surfacewaters in the watershed are not supporting their designated use. Nonpoint source pollution is generally associated with land use activities which do not have a well-defined point of discharge, such as discharge from 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 potential source areas. Some of the common activities and sources which were considered in the nonpoint source assessment 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. Silvaculture 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. 14 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. Abbreviations were used for the nonpoint source categories in the NPS data tables which are found in each basin write-up on the following pages. Those abbreviations correspond to the sources as described below: AG Agricultural runoff RE Resource extraction or mining SL Silvaculture or for operations LD Land disposal TJR Urban runoff CN Construction site runoff Jim Hydrologic Modification OT Other nonpoint source. IND Industrial site runoff STP Sewage treatment plant Data for the last two point source categories were not obtained from the 1994 NPS assessment survey, but rather they come from the 1992 3 05 (b) Report. 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 pf 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 chen-dcals can be found in runoff from agricultural lands and some urban areas. 6. Other Chemicals. General category for other chemicals besides pesticides and oil and grease, typically associated with landfills, industrial land uses and hazardous waste sites. 15 7. Debris. This category includes trash ranging from Styrofoarn 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. 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 fauna. Included with habitat alteration is habitat loss. 13. Flow Alteration. Landuse activities whicit 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 ambient 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. 5. 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. 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. 16 9. Other Symptoms. General category used for information that cannot be placed in any other category. Making Use Support Determinations EPA has revised its criteria for determining the status of waters as documented in Appendix B of the Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1994 State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Report). Often, a variety of assessment techniques were available for each watershed (e.g., chemical data, biological data and NPS survey results) and in this case a use decision was made based on integrating 01 the information. If quantitative data were available on the water quality of a waterbody (through the Trophic State Index or Water Quality Index) then the designated use of the waterbody was determined from the quantitative information, and if no quantitative data were available, then the qualitative NPS survey results were used to estimate designated use of the waterbody. Current data was available for assessment of about 1100 watersheds, historic data was used in 400 watersheds, and qualitative data was used in 1000 watersheds. The NPS survey provided all the information on sources of pollution (e.g. urban or construction runoff) and part of the information on causes and symptoms of pollution. Integrating the information from the quantitative (STORET) analysis and the qualitative NPS survey was not easy, but many additional watersheds were assessed based on the results of the integration. In the future, the two techniques should blend together much better through increased coordination of efforts. 17 Apalahoochee River GEORGIA Alligator Creek SUWANNEE RIVER CONFLUENCE ALAPAHA RIVER BASIN WATER QUALITY 03110202 GOOD AVERAGE WATER QUALITY THREATENED 1984-1993 STORET DATA FAIR WATERSHED ID NUMBERS LINK MAP TO TABLES POOR INDICATES QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT UNKNOWN page 17 ALAPAHA RIVER BASIN .......... - - - ---- - - -------- - ----- - ---- - - - ------ Basic Facts Drainage Area: 1,840 square miles (about 5% in Florida) Major Land Uses: forest, agriculture Population Density: very low (Jasper) NUjor Pollution Sources: all-terrain vehicle usage of river bed when dry, point sources in Georgia Best Water Quality Areas: flow dependent Worst Water Quality Areas: flow dependent Water Quality Trends: stable trend at 1 site OFW Waterbodies: none SWIM Waterbodies: part of the Suwannee River SWIM Plan Reference Reports: Suwannee River System SWIM Plan, SRWMD, 1991 Alapaha River Basin Assessment SFWMD, 1979 Florida Rivers Assessment DEP/FREAC/NPS, 1989 Basin Water Quality Experts: Ron Ceyrak, SRWMD, 904/362-1001 Homer Royals, FGFWFC, 904/357-6631 Lee Banks, DEP (Jacksonville), 904/448-4300 - --- - ------------ - --------- - -- - ------ ---- - ---- - -- - ---- - --------- - ------ - - ------------------ In the News A chicken rendering plant was proposed in Georgia near the Alapaha River. It was proposed that wastewater from the plant be sprayed on a 30 acre field 4000 feet from the river. Opponents have expressed concern that runoff would contaminate the river, however, there is no record of impacts to date. -- - --- - ---------- - ------------------- - ------- ------ - --------- Ecological Characterization The Alapaha River basin originates in Georgia and terminates at the Suwanitee River north of the Town of Live Oak in Florida. The basin drains 1840 square miles (376 river miles) of which 100 (18 river miles) are in Florida. The Florida portion of the basin is mostly forest and agricultural land. In Georgia, the river is mostly blackwater with some alluvial runoff. After entering.Florida, it flows into a karst terrain where it is captured by sinkholes during low flow (about half the time). It re-emerges near its confluence with the Suwannee River, most probably as Alapaha Rise Spring or Holton Springs. The underground and groundwater connections buffer the Alapaha to a near-neutral pH. The River contributes an annual average of 15% of the annual flow to the Suwannee River. 18 genic Impacts Ant-hrow - I Point sources of pollution to the river located in Georgia are the Cities of Alapaha, Fitzgerald, and Lakeland WWTPs. Within Florida, the City of Jasper WWTP discharges into a tributary, Bell Creek, of the river. The Alapaha River appears to have good water quality in the Florida reach. It flows through rural areas of low intensity agriculture and silviculture. There may be significant habitat impacts since at low flow the dry or semi-dry riverbed is a favorite area for all-terrain vehicle use. The river has been monitored since 1989 by SRMOM as a SV,/TM priority water. The sampling station is located below the river's confluence with the Alapahoochee River near the Town of Jennings. 19 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03110202 ALAPAHA RIVER INDEX GOOD FA--R POOR ----------- ----- ----- ----- SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 1910-1993 WQI-RIVER 0-44 45-59-60-90 MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED TSI-ESTUARY 0-49 50-59 60-100 ----- CURRENT PERIOD OF RECORD (1989-1993) USED WHERE AVAILABLE PERIOD PRIOR TO 19B9 IS EVALUATED AS HISTORICAL INFORMATION TSI-LAKE 0-59 60-69 70-100 1 1 BIOLOGICAL WATER WATERSHED WATERSHED DATA RECORD WATER DISSOLVED OXYGEN PH TROPHIC SPECIES QUALITY ID NAME ---------------------- CLARITY OXYGEN DEMAND ALKALINITY STATUS COLIFORM DIVERSITY COND FLOW INDICES ----- ---------------------------------- MAX BEG END DATA ---------------------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ----- ----- --------------- #OBS YR YR PERIOD TURB SD COLOR TSS DO DOSAT BOD COD TOC PH ALK NITRO PHOS CHIA, TOTAL FECL NAT ART BECK CORD FLOW WQI TSI WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 1 ALAPAHA RIVER 46 89 93 Current 5.3 0.8 140 5 7.7 82 1.0 15 5.9 5 0.98 0.18 1 185 56 38 LEGEND: BOD-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN MG/L MAX #OBS-MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TURB-TURBIDITY MGIL ALK-ALKhLINITY MGIL CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL UG/L DOSAT-DO I SATURATION NAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TOC-TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON NG/L WQI-WATER QUALITY INDEX ART-ARTIFrciAL SUBSTRATE DI ODD-CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND M/L END YR-ENDING YEAR NITRO-TOTAL NITROGEN XG/L TOTAL-TOTAL COLIFORM MPNIIDOML BEG YR-BEGINNING SAMPLING YEAR COLOR-COLOR PCU FECL-FECAL COLIFORM MPN/100ML PH-PH STANDARD UNITS TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX COND-CONDUCTIVITY UMHOS FLOW-FLOW CE'S PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L SuRFA'C'E@WiihR_'QUALitY' DAiA SCREENING REPORT UNIT: 03110202 ALAPAHA7 RIVER ?dDfAN' VALUES FOR EkH WATERSHED SCREENED 'x,'-4XCEEDS SCREENING CRITERIA SCREENING VARIABLES*AND CRITERIA '0'-WITHIN,SCREENtNG CRITERIA '-MISSING DATA I RANX DA:Tk RECORD I TN I STREAM-1 LAICE I PH I ALK I TURB &- I COND I OXYGEN I DO ICOLIFORM I BIOL 1; CHIN I.SECCHI 1 --7-7: ------ I TP I T? I I I TSS I I DEMAND I I BACTI I DIV- I I DISC I I woll :CURRENT WATERS IH.ED I OR@ OR [email protected]' TP>.4.6 ITP>.12 I P,H>8.8 1 ALK<20 ITURB>16.51COND>12751 BOD>3.3 I DO<4- ITOT>3700. IDIART<1.951 CHLA>40 I SD<.7 I ID NAME I TSI HISTORICAL I I I I PH<5.2 I I TSS>18 I I COD>102 I IFECAL>4701DINAT<1.5-1 I ----- ------------------------------------ a-------- I I I I I TOC>27.51 I I,BECK<5.5 I I WATER BODX'JYPE@' STki@k 1* ALAPAHA RIVER I GOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 X' 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 ol I tEGENDw C0NJD-OONDUCTIVIiY FECAL-FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA TP-PHOSPHORUS WQI OR TSI-WATER QUALITY INDEX RATING ALK-ALKALINITY DO-DISSOLV13D OXYGEN HISTORICAL-1970 TO 1988 TOT-TOTAL COLIFORM BACTERIA WHICH INDEX USED, WQI OR TSI, IS BECK-BECKIS BIOTIC INDEX CURRENT-1989 TO 1993 OXYGEN DEKAND-B0D,COD,TOC TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS BASED ON WATERBODY TYPE BIOL DIV-BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY DIART-ARiIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY PH-PH TURB-TURBIDITY CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL DINAT-NATURhL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TN-NITROGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS Mao M m M M M SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESS14ENT REPORT - USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03110202 ALAPAHA RIVER TR END S-SOURCES-CLEANUP :x'-DEGRADING TREND 1984 - 1993 TRENDS 01-STABLE TREND ----------------------------------------------------- ,,,,IMPROVING TREND I lw T1 T T C Sl P Al T T1 B TI DDI T P) T F l<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY -'-MISSING DATA lQUALITY RANK iOVER-jQ or Sl N p H D1 H Ll U Sl 0 01 001 C Cl E L I I ------------- I ALL 11 11 L I KI R St D Cl sl 0 Ol M 0 1 WQI TREND: A 8 A@ L L: P W WATERSHED MEETS OR @ T I I ID NAME I USE ? TSI I I I I I I I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ----- ------------------------ I ------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 1 ALAPAHA RIVER IYES GOODI 0 1 0 10 0 . xl 0 0( 0 01 . 01 0 01 . .1 + . I LEGEND: DOSAT-DO SATURATION TODLI-TOTAL COLIFORM TURB-TURBIDITY FCOLI-FECAL COLIFORM TEMP-TEMPBRATURE TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX FOR LAKES AND ESTUARIES ALK-ALKALINITY FLOW-FDOW TN-NITROGEN WQI--WATSR QULAITY INDEX FOR STREAMS AND SPRINGS BOD-BIOCHEM. OXYGEN DEMAND MEETS USE-MERTS DESIGNATED USE TOC-T.ORGANIC CARBON CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL PH-PH TP-PHOSPHORUS DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS WOLF: A-Rl BEAq WELA WACISSA IR W'S" Op I AUCILLA RIVER AUCILLA RIVER BASIN WATER QUALITY 03 110103 GOOD AVERAGE WATER QUALITY THREATENED 1984-1993 STORET DATA FAIR WATERSHED ID NUMBERS LINK MAP TO TABLES POOR INDICATES QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT UNKNOWN page 23 AUCILLA RIVER BASIN Drainage Am: 850 square miles (about 733 square miles in Florida) Major Land Uses: silviculture, agriculture Popuiation Density: very low MaJor Pollution Sources: silviculture, cattle access to Wacissa Best Water Quality Areas: Aucilla. and Wacissa River Worst Water Quality Areas: Little Aucilla Water Quality T rends: stable quality at 3 sites and improving quality on Lower Aucilla OFW Waterbodies: Wacissa Paver, Aucilla River SWIM Waterbodies: Coastal Rivers Reference Reports: Aucilla River System SWIM Plan, SRWMD, 1990 Florida Rivers Assessment, DEP&REAC/NPS, 1989 Florida Nonpoint Source Assessment, DEP (rallahassee), 1988 Aucilla River System SWIM Plan, SRWMD, 1991 Basin Water Quality Experts: Gray Bass, FGFWFC, 904/9574172 Homer Royals, FGFWFC, 904/357-6631 Lee Banks, DEP (Jacksonville) 904/4484300 Ecological Characterization The Aucilla River is an exceptional jewel among Florida!s rivers. The Aucilla River and its main tributary, the Wacissa River, are designated Outstanding Florida Waters. Originating in Georgia, the blackwater Aucilla flows approximately 69 miles to the Gulf of Mexico and drains 733 square miles of northern Florida. The headwaters are a series of lakes, swamps, sinkholes and underground passages that eventuafly coalesce into a defined channel. Water quality is characterized by tea-colored water due to natural humic substances. This stretch of the river is a favorite of canoeists as it offers some of Florida's rare river rapids. The river goes underground and, for about 2 miles, is evident only as a series of sinkholes until it reappears about 5 miles downstream in a swampy area around Nutall Rise. The Wacissa River originates from several springs about 15 miles southeast of Tallahassw. This stream runs clear during periods of low rainfall, but becomes tannic during rainy times. It flows through an area abounding in wildlife and diverse vegetation. After about 12 miles, the Wacissa begins to diverge into several braided channels that form a maze of surface and underground passages eventually emptying into the Aucilla near where it emerges. A shallow canal built by Indians and rebuilt by slaves (in the early 19th century) provides canoe passage to the Aucilla River through virtually untouched floodplain and swamps. Both the Aucilla and Wacissa are rich in archaeological sites, including prehistoric fossil records and evidence of early Indian settlements. Both river corridors are refuge to many rare and endangered species. Most of the drainage area is in silviculture, and much of the river corridor area is in public ownership. 24 The mouth of the Aucilla empties into an expanse of Spartina saltmarsh adjoining the St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge. ARthro Mgenic Impacts The water quality of the river is currently being monitored by DER It was previously sampled in 1987 as part of a Basin Assessment. An integrated comprehensive investigation of water quality and biological resources has not been performed. Water quality appears to be very good in this basin. There are few pollution sources and relatively low impact land uses. The upper reaches of the Aucilla River and the Little Aucilla River are swampy and have little flow. They are naturally low in pH and dissolved oxygen. Consequently, biological diversity is low especially in the Little Aucilla. However, after the stream coalesces into a defined stream, and its flow supplemented by groundwater, biological diversity improves (near Lamont). All reaches below this area normally have levels of pH and DO consistent with unpolluted flowing streams. Although still supporting healthy populations of native aquatic plants, the Wacissa does periodically have areas clogged with Hydrilla and water hyacmth. Also, near where the Wacissa becomes diffuse before reaching the Aucilla, there is an area where cattle have direct access to the water. 25 mmm USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03110103 AUCILLA RIVER INDEX GOOD FAIR POOR SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 1970-1993 ----------- ----- ----- ----- MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED WQI-RIVER 0-44 45-59-60-90 CURRENT PERIOD OF RECORD (1989-1993) USED WHERE AVAILABLE TSI-ESTUARY 0-49 50-59 60-100 ----- PERIOD PRIOR TO 1989 IS EVALUATED AS HISTORICAL INFORMATION TSI-LAKE 0-59 60-69 70-100 1 1 BIOLOGICAL WATER WATERSHED WATERSHED DATA RECORD WATER DISSOLVED OXYGEN PH TROPHIC SPECIES QUALITY ID NAME ---------------------- CLARITY OXYGEN DEMAND ALKALINITY STATUS COLIFORM DIVERSITY COND FLOW INDICES ----- --------------------------------- MAX BEG END DATA ---------------------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ----- ----- --------------- #OBS YR YR PERIOD TURB SD COLOR TSS DO DOSAT BOD COD TOC PH ALK NITRO PHOS CHIA TOTAL FECL NAT ART BECK COND FLOW WQI TEL WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 26 DEVILS WOODYARD SLOUGH 3 80 80 Historical 15 6.7 9 0.51 0.01 4 28 31 WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 1 AUCILLA RIVER 30 91 93 Current 0.1 65 3 7.0 67 1.1 '7.3 135 0.35 0.04 680 74 295 25 5 AUCILIA RIVER 53 78 86 Historical 1.3 . 7.0 72 17 7.0 57 0.76 0.06 36 103 422 28 7 WACISSA RIVER 63 71 75 Historical 1.7 5 2 6.6 72 0.3 3 7.8 146 0.17 0.05 1120 145 319 372 25 19 RAYSOR CREEK 18 71 74 Historical 2.2 358 4 3.6 39 0.7 101 3.6 0 . 0.11 117 35 75 44 25 AUCILIA RIVER 25 91 93 Current 1.7 0.5 225 6 4.0 45 1.5 5.0 2 1.09 0.03 355 60 43 46 21 LITTLE AUCILIA RIVER 44 91 93 Current 1.1 0.3 325 5 2.2 24 2.0 4.2 1 1.51 0.04 550 43 51 50 46 AUCILLA RIVER 43 91 93 Current 1.6 0.9 115 4 6.2 67 1.4 7.2 89 0.53 0.03 380 60 3.0 3.6 11 153 35 LEGEND: BOD-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN MG/L MAX #OBS-MAXINUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TURB-TURBIDITY MG/L ALK-ALKALINITY MG/L CHIA-CHLOROPHYLL UG/L DOSAT-DO % SATURATION NAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TOC-TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON MG/L WQJ-VATER QUALITY INDEX ART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DI COD-CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L END YR-ENDING YEAR NITRO-TOTAL NITROGEN MG/L TOTAL-TOTAL COLIFORN MPN/IOOML BEG YR-BEGINNING SAMPLING YEAR COLOR-OOLIOR PCU FECL-FECAL COLIFORM MPN/100ML PH-PH STANDARD UNITS TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX BECK-BECKIS BIOTIC INDEX COND-CONDUCTIVITY UMHOS FLOW-FLOW CPS PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L t'.) CN SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03110103 AUCILLA RIVER MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED SCREENED *x'-BXCEEDS SCREENING CRITERIA SCREENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA '0'-WITHIN SCREENING CRITERIA '.'-MISSING DATA I RANK DATA RECORD I TN I STREAM I LAKE I PH I ALK I TURE & I COND I OXYGEN I DO [COLIFORM I BIOL I CHLA ISECCHI I I------------------ ( I TP I TP I I i TSS I I DEMAND I I BACTI I DIV I f DISC 'I I WQI CURRENT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WATERSHED I OR OR I TN>2.0 I TP>.46 I TP>.12 IPH>8.8 I ALK<20 ITURB>16.51ODND>12751 BOD>3.3 I DD<4 ITOT>3700 IDIART<1.951 CHLA>40 I SD<.7 I ID NAME I TSI HISTORICAL I I I IPH<5.2 I I TSS>18 I I OOD>102 I IFECAL>4701DINAT<1.5 I I I ----- -------------------------------------------- I I I I I- I I TOC>27.51 I IBECK<5.5 I I I � WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 26 DEVILS WOODYARD SLOUGH 'I GOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x I I I I I I 1 0 1 1 � WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 1 AUCILLA RIVER IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 a 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 5 AUCILIA RIVER IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 7 WACISSA RIVER IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 19 RAYSOR CREEK IGOOD Historical I . 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 25 AUCILLA RIVER I FAIR Current 1 0 1 .0 1 1 x I a 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 27 LITTLE AUCILLARIVER IFAIR Current 1 0 1 .0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 a I K 1 0 1 x 1 46 AUCILLA RIVER IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 a 0 1 0 1 0 1 LEGEND: COND-CONDUCTIVITY FECAL-FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA TP-PHOSPHORUS WQI OR TSI-WATER QUALITY INDEX RATING ALK-ALKALINITY DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN HISTORICAL-1970 To 1968 TOT-TOTAL COLIFORM BACTERIA WHICH INDEX USED, KI OR TSI, IS BECK-BECKIS BIOTIC INDEX CURRENT-1989 TO 1993 OXYGEN DM4AND-BOD,COD,TOC TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS BASED ON WATERBODY TYPE BIOL DIV-BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY DIART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY PH-PH TURB-TURBIDITY CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL DINAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TN-NITROGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS NJ SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03110103 AUCILLA RIVER TRENDS-SOURcEs-CLEANUP 'XI-DEGRADING TREND 1 1984 - 1993 TRENDS 0'-STABLE TREND ----------------------------------------------------T +'-IMPROVING TREND jw TJ T T C Sl P Al T TI B TI DD1 T F1 T F I<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY '.'=MISSING DATA (QUALITY RANK IOVER-IQ or Sl N P H D1 H Ll U Sl 001 001 C Cl B L I I------------- I ALL 11 il L I KI R Sl D Cl Sl 0 01 M 0 1 1 WQI ITRENDI I A I I B I I Al L Ll P W I WATERSHED I MEETS OR I I I I I I I T1 I Il I ID NAME IUSE ? TSI I I I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ----- ------------------------ I------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 26 DEVILS WOODYARD SLOUGH IYES GOOD I I I I I f WATER BODY TYPE. STREAM 1 AUCILLA RIVER [YES GOOD I + I a 1 0 + .1 0 01 + 01 0 .1 0 01 0 01 0 1 5 AUCILLA RIVER IYES GOOD I I . .1 . .1 . .( . .1 . .1 . 1 7 WACISSA RIVER IYES GOODI I I I I 1 1 19 RAYSOR CREEK IYES GOOD I I I I I 1 1 25 AUCILLA RIVER IPARTIAL FAIR) 0 1 0 1 0 + X1 0 xt + 01 0 .1 0 01 0 01 0 1 27 LITTLE AUCILLA RIVER IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 01 0 01 + 01 0 .1 0 01 0 01 0 1 46 AUCILLA RIVER IYES GOOD 1 0 1 0 1 0 + 01 0 01 0 xi 0 .1 0 01 0 +t + I LEGEND: DOSAT-DO SATURATION TCOLI-TOTAL COLIFORM TURB-TURBIDITY FCOLI-FECAL OOLIFORM TEMP-TEMPERATURE TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX FOR LAKES AND ESTUARIES ALK-ALKALINITY FLOW-FLOW TN-NITROGEN WQI-WATER QULAITY INDEX FOR STREW AND SPRINGS BOD-BIOCHEH. OXYGEN DEMAND MEETS USE-MEETS DESIGNATED USE TOC-T.ORGANIC CARBON CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL PH-PH TP-PHOSPHORUS DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN SD-SBCCHI DISC METERS TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS b4 00 NPS QUALITATIVE SURVEY RESULTS AN "X" INDICATES 'A PROBLEM WITH POllUTXNT OR SOURCE THE - 'ON 'MAPID INDICATES NO SToRET -INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR THIS WATERSHED -SEE PAGE '11 FOR LEGEND FOR TkfS TABLE- --------- ------------ ----------------------- ------------- ------------------ CATWAME-AJJCILLA RIVER HUC-03110103 ----------------------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------- 'N B S p 0 S 0 F T P 0 u A E -a t A H T T I U I T M T C D S if D 0 L A H H S R S N N H 'A @w w R T I T E B X I M B E E H A B H 0 0 E P w A .0 0 1 E M I R LB Y N IE I F P R X L W 1 0 D 'S F _R B S 3 N E 'R E 0 C 'C R G I T T L M P I G E D D E W I 'S I S y I 1 0 P N I NP 1 -1 H Z T P A A 0 A 0 L A E 1 0 'C I S Y N T A R S L U -C H b D D N 5 S 'T A T 1 D E @S N Y H L W L L L L D T R L M H M D P G B L D IR N M _T 1 3424A 'AUCILLA RIVER GOOD GOOD 1 3424A AUCILLA RIVER G06D 'GOOD I 3424A AUCILLA RIVER GOOD GOOD '44 3505 THE SLAVE 'CANAL GOOD 5 3310B AUCILLA RIVER GOOD THREAT x x x X x x x x k k x 6- 3470 COW CREEK GOOD 7 3424 WACISSA, RIVER GOOD GOOD .8* 3453 JONES MILL CREEK GOOD 9;1 3436 WELAUNER CREEK GOOD 10* 3440 UNNAMED BRANCH THREAT x x x 11* 3442 UNNAMED DRAIN GOOD 12* 3@28 LITTLE RIVER GOOD 13* U30 ANDERSON BAY DRAIN GOOD 14* 3412 ALLIGATOR CREEK THREAT x x it 15* 3407 UNNAMED DRAIN @AEAT x k 16- 34i7 SUNDOWN CREEK THREAT x x x 17* 341� BAILEY MILL CREEK THREAT x x x x x 184 340-@ ROCKY CREEK 19 3377 RjkYSOR, CREEK dool) THREAT x X 20* 3369 HIXTOWN 'SUMM THREAT x x x 21* 33t! BEASLEY CREEK THREAT x k 22* 3382 UNNAMED DRAIN THREAT x x x x x x 23* 3379 MILL POND CREEK THREAT x x x -24- j313 UNNAMED DITCH iRREAT x x X X k k x x 25 3310C AbCIlLA RIVER FAIR THREAT X -x x k x x il x x x x 26 3329 DEVI LS wooDYARD SLOUGH GOOD THREAT x X x x x x x x x 27 3314 LITTLE AUCIllik RIVER FAIR THREAT x x 'ji K x x x x 28- 3337 WOLF CREEK THREM x j( x x . x 29* 3348 JUNE POND OUTLET THREAT x x x 30* 335*6 UNNAMED SLOUGH GOOD 31- 3311 GUM CREEK mkiLkT x x x x x k x k x 32* 3349 MILE POND OUTLET THREAT x x x x x x x k 3@* 3352 SILVER LAKE OUTLET THREAT x k U* 3355 SIMPSON LAKE OUTLET THREAT x x x x x x x x x x 35* 3344 UNNAMEDSLOUGH GOOD 36* 3313 UNNAMED SLOUGH THREAT x x x x x x 37- 3335 UNNAMED BRANCH THRI&T 'X K x x x 38* 3339 UNNAMED OUTL13T THREAT x x x x x 39* 3326 SHEHER LAKE OUTLET THREAT x x x x 40* 3320 UNNAMED SLOUGH THREAT x x x x 41* 331'6 UNNAMED SLOUGH THREAT x x x 4 2* 3317 UNNAMED SLOUGH THREAT x x x 43* 3312 BLUE POND DRAIN THREAT x x x '44* 3309 UNNAMED BRANCH THREAT x x x i5* 3310D MCIIULLEN BAY THREAT x x x x x k x x k x x x '46 3310 AUCILLA RIVER GOOD THREAT x x x K x x x K x x x x Tolomato Riv 3 Mantanzas River 2 9 MOULTRIE CREE Pellicer Cree ATLANTIC OCEAN 21 Mantanzas River/ICWW Tomoka v alifax River 8 PONCE DeLEON INLET SPRU E '.J UPPER EAST COAST BASIN WATER QUALITY 03080201 GOOD AVERAGE WATER QUALITY THREATENED. 1984-1993 STORET DATA FAIR WATERSHED ID NUMBERS LINK MAP TO TABLES POOR INDICATES QUAILITATIVE ASSESSMENT UNKNOWN page 30 I UPPER EAST COAST BASIN -------------- - --- - --------------------- - ------- - --------------------- Basic Facts Drainage Area: 730 square miles Major Land Uses: urban, wetlands, forest Population Density: moderately high (Daytona Beach, Ormond Beach, St. Augustine) Major Pollution Sources: urban runoff, WWTP Best Water Quality Areas: Matanzas River, Casa Cola Cr. Worst Water Quality Areas: B-19 Canal Water Quality Trends: stable quality at 11 sites, declining quality in Palm Court, improving in Casa Cola Cr. and Halifax River near Marineland OFW Waterbodies: Tomoka Marsh State Aquatic Preserve, Tomoka River Pellicer Creek State Aquatic Preserve, Spruce Creek SWIM Waterbodies: none Reference Reports: Coastal Area BAS, DEP (Jacksonville), 1987 Florida Nonpoint Source Assessment, DEP (Tallahassee), 1988 Biological Assessment of St. Augustine WWTP #2, July, 1993, DEP Biological Assessment of City of Flagler Beach WWTP, April, 1993, DEP Basin Water Quality Experts: John Hendrickson, SJRWMD, 904/3294370 Lee Banks, Jim Wright, DEP (Jacksonville), 904/4484300 Guy Hadley, DEP (Orlando), 407/894-7555 --- - -------- - ----------------------- -m--------- - ---------------------- Ecological Characterization The Upper East Coast basin starts just south of Jacksonville and extends south to New Smyrna Beach. The basin consists of a narrow strip of coastal ridge separating the Atlantic Ocean from a narrow lagoon system and the mainland. These lagoons, called "rivers", connect to the ocean by three inlets and to each other through the Intracoastal Waterway. The three major estuarine "rivers" are the Tolomato River to the north (from St. Augustine to Jacksonville), the Matanzas River in the middle (ICWW from St. Augustine Inlet to Matanzas Inlet), and the Halifax River in the south. The Guana River is another lagoon roughly parallel and seaward of the Tolomato and connected to the Tolomato near the St. Augustine inlet. However, it is not part of the Intracoastal Waterway. The majority of the watersheds in this basin are drained by relatively small creeks into the lagoons. In the northern basin, the Moultrie Creek drainage area and the Pcllicer Creek watershed are dominated by forest land, but also have significant amounts of wetlands. The Tomoka River, in the southern portion of the basin, drains wetlands. Both sub-basins have some agricultural drainage through inland canals. Urban areas in the basin include St. Augustine, Ormond Beach, Daytona Beach and several other smaller 31 communities. Increased development in certain areas, such as: Palm Coast and Palm Valley in Ponte Vedra, could adversely influence the Intercoastal Waterway and their respective areas. Agthro "genic !Mpacts A basin assessment of the East Coast Basin performed by district personnel indicated major water quality problems in the Halifax River between Ormond Beach and Daytona Beach. There are elevated nutrient concentrations and excessive turbidity in the area due to urban runoff and effluent from several municipal WWTPs which have a combined discharge of about 30 MGD. There is suspected oil and grease contammation 'in this area from the numerous auto service businesses along the river. Maintenance dredging of the ICWW resuspends sediments and their associated nutrients, metals and oxygen demanding substances. Finally, there are six causeway bridges which act as physical obstructions and serve to compartmentalize the pollution and decrease circulation. A wasteload allocation study of the Halifax River based on water quality data and tidal measurements recommended that advanced wastewater treatment was necessary in order to prevent further degradation. The WWT?s are in the process of, or have agreed to upgrade treatment levels and make further investigation into re-use possibilities. Additionally, the Port Orange Causeway has been modified to allow for better circulation of the southern Halifax. Other areas in the basin winch show borderline good-fhir water quality are Spruce Creek and Tomoka River. Both receive agricultural runoff, and the lower Tomoka also gets airport runoff. Attempts are under way in these areas to improve the quality of stonuwater runoff through the use of treatment basins. A DEP basin assessment found both creeks to have a relatively good biological community. The Nonpoint Source Assessment indicates the Moultrie Creek and Pellicer Creek, in the northern portion of the basin, are degraded by construction and urban runoff The ICWW from Jacksonville Beach to south of Flagler Beach was the subject of a past basin assessment. The Matanzas River around St. Augustine is affected by urban runoff, WWTPs, port activities. ne river exhibits elevated nutrient concentrations and some metals contamination problems. The Matanzas, and Tolomato Rivers are classified for shellfish harvesting, but are closed to shellfishing. 32 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03080201 EAST COAST, UPPER INDEX GOOD -.A:R POOR ----------- ----- ----- ----- SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 1970-1993 VJQI-RIVER 0-44 45-59-60-90 MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED TSI-ESTUARY 0-49 50-59 60-100 CURRENT PERIOD OF RECORD (1989-1993) USED WHERE AVAILABLE TSi-LAKE 0-59 60-69 70-100 1 PERIOD PRIOR TO 1989 IS EVALUATED AS HISTORICAL INFORMATION I BIOLOGICAL WATER WATERSHED WATERSHED DATA RECORD WATER DISSOLVED OXYGEN PH TROPHIC SPECIES QUALITY ID NAME ---------------------- CLARITY OXYG&V DEMAND ALKALINITY STATUS COLIFORM DIVERSITY COND FLOW ---- INDICES---- ----- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ----- ----- ------- ----- ---L ----------------------------- MAX BEG END DATA ---------------------------- ---------- ---------- ALK NITRO PROS CHLA TOTAL PECL NAT ART BECK CORD FLOW wQI TSI #OBS YR YR PERIOD TURB SD COLOR TSS Do DOSAT BOD OOD TOC PH �WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 19 16 5.9 71 1.3 7.6 115 0.61 0.08 3 39 3 3.5 41825 48 1 1 CWW 48 89 93 Current 4.4 1.2 7.8 116 0.67 0.08 7 59 15 2.9 46725 53 2 MATANZAS RIVER 95 go 93 Current 5.7 0.9 24 29 6.0 70 1.1 45575 43 3 MATANZAS RIVER 21 90 92 Current 3.6 1.6 10 14 6.7 78 1.2 9.1 115 0.53 0.18 13 7 3.1 38725 58 4 MATANZAS RIVER 135 90 93 Current 4.4 1.0 50 20 6.2 68 1.3 7.6 110 0.79 0.10 ill 12 3.6 8 ROSE BAY 72 91 93 Current 5.7 0.6 39 26 6.7 72 7.6 . 1.23 0.16 11 179 75 27700 56 le Halifax River 415 89 93 Current 5.7 1.3 23 14 7.1 78 1.6 2 7.9 113 1.10 0.14 7 40 23 44875 55 20 Halifax River 321 89 93 current 8.5 0.9 38 20 7.1 77 1.8 7.7 113 1.20 0.13 7 30 13 37265 56 25 TOMOKA BASIN 32 92 93 Current 6.8 0.9 46 20 7.0 75 1.3 7.5 125 1.30 0.09 5 21 16 35688 54 29 PALK COAST 186 89 93 Current 7.6 0.9 36 20 6.3 70 1.4 7.5 118 0.81 0.11 4 75 15 2.6 41625 54 30 ROBINSON CREEK 30 90 93 Current 3.2 1.6 23 17 6.7 75 1.3 9.1 113 0.56 0.08 7 6 44000 51 31 CASA COLA CREEK 18 89 90 Current 6.9 1.4 28 38 5.8 62 1.0 1 7.5 106 0.34 0.06 5 7 . 48638 39 32 1 CWW 124 89 93 Current 6.4 1.0 31 33 6.2 72 1.2 2 7.5 112 0.57 0.07 5 46 4 43875 49 33 GUANO RIVER 12 89 90 Current 7.4 1.3 31 50 5.3 61 1.7 3 7.2 101 0.66 0.10 8 46900 49 � WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 65 1.6 8.0 120 0.23 0.36 13 50000 42 28 SALT RUN 6 90 90 Current 3.6 1.1 15 15 5.8 � WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 10 7.2 159 1.23 0.13 4 185 103 5385 1 46 6 SPRUCE CREEK 199 89 93 Current 4.7 0.6 100 10 5.4 59 10 UNNAMED DITCH 13 83 84 Historical 158 4.5 56 7.2 1.75 0.26 356 8 67 11 THAYER CANAL 13 83 84 Historical 243 3.3 39 5.7 0.85 0.04 85 1 44 99 4.6 56 7.0 0.55 0.04 328 0 33 13 UNNAMED DITCH 6 83 84 Historical 7.3 is 0.09 4 260 105 15723 52 14 TOMOYA. RIVER 59 89 93 Current 4.7 0.8 143 8 5.7 60 1.8 125 1. 5278 55 15 LITTLE TOMOKA RIVER 34 85 86 Historical 7.3 0.4 314 7 4.e 53 1.8 6.8 44 1.39 0.05 2 7325 54 16 UNNAMED BRANCH 20 85 86 Historical 5.7 0.5 223 9 4.3 50 1-6 7.1 64 1.27 0.11 6 17 GROVER BRANCH 7 85 86 Historical 6.0 0.4 160 5 5.0 53 0.9 7.0 39 0 - 9'? 0.05 1 200 38 29 HULETT BRANCH 3 92 92 Current 2.0 0.5 150 1 6.0 63 15 6.1 76 0.34 0.11 1 250 310 42 21 Pellicer Creek 3 92 92 Current 3.0 0.2 600 2 6.3 64 62 6.3 43 1.71 0.17 0 64 170 51 22 Pellicer Creek 24 B9 93 Current 2.2 0.3 450 2 4.0 46 1.2 29 6.7 59 1.09 0.08 1 687 505 54 23 STEVENS BRANCH 4 92 92 Current 2.5 0.4 700 1 7.1 71 55 6.4 57 1.44 0.14 0 65 280 46 24 CRACKER BRANCH 5 92 93 Current 1.5 0.3 430 2 6.8 67 45 5.2 16 1.14 0.05 0 93 ISO 43 26 MOSES CREEK 3 89 89 Current 3.2 600 6 4.2 45 1.3 7.1 63 1.60 0.09 0 320 53 27 MOULTRIE CREEK 33 70 80 Historical 1.0 130 4 4.9 56 1.0 19 6.5 52 0.74 0.15 317 2 43 LEGEND: BOD-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN MG/L MAX #OBS-MAXIMUK NUMBER OF SAMPLES SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TURB-TURBIDITY M/L ALK-ALKALINITY M/L CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL UG/L DOSAT-DO I SATURATION NAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TOC-TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON MG/L WQI-WATER QUALITY INDEX ART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DI cOD-cmBMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L END YR-ENDING YEAR NITRO-TOTAL NITROGEN MG/L TOTAL-TOTAL COLIFORK MPN/10014L BEG YR-BEGINNING SAMPLING YEAR COLOR-COLIDR PCU FECL-FECAL OOLIFORM MPN/100ML PH-PH STANDARD UNITS TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX COND-CONDUCTIVI7Y UMHOS FDOW-FLOW CPS PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HOROLOGIC UNIT: 03080201 EMT COAST, UPPER MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED SCREENED 'x'-EXCEEDS SCREENING CRITERIA SCREENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA '01WITHIN SCREENING CRITERIA 1-MISSING DATA I RANK DATA-RECORDI- TN I STARAM. LAKE I PH I ALK I TURB & I COND I OXYGEN I DO ICOLIFORM I BIOL I CHIA ISECCHI I I------------------ I I TP I TP I I I TSS I I DEMAND- I I BACTI I DIV I I DISC I I wQI CURRENT I I I I I I I I I I I I I WATERSHED I OR OR ITN>2.0 I TP>.46 I TP>.12 IPH>8.8 IALK<20 ITUR8>16.51coND>12751 BOD>3.3 I DO<4 ITOT>3700 IDIART<1.951 CHLA>40 I SD<.7 ( ID NAME i TSI HISTORICAL I I I IPH<5.2 I I TSS>18 I I COD>102 I IFECAL>4701DINAT<1.5 I I I ----- -------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I TOC>27.51 I I BBCK<5.5 I I I �WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 1 1CWW IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 MATANZAS RIVER IFAIR current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 MATANZAS RIVER IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 4 MATANZAS RIVER IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I x I a 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 8 ROSE BAY IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 x I x I 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I IS Halifax River IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 a 1 0 1 20 Halifax River fFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 ? 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 25 TOMDKA, BASIN IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 29 PALM COAST IFAIR current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 ( 30 ROBINSON CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 a I a 1 0 1 D I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 31 CASA COIA CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 D 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 32 ICWW (GOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 33 GUANO RIVER IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 � WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 28 SALT RUN IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 - WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM. 6 SPRUCE CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I 10 UNNAMED DITCH IP06R Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 11 THAYER CANAL (GOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 x I I I m I 13 UNNAMED DITCH IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 14 TOMOKA RIVER IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 ( 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 a 1 1 15 LITTLE TOKOKA RIVER IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 x 1 16 UNNAMED BRANCH IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 a I I 1 0 1 x 1 17 GROVER BRANCH IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 x 1 19 HULETT BRANCH IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 x 1 21 Pallicer Crook IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 22 Pellicer Creek IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 a 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 x 1 23 STEMS BRANCH IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 24 CRACKER BRANCH IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 X 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 1 a I x 1 26 NOSES CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 ( a 1 0 1 a I 1 0 1 a t 1 0 1 27 MOULTRIE CREEK IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 LEGEND: COND-CONDUCTIVITY FECAL-FBCAL COLIFORM BACTERIA TP-PHOSPHORUS WQi OR TSI-WATER QUALITY INDEX RATING ALK-ALKALINITY DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN HISTORICAL-1970 TO 1988 TOT-TOTAL COLIFORM BACTERIA WHICH INDEX USED, WQI OR TSI, IS BECK-BECKIS BIOTIC INDEX CURRENT-1989 To 1993 OXYGEN DEMAND-B0D,O0D,TOC TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS BASED ON WATERBODY TYPE BIOL DIV-BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY DIART-ARTIFICM SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY PH-PH TURB-TURBIDITY CHIA-CHLOROPHYLL DINAT-NXTURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TN-MITROGER SD-SECCHI DISC METERS 40b SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03080201 EAST COAST, UPPER TRENDS-SOURCEs-CLEANUP :X'=DEGRADING TREND 1984 - 1993 TRENDS I 0'-STABLE TREND ----------------------------------------------------- +'-IMPROVING TREND 1w TI T T C S1 P At T Tj B Tj D DI T F1 T F 1<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY '.'-MISSING DATA [QUALITY RANK IOVER-10 or S1 N P H DI H Ll U S1 0 01 0 01 C OfB L I I------------- I ALL II it L KI R St D Of S1 0 01 M 0 1 WQI TREND: A B A@ L L: P W WATERSHED MEETS OR : T I I ID NAME USE ? TSI I I I I I I I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PR13SENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ----- ------------------------ ------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 1 Ickw IYES GOOD 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 01 0 .I + +1 x .1 0 01 0 010 1 2 MATANZAS RIVER 1PARTIAL FAIR[ 0 1 x I X + 0 01 + .1 + X1 0 .1 0 Y. 10 010 1 3 MATANZAS RIVER IYES GOOD 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 01 0 .I + Of 0 .1 0 01 + .10 1 4 MATANZAS RIVER 1PARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 x I x + 01 0 .1 + x1 0 .1 0 +1 0 +10 1 8 ROSE BAY 1PARTIA1 FAIRI . I . I . . . . I . .1 . .1 - .1 . .1 . .1. 1 18 Halifax River [PARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 X + 0 +1 0 .1 0 01 . .1 + +1 .10 1 20 Halifax River IPARTIAL PAIRI + I + I x . . . I x +1 + 01 0 .1 0 01 .10 t 25 TOMXA BASIN 1PARTIAL FAIRI . I . I . . . . I . .1 . .1 - .1 . .1 .1. 1 29 PALK COAST I PARTIAL FAIRI x I x 1 0 0 x 01 0 +1 + 01 0 .1 0 01 0 010 1 30 ROBINSON CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 . Of 0 .1 0 01 0 .1 0 01 0 010 1 31 CASA COLA CREEK IYES GOOD I + I + I + 0 0 01 0 01 + 01 0 .1 0 01 . .10 1 32 ICW IYES GOOD 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Of 0 01 + 01 x .1 0 01 + +10 1 33 GUANO RIVER IYES GOOD 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 + 01 0 01 + Of 0 .1 0 01 .10 1 WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 28 SALT RUN IYES GOOD 1 .1 .1 .1 WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 6 SPRUCE CREEK 1PARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 + x .1 0 01 x .1 .1 0 01 +10 0 1 10 UNNAMED DITCH INO POOR I I I . . . . I 11 THAYER CANAL IYES GOOD I I I . . . . I 13 UNNAMED DITCH IYES GOOD I I I . . . . I 14 TOMOKh RIVER 1PARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 +1 0 +1 0 01 x .1 0 01 .10 1 15 LITTLE TOMOKA RIVER 1PARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I . .1 . .1 . .1 . .1 .1. 1 16 UNNAMED BRANCH 1PARTIAL FAIRI 1 .1 .1 .1 17 GROVER BRANCH IYES GOOD I 1 .1 19 HULETT BRANCH IYES GOOD I I I . . . . I . .1 . .1 21 Pellicer Creek 1PARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I . t . .1 t .1 22 Pellicer Creek 1PARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 x 1 0 0 0 .1 0 01 0 01 0 .1 0 Of .10 1 23 STEVENS BRANCH 1PARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I - .1 - .1 - .1 24 CRACKER BRANCH IYES GOOD I I I . . . . I 26 MOSES CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I 27 MOULTRIE CREEK IYES GOOD I I I I I I I LEGEND: DOSAT-DO SATURATION TCOLI-TOTAL COLIFORM TURB-TURBIDITY FCOLI-FECAL COLIFORM TEMP-TEMPERATURE TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX FOR LAKES AND ESTUARIES ALK-ALKALINITY FLOW-FLOW TN -1h T ROGEN WQI-WATER QUIAITY INDEX FOR STREAMS AND SPRINGS BOD-BIOCHEM. OXYGEN DEMAND MEETS USE-MEETS DESIGNATED USE TOC-T.ORGANIC CARBON CHLA-CHL40ROPHYLL PH-PH TP-PHOSPHORUS DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS NPS QUALITATIVE SURVEY RESULTS AN "X" INDICATES A PROBLEM WITH POLLUTANT OR SOURCE THE + ON M&PID INDICATES NO STORET INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR THIS WATERSHED -SEE PAGE 11 FOR LEGEND FOR THIS TABLE- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CATNAME-EAST COAST, UPPER RUC-03080201 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- N B S P 0 S 0 F T F 0 U A E E T A H T T I U I T M T C D S H D .0 L A H H S R S N N H A B W W R T I T E E X I M B E B H A B H 0 0 E p W A 0 0 1 s M I R B Y N E I F R R K L W 1 0 D S F R B S 3 N E R E 0 C C A G I T Ir L N P I G_ E D D B W I S I S y I I o p N I N I I H 1 9 T P A A 0 A 0 L A E 1 0 C I S Y N T A R S L U C H 0 D D N 5 S T A T L D E S N Y H L T W L L L L D T R L M H M D P G E L D R N M T 5- 2683 TURNBULL CREEK THREAT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 6 2674 SPRUCE CREEK FAIR FAIR X X X X X X X X X K X X X X X X X X X 7- 2673 UNNAMED DRAIN THREAT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 8 2672 ROSE RAY FAIR FAIR X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 9- 2670 HALIFAX CANAL THREAT X X x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 20 2666 UNNAMED DITCH POOR FAIR X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 12* 2664 REES CANAL FAIR X X X X X X X X X X X X X x X X X X X X X X it 2634 TOMOKA RIVER FAIR FAIR X X X X X X X X X X X x X X x X X X fr&;h ...... .... a CR ECONFINA RI EENHOLLOWAY ABOVE PULP MILL 'Wa or Cr y,b rri FENHOLLOWAY R Z HTMILE CREEK mw 04, RIT GULF OF ILST EE RIVER MEXICO SANDERS CREEK ECONFINA CREEK/STEINH@JCHEE RIVER BASIN WATER QUALITY 03110102 GOOD AVERAGE WAT :R QUALITY THREATENED 1984-1993 STO RET DATA FAIR WATERSHED ID NUMBERS LINK MAP TO TABLES POOR INDICATES QUALITAT VE ASSESSMENT UNKNOWN page 37 ECONFINA/FENHOLLOWAY/STEINHATCHEE RIVER BASIN Basic Drainage Area: 1, 127 square miles Major Land Uses: wetlands, forest Population Density: low (Steinhatchee, Perry, Mayo, Cross City) Major Pollution Sources: pulp mill, silviculture practices Best Water Quality Areas: Sand Hill Creek, Econfina River Worst Water Quality Areas: Fenholloway River Water Quality Trends: stable quality at 4 sites, improving trends at Econfina, and Steinhatchee River OFW Waterbodies: Big Bend Seagrasses State Aquatic Preserve SWIM Waterbodies: Steinhatchee River, Econfim R, Fenholloway R Reference Reports: Coastal Rivers Basin SWIM Plan Steinhatchee River Basin Assessment (Interim Report), SRWMD, 1989 Florida Rivers Assessment, DEP/FREAC/NPS, 1989 Florida Nonpoint Source Assessment, DEP (Tallahassee), 1988 Watershed Management Efforts in the Steinhatchee River Basin, (Draft) Mattson, SRWMD, Florida Water Management Conference, 1992. Basin Water Quality Experts: Rob Mattson, SRWMD, 904/362-1001 Lee Banks, DEP (Jacksonville), 904/448-4300 David Heil, FDEP, 904/488-5471 Greg Maidhoff, Citrus County Planning, 904n46-4223 Gray Bass, FGFWFC, 904/957-4172 ---- - -------- - -- - ------ -- ---- ------------ - ------------ - -- - ----- - ----------- - ------- --- La JIM New * The Fenholloway River (a Class V wateybody) receives pulp Mal effluents and exhibits very poor water quality. * Well contamination was reported in 1989 along the Fenholloway River du to dry weather conditions and percolation from the Fenholloway River and has been under investigation since then. * A Use Attainability Analysis of possibly upgrading the Fenholloway River classification is being performed. * Residents near the Fenholloway River have been given bottled water because of well contamination from the Fenholloway River. * As a result of a interagency study in Spring 1992, the timber agency has undertaken drainage retrofitting in the Steinhatchee Basin. Horseshoe Beach, Dekle Beach and the Town of Steinhatchee were badly damaged by a major winter storm, known as the storm of the century, that occurred in March of 1993. 38 Ecolo,gical Characterization IUs coastal lowlands basin in Florida's Big Bend area includes several small river systems: the Econfina River, the Fenholloway River, Spring Warrior Creek, the Steinhatchee River, and Sanders Creek. These small rivers drain swampy lowlands and empty into salt marsh estuaries at the Gulf of Mexico. Some of these rivers are characterized as acidic blackwatem flowing over a sandy and limestone substrate, but a number of these receive groundwater input. Some karst features are, evident such as limestone outcroppirigs and some small,springs. Both the Steinhatchee and Econfina Rivers are captured by sinkholes at normal to low flows. The Fenholloway is partially captured by sinks as arc some of the smaller tributaries. The basins uplands are almost entirely in silviculture. There are extensive swampy wetlands around the river's drainage areas, and the basin!s coastal margins are belted by salt, marshes. There is little urban development in the basm. A few small hunting and fishing communities have developed near the mouth of the rivers. Apthro zenic Impacts The Fenholloway River is the only waterbody in the state with a Class V water quality classification (Navigation, Utility and Industrial use). It has been severely affected by the discharge from a paper mill which makes up the entirety of the river's flow in drier times. The large quantities of water withdrawn by the paper mill act to lower the ground water table thus decreasing the amount of base flow that the river would normally receive. Water quality is poor with low DO, high BOD, high conductivity, and other symptoms of high organic loading A Use Attainability Analysis is now being conducted to determine if the Class V water quality classification can be upgraded.to a Class Ill. FDEP's groundwater investigations near the Fenholloway River have found contamination in wells linked to upstream pulp mill discharge. All other rivers in the basin have good water quality although somewhat low in DO and pH due to the swampy drainage. The estuaries at their mouths support a healthy biological community with sport and commercial fisheries-. Septic tank pollution is a concern in the area because most of the basin's soils are poorly drained and thus incompatiblewith, proper septic tank functions. The most recent sampling by FDEP indicates that fecal bacteria counts were elevated at the mouth of Sanders Creek. The City of Cross City municipal WWTP discharges to the swamp that drams to this crock but no direct relation has been proven. Also nutrient and, chlorophyll a levels are somewhat elevated in the upper reaches of Spring Warrior and Weaver Warrior Creeks. Silviculture is a potential source of pollution and has been blamed by local residents for alterations of river characteristics leading to declining fish populations and excessive sedimentation. Compliance and application of silvicultural Best Management Practices has been good. These practices were shown in other studies to alleviate sedimentation and erosion to. surface waters. Also ditching and channeling waters in the forested areas may lead to hydrologic disruptions in the estuary, i.e., increased fi-eshwater runoff during rainy times and decreased fresh water release in drier times. Hydrological models comparing the periods of 1952-53 and 1988 showed a 38.6% increase in peak flows. The Fenholloway, Econfina, and Steinhatchee Rivers have been monitored since 1989 as part of the SRWND's SWIM program. 39 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03110102 ECONFINA-FENHOLOWAY INDEX GOOD FAIR POOR SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 1970-1993 ----------- ----- ----- ----- MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED KI-RIVER 0-44 45-59-60-90 CURRENT PERIOD OF RECORD (1989-1993) USED WHERE AVAILABLE TSI-ESTUARY 0-49 50-59 60-100 ----- PERIOD PRIOR TO 1989 IS EVALUATED AS HISTORICAL INFORMATION TSI-LAKE 0-59 60-69 10-100 1 I BIOLOGICAL WATER WATERSHED WATERSHED DATA RECORD WATER DISSOLVED OXYGEN PH TROPHIC SPECIES QUALITY ID NAME ---------------------- CLARITY OXYGEN DEMAND ALKALINITY STATUS COLIFORM DIVERSITY COND FLOW INDICES ----- --------------------------------- MAX BEG END DATA ---------------------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ----- ----- --------------- #OBS YR YR PERIOD TURB SO COLOR TSS DO DOSAT BOD COD TOC PH ALK NITRO PHOS CHLA TOTAL FECL NAT ART BECK COND FLOW WQI TSI WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 10 SPRING WARRIOR @ MOUTH 12 76 88 Historical 3.5 0.4 130 14 9.0 81 3.3 53 8 7.6 127 1.06 0.06 12 220 25 2.9 26000 57 WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 1 SAND HILL CREEK 21 89 89 Current 7.1 0.5 68 3 5.2 58 1.2 7.3 248 0.72 0.03 1 183 429 34 2 STEINHATCHEE RIVER 138 89 93 Current 1.8 0.9 85 7 5.0 53 1.4 25 7.4 193 0.80 0.05 2 205 61 3.2 19 389 48 35 3 BEVINS (BOGGY) CREEK 13 89 89 Current 5.8 . 75 5 3.0 32 1.5 7.0 225 0.77 0.11 4 600 415 54 4 STEINHATCHEE RIVER 48 89 93 Current 2.8 0.5 200 3 6.3 68 1.2 32 7.2 170 0.95 0.07 0 300 270 41 5 EIGHTMILE CREEK 13 89 89 Current 6.5 0.2 95 8 6.2 67 1.7 7.2 187 0.85 0.05 1 1010 339 47 6 CALIFORINA (ROCKY) CR 7 89 89 Current 7.0 . 65 5 4.2 46 1.3 7.4 219 0.54 0.03 3 210 391 40 7 STEINHATCHEE RIVER 47 89 92 Current 2.4 0.6 189 5 4.3 46 1.5 25 7.2 169 0.82 0.06 0 370 316 44 9 SPRING WARRIOR CREEK 9 81 88 Historical 2.7 0.5 320 2 4.6 49 1.2 29 6.9 77 0.79 0.11 3 1193 330 3.2 31 221 43 11 WEAVER WARRIOR CREEK 8 87 8 B Historical 4.4 0.7 238 7 4.8 52 1.6 7.1 121 0.99 0.24 27 2443 648 217 48 12 FENHOLLOWAY AT MOUTH 4 93 93 Current 0.7 0.2 800 2 3.8 40 5.4 55 7.0 202 2.13 0.79 680 66 13 FENHOLLOWAY BL PULP 27 89 93 Current 2.9 0.1 1750 14 3.9 46 16.6 130 7.1 154 6.03 1.89 1 188 2250 69 14 SPRING CREEK 60 70 88 Historical 3.1 0.7 49 1 5.8 60 1.1 22 27 7.5 153 0.78 0.32 1 2750 428 2.8 315 44 16 FENHOLLOWAY AB PULP 27 89 93 Current 2.4 0.4 825 3 4.2 47 1.2 50 6.6 46 1.52 0.07 1 140 . 98 43 17 ROCKY CREEK 12 87 88 Historical 3.5 . 103 33 5.6 61 2.2 7.3 164 0.69 0.39 4 2200 620 317 55 18 EOONFINA RIVER 91 89 93 Current 1.9 0.5 200 3 5.6 59 1.3 22 7.1 143 0.66 0.08 0 263 93 3.8 14 268 32 LEGEND: BOD-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN MG/L MAX #OBS-MAXIMUM NUMBER.OF SAMPLES SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TURB-TURBIDITY MG/L ALK-ALKALINITY MG/L CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL UG/L DOSAT-DO, I SATURATION NAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TOC-TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON MG/L WQI-WATER QUALITY INDEX ART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DI COD-CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L END YR-ENDING YEAR NITRO-TOTAL NITROGEN MG/L TOTAL-TOTAL COLIFORM KPN/100ML BEG YR-BEGINNING SAMPLING YEAR OOLOR-COLOR PCU FECL-FECAL COLIFORM MPN/IOOML PH-PH STANDARD UNITS TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX COND-OONDUCTIVITY UMHOS FLOW-FLOW CPS PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L 0 SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03110102 ECONFINA-FENHOLOWAY MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED SCREENED 'x'=EXCEEDS SCREENING CRITERIA SCREENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA '0'-WITHIN SCREENING CRITERIA I *.'=MISSING DATA I I I I I I I I I I I RANK DATA RECORDI TN I STREAM I LAKE I PH I ALK I 7URB & I COND I OXYGEN I DO ICOLIFORM I BIOL I CHLA I SECCHI I I------------------ I I TP I TP I I TSS I I DEMAND I I BACTI I DIV I I DISC I I WQI CURRENT I I I I I I I I I I I I I WATERSHED IOR OR I TN>2.0 I TP>.46 I?P>.12 IPH>8.8 I ALX<20 ITURB>16.51COND>12751 BOD>3.3 I DO<4 ITOT>3700 IDIART<1.951 CHLA>40 I SIx. 7 1 ID NAME I TSI HISTORICAL I I I I PH<5.2 I ITSS>18 I I COD>102 I IFECAL>470]DINAT<1.5 I ----- -------------------------------------------- I I TOC>27.51 I BECK<5.5 I � WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 10 SPRING WARRIOR 0 MOUTH IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I �WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 1 SAND HILL CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 2 STEINHATCHEE RIVER IGOOD Current 1 0 1 a I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 a 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 BEVINS (BOGGY) CREEK tFAIR Current 0 t a 0 0 0 0 x 0 1 0 1 . i 4 STEINHATCHEE RIVER IGOOD Current 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I 5 EIGHTMILE CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 6 CALIFORINA (ROCKY) CR IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 . 1 7 STEINHATCHES RIVER IGOOD Current f 0 1 0 1 1 0, 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 9 SPRING WARRIOR CREEK IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I 11 WEJkVER WARRIOR CREEK IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 x 1 12 FENHOLLOWAY AT MOUTH IGOOD Current I x I x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I x I I I I x 13 FENHOLLOWAY BL PULP LGOOD Current I x I x I 1 0 1 a 1 0 1 x I x I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 14 SPRING CREEK IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I 16 FENHOLLOWAY AS PULP IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 17 ROCKY CREEK IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 . I IS EOONFINA RIVER IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I LEGEND: COND-OONDUCTIVITY FECAL-FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA TP-PHOSPHORUS WQI OR TSI-WATER QUALITY INDEX RATING ALK-ALK&LINITY DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN HISTORICAL-1970 TO 1988 TOT-TOTAL COLIFORM BACTERIA WHICH INDEX USED, WQI OR TSI, IS BECK-SECKIS BIOTIC INDEX CURRENT-1989 TO 1993 OXYGEN DEMAND-BOD,COD,TOC TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS BASED ON WATERBODY TYPE BIOL DIVrBIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY DIART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY PH-PH TURB-TURBIDITY C UHLA-CHDDROPHYLL DINAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TN-NITROGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS m m @m m mmm mm SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03110102 ECONFINA-FENHOLOWAY TRENDS-SOURCES-CLEANUP 'x'=DEGRADING TREND 1984 - 1993 TRENDS '0'-STABLE TREND I----------------------------------------------------- '+'=IMPROVING TREND I 1W TI T T C Sl P Al T TI B TI DD1T Fl T F j<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY '.'=MISSING DATA lQUALITY RANK JOVER-JQ or Sl N P H D1 H Ll U Sl 0 01 001C Cl E L I ------------- I ALL 11 il L I KI RSl D Cl sl 0 01 M 0 1 WQI TREND@ A B A@ L Ll P W WATERSHED MEETS OR @ T I I ID NAME I USE ? TSI I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ---------------------------------- ----- ------------------------ I------------- I I ------------------------------------------------------------- WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 10 SPRING WARRIOR @ MOUTH IPARTIAL FAIRI I WATER BODY TYPE; STREAM 1 SAND HILL CREEK IYES GOOD] 2 STEINHATCHEE RIVER I YES GOODI + 1 0 1 0 + 001 0ol +01 0 1 0ol+ ol 0 0 1 3 BEVINS (BOGGY) CREEK IPARTIAL FAIR] . I . I . . I ..1 -.1 - .1 ..1. .1 - - 1 4 STEINHATCHEE RIVER IYES GOOD I + 1 0 1 0 + 001 001 ++1 0 1 0ol0 .1 0 1 5 EIGHTMILE CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI . I . I . . I -.1 -.1 - -1 --1- 'I - 1 6 CALIFORINA (ROCKY) CR IYES GOOD I . I . I . . I ..1 -.1 - .1 ..1. .1 . 1 7 STEINHATCHEE RIVER IYES GOOD 1 0 1 0 1 0 + 001 0ol 001 0 -1 0ol0 .1 x 1 9 SPRING WARRIOR CREEK IYES GOODI . I . I . . I . I -.1 - .1 ..1. .1 . I 11 WEAVER WARRIOR CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI I 12 FENHOLLOWAY AT MOUTH INO GOOD I I 13 FENHOLLOWAY BL PULP INO GOOD 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0oi 001 001 0 ol ++1 .1 0 1 14 SPRING CREEK IYES GOODI . I . I . . I ..1 -.1 - .1 ..1 .1 . 1 16 FENHOLLOWAY AB PULP IYES GOOD 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 01 001 +01 0 01 0ol 'I + 17 ROCKY CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI . I . I . . I ..1 ..1 - .1 ..1 .1 . 18 ECONFINA RIVER IYES GOOD I + I + 1 0 + 0X1 001 +01 0 -1 001+ -1 + I LEGEND: DOSAT-DO SATURATION TCOLI-TOTAL COLIFORM TURB-TURBIDITY FCOLI-FECAL COLIFORM TEMP-TENPERATURE TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX FOR LAKES AND ESTUARIES ALK-ALKALINITY FLOW-FLOW TN-NITROGEN WQj-WATER QULAITY INDEX FOR STREAMS AND SPRINGS BOD-BIOCHEM. OXYGEN DEMAND MEETS USE-MEETS DESIGNATED USE TOC-T.ORGANIC CARBON CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL PH-PH TP-PHOSPHORUS DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN SD-SECCHI DISC 14ETERS TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS NPS QUALITATIVE SURVEY RESULTS AN "X" INDICATES A PROBLEM WITH POLLUTANT OR SOURCE THE * ON MAPID INDICATES NO STORET INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR THIS WATERSHED -SEE PAGE 11 FOR LEGEND FOR THIS TABLE- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CATNAME-ECONFINA-FENHODCWAY HUC-03110102 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- N B S P 0 S 0 P T F 0 U A B B T A H T T I U I T T C D S H D 0 L A H H s R S N N H A B W W R T I T 3 9 X I M B E E H A B H 0 0 R P W A 9 0 1 E M I R B Y N E I F R R X L W 1 0 D S F R B S 3 N S R E 0 C C R G I T T L M P I G E D D E W I S I S y I 1 0 P N I N I I H I E T P A A 0 A 0 L A E 1 0 C I S Y N T A R S L U C H 0 D D N 5 S T A T L D B S N Y H L T W L L L L D T R L M H M D P G E L D R N M T 2 3573 STEINHATCHEE RIVER GOOD THREAT x x x x x x 4 3573A STEINHATCHEE RIVER GOOD THREAT x x x x x x 5 3601 EIGHTMILE CREEK FAIR THREAT x x x x 7 3573B STEINHATCHEE RIVER GOOD THREAT x x x x x x 8- 3588 MUD-CREEK THREAT x x x x x 12 3473A FENHOLLOWAY AT MOUTH POOR THREAT x x x x x 13 3473B FENHOLLOWNY BL PULP POOR THREAT x x x x x 14 3518 SPRING CREEK GOOD THREAT x x x x x x IS- 3533 UNNA14ED SLOUGH THREAT x x x x 16 3473C FENHOLLOWAY AB PULP GOOD THREAT x x x x x w-, EK z VIC so R 0 14: z x '41T' CRES ND T GEORGE RP IF NASSAU RIVER BASIN WATER QUALITY 03070205 GOOD AVERAGE WATER QUALITY THREATENED 1984-1993 STORET DATA FAIR WATERSHED ID NUMBERS LINK MAP TO TABLES POOR INDICATES QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT UNKNOWN page 44 NASSAU RIVER BASIN --------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------- Basic Facts Drainage Area: 431 square miles Major Land Uses: forest, wetlands Population Density: low, except for coastal development (Callahan) Major Pollution Sources: WWTP, pulp n-till, urban runoff Best Water Quality Areas: Garden Cr., Edwards Cr., Lofton Cr. Worst Water Quality Areas: Mills Cr., Little Mill Cr., Plummer Cr. Water Quality Trends: stable quality at 8 sites, degradation at Nassau Sound OFW Waterbodies: Nassau River State Aquatic Preserve SWIM Watcrbodies: none Reference Reports: Coastal Area BAS, DEP (Jacksonville), 1987 Florida Rivers Assessment, DEP/FREAC/NPS, 1989 Florida Nonpoint Source Assessment, DEP (Tallahassee), 1988 Town of Callahan WWTP Biological Assessment, DEP, 1991 Anheuser-Busch, Inc., New Sod Farm Biological Assessment, DEP, 1992 Basin Water Quality Experts: John Hendrickson, SJRWMD, 904/3294370 Lee Banks, Jim Wright, DEP (Jacksonville), 904/448-4300 ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------- Ecological Characterizatio The Nassau River Basin drains 430 square miles of predominant ly forest and wetlands. There are 55 stream miles in the basin and approximately 10 square miles of estuary (including South Amelia River, the mouth of Nassau River, Sisters Creek and Ft. George River). The blackwater Nassau River's main tributaries (Mills, Alligator and Thomas Creeks) flow slowly in meanders through coastal lowlands. Land use is mostly silviculture, but there are also dairy operations and increasing urbanization. Anthropogenic Impacts Historically, the Nassau River Basin has limited STORET data, but has previously shown mostly good water quality. However, the Nonpoint Source Assessment indicates that the Mills-Alligator Creek drainage is moderately impaired from dairies, septic tanks, and urban activities. The town of Callahan WWTP discharges to Alligator Creek which discharges to Mill Creek. Mills Creek exhibits poor water quality and affccts some downstream stations. The Thomas Creek drainage is suspected of having problems from similar sources, The Anheuser Busch 50d Farm discharges to Thomas Creek. The Amelia Islands reach shows minor problems with elevated BOD, turbidity and phosphorus concentrations which could be attributed to development on the islands and/or the effects of a pulp mill discharge to the Amelia River in St. Marys Basin. Sisters Creek and Ft. George River estuaries exhibit good water quality. 45 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 030-70205 NASSAU RIVER SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 1970-1993 INDEX GOOD FAIR POOR ---------- ----- ----- ----- MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED WQI-RIVER 0-44 45-59-60-90 CURRENT PERIOD OF RECORD (1�89-1993) USED WHERE AVAILABLE TSI-ESTUARY 0-49 50-59 60-100 ----- PERIOD PRIOR TO 1989 IS EVALUATED AS HISTORICAL INFORMATION TSI-LAKE 0-59 60-69 70-100 1 1 BIOLOGICAL WATER .VATERSHED WATERSHED DATA RECORD WATER DISSOLVED OXYGEN PH TROPHIC SPECIES QUALITY ID NAME ---------------------- CLARITY OXYGEN DEMAND ALKALINITY STATUS COLIFORM DIVERSITY COND FLOW INDICES ----- --------------------------------- MAX BEG END DATA ---------------------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ----- ----- --------------- #OBS YR YR PERIOD TURB SD COLOR TSS DO DOSAT BOD COD TOC PH AIX NITRO PHOS CHIA TOTAL FECL NAT ART BECK COND FLOW WQI TSI �WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 1 GARDEN CREEK 24 89 90 Current 6.2 61 0.33 0.11 530 353 34 3 FORT GEORGE RIVER 55 89 93 Current 5.8 1.1 23 32 7.5 75 1:1 7*8 108 0.50 0.08 5 18 4355'0 47 5 NASSAU SOUND 91 89 93 Current 5.5 0.9 25 42 7.3 61 1.4 7.7 flO 0.44 0. 10 49 12 2.7 39450 44 6 EDWARDS CREEK 14 89 90 Current 7.2 67 0.42 0.10 19 12 38 7 PUMPKIN HILL CREEK 7 89 90 Current 4.9 60 0.99 0.08 43 19 59 8 MILL BRANCH CREEK 7 89 IJ 0 Current 4.5 44 0.46 0.14 60 50 41 9 DEESE CREEK 7 89 90 Current .6.2 61 0.59 0.15 46 25 45 10 Nassau River 4 79 79 Historical 26.0 0.5 180 106 5.0 57 1.6 7.7 1.74 0.11 790 27 2.0 2710*0 76 14 SOUTH AMELIA RIVER 108 89 93 Current 6.2 0.8 39 41 6.4 70 1.4 8 7.6 107 0.72 0.10 10 42 10 2.3 38938 57 � WATER BODY TYPE: SPRING 2 SU-NO-WA SPRINGS 2 72 72 Historical 4.0 0.3 3 0.3 3 0.33 0.01 107 35 � WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 4 MILLS CREEK REACH 15 89 92 Current 7.2 0.4 400 23 5.5 68 26 6.4 31 1.26 0.13 3 298 86 3140 59 I I CUSHING CREEK 6 93 93 Current 3.6 0.5 50 9 5.3 60 9 7.0 103 0.50 . 3 . 650 381 45 12 Nassau River 127 89 92 Current 6.1 1.3 375 18 5.5 65 1.1 25 6.5 31 1.32 0.24 5 117 48 8145 58 13 ALLIGATOR CREEK 2 90 90 Current 11.0 . 150 6 6.5 67 0.9 6.5 . 1.14 0.0 1 520 . 100 44 15 LITTLE MILL CREEK 4 93 93 Current 18.3 0.1 45 90 5.0 55 9 6.6 211 -1.64 . 59 1615 @28 69 16 Mills Crook 9 90 92, Current 5.5 0.5 250 10 4.2 47 6_0 30 6.8 63 4.50 1.80 4 410, 290 i3 1@ LOFTON CREEK 14 89 90 Current 6.7 . 50 0.89 0.15 54 35 4*4 18 PLUMS;L ciiiu 3 92 92 Current 6.5 0.5 500 6 4.7 55 2* 0 6*4 2* 81.32 0.20 7 190 7*80 66 LEGEND: SOD-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN W./L MAX OOBS-MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TURB-TUABIDITY MG/P ALK-ALKALINITY MG/L CHLA-CHL4DROPHYLL UG/L DOSAT-DO i SATURATION NAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TOC-TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON MG/L WQI-WATER QUALITY INDEX ART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DI COD-CHEMICIAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L END YR-ENDING YEAR NITRO-TOTAL NITROGEN MG/L TOTAL-TOTAL COLIFORM MPN/100ML BEG YR-BEGINNING SAMPLING YEAR COLOR-COLOR PCU FECL-FECAL COLIFORK MPN/10014L PH-PH STANDARD UNITS TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX COND-CONDUCTIVITY UMHOS FLOW-FLOW CPS PHOS-TC;TAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L M Won =a* Mao m Imm wo SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03070205 NASSAU RIVER MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED SCREENED 'X'-EXCEEDS SCREENING CRITERIA SCREENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA '0'-WITHIN SCREENING CRITERIA '.'-MISSING DATA I RANK DATA RECORD] TN I STREAM I LAKE I PH I AIX I TURB & I COND IOXYGEN I DO ICOLIFORM I BIOL I CHIA I SECCHI I I------------------ I I TP I TP I I TSS I IDEMAND I I BACTI I DIV I I DISC I I WQI CURRENT I I I I I I I I I I I I WATERSHED I OR OR I TN>2.0 I TP>.46 ITP>.12 IPK>8.8 I ALK<20 ITURB>16.51COND>12751 BOD>3.3 I DO<4 ITOT>3700 IDIART<1.951 CHLA>40 I SD<.7 f ID NAME I TSI HISTORICAL i I I IPH<5.2 I I TSS>18 I ICOD>102 I IFECAL>4701DINAT<1.5 I ----- -------------------------------------------- ITOC>27.51 I I BECK<5.5 I � WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY I GARDEN CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 0 1 3 FORT GEORGE RIVER IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 t 0 1 a I 1 0 1 0 1 5 NASSAU SOUND IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 a 1 0 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 6 EDWARDS CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 0 1 7 PUMPKIN HILL CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 0 1 8 MILL BRANCH CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 x I x 0 1 9 DEESE CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 x I x 0 1 10 Nassau River IUNXN Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 x x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 14 SOUTH AMELIA RIVER IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 t 0 1 � WATER BODY TYPE: SPRING 2 SU-NO-WA SPRINGS IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 � WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 4 MILLS CREEK REACH IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I 11 CUSHING CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 t x 1 12 Nassau River IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 13 ALLIGATOR CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 . 1 15 LITTLE MILL CREEK IPOOR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 x I x I x 16 Mills Creek IPOOR Current I x I x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 17 LOFTON CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 x I I 1 0 1 1 . 18 PLUMMER CREEK IPOOR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x LEGEND: COND-CONDUCTIVITY FECAL-FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA TP-PHOSPHORUS WI OR TSI-WATER QUALITY INDEX RATING ALK-ALKALINITY DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN HISTORICAL-1970 TO 1988 TOT-TOTAL COLIFORM BACTERIA WHICH INDEX USED,,WQI OR TSI, IS BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX CURRENT-1989 TO 1993 OXYGEN DEMAND-BOD,COD,TOC TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS BASED ON 'WATERBODY TYPE BIOL DIV-BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY DIART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY PH-PH TURB-TURBIDITY CHIA-CHLOROPHYLL DINAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TN-NITROGSN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS .p. Ij SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03070205 NASSAU RIVER TRENDS-SOURCES-CLEANUP lx'=DEGRADING TREND 1984 1993 TRENDS '0'-STABLE TREND ----------------------------------------------------- '+'-IMPROVING TREND I 1W TI T T C S1 P Al T TI B Tj D DI T F1 T F j<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY '.'=MISSING DATA ]QUALITY RANK IOVER-IQ or S1 N P H DI H Ll U S1 001 0 01 C C1 E L I I------------- I ALL II Il L I KI R S1 D C1 S1 0 of m 0 1 1 WQI ITRENDI I A I I B I I Al L Lf P W I WATERSHED I MEETS OR I I I I I I I Tj 1 11 1 ID NAME IUSE ? TSI I I I I I I I I I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ----- ------------------------ I------------- I I I I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY I GARDEN CREEK IYES GOODI . I . I . . . . I 3 FORT GEORGE RIVER IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 010 . I + 01 0 .1 0 01 + +1 0 1 5 NASSAU SOM IYES GOODI x I x I x 0 .1 .1 0 +1 .1 .1 0 01 1 6 EDWARDS CREEK IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 0 0 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 1 7 PUMPKIN HILL CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 1 8 MILL BRANCH CREEK IYES GOODI I I . - - .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 1 9 DEESE CREEK IYES GOODI I I . . . . 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 1 10 Nassau River INO UNKNI I I I I I I I 1 1 14 SOUTH AMELIA RIVER IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 + 0 010 .1 + +1 0 .1 0 +1 0 01 0 1 � WATER BODY TYPE: SPRING 2 SU-NO-WA SPRINGS IYES GOODI I I I I I I I I I � WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 4 MILLS CREEK REACH iPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 .1 .1 x .1 .1 .1 + 01 1 11 CUSHING CREEK 1PARTIAL FAIRI . I . I . . . . 1 .1 . .1 .1 .1 . .1 1 12 Nassau River IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 x I x 0 0 .1x xf 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 +1 x 1 13 ALLIGATOR CREEK [YES GOODI 0 1 + 1 0 0 . .10 .1 .1 .1 0 .1 - .1 15 LITTLE MILL CREEK ]NO POORI . I . I . . . . I . .1 .1 .1 . .1 . .1 16 Hills creek JNO POORI 0 1 0 1 0 0 .10 .( 1 .1 a .1 - -t 1 17 LOPTON CREEK IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 0 0 .1 .1 0 .1 .1 .1 0 01 1 18 PLUMMER CREEK INO POORI . 11 1 . . . . I LEGEND: DOSAT-DO SATURATION TCOLI-TOTAL COLIFOR14 TURB-TURBIDITY FCOLI-FECAL COLIFORM TEMP-TE14PERATURE TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX FOR LAKES ANI) ESTUARIES ALK-ALKALINITY F LOW- F LOW TN-NITROGEN WQI-WATER QULkITY INDEX FOR STREA14S AND SPRINGS BOD-BIOCHE24. OXYGEN DEMAND MEETS USE-MEETS DESIGNATED USE TOC-T.ORGANIC CARBON CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL PH-PH TP-PHOSPHORUS DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS no= woommmmamolm mom NPS QUALITATIVE SURVEY RESULTS AN "X" INDICATES A PROBLEM WITH POLLUTANT OR SOURCE THE * ON M_kPID INDICATES NO STORET INFORVATION AVAILlk.BLF POP, THIS WATERSHED -SEE PAGE 11 FOR LEGEND FOR THIS TABLE- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CATNAME=NASSAU RIVER HUC=03010205 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- N B S P 0 S 0 F T F 0 U A E E T A H T T I U I T M T C D S H D 0 L A H H S R S N N H A B W W R T I T E E X I M B E E H A B H 0 0 E P W A Q Q I E M I R B Y N E I F R R K L W 1 0 D S F R B S 3 N E R. E 0 C C R G 1 7 T L M P I G S D D E W I S I S T I 1 0 P N I N I I H I E T P A A 0 A 0 L A E 1 0 C I S Y N T A R S L U C H 0 D D N 5 S T A T L D E S N Y H L T W L L L L D T R L M H M D P G E L D R N M I 6 2179 EDWARDS CREEK GOOD THREAT x x x x 10 2148A Nassau River POOR THREAT x x K 11 2162 CUSHING CREEK FAIR THREAT x x 12 2148B Nassau River FAIR THREAT x x x 13 2153 ALLIGATOR CREEK GOOD THREAT x x x x 14 2149 SOUTH AMELIA RIVER FAIR THREAT x x x x 17 2129 LOFTON CREEK GOOD THREAT x x is 2130 PLUMMER CREEK POOR THREAT x x x x .Pb 1.0 50 V.; Rose CM& 00 AA Lake Lake E MptDn a Creek Santa Fe Lak WATER QUALITY SANTA FE RIVER BASIN GOOD 03110206 THREATENED AVERAGE WATER QUALITY FAI R 1984-1993 STORET DATA POOR WATERSHED ID NUMBERS LINK MAP TO TABLES INDICATES NPS ASSESSMENT UNKNOWN page 50 SAWA FE RIVER BASIN --------------------------------------------------- - ------ "2qic Drainage Area: 1,390 square miles Major Land Uses: forest, agriculture Population Density: low (Lake City, Starke, High Springs) Major Pollution Sources: WWTP, septic tank seepage Best Water Quality Areas: Ichetucknee, most of Santa Fe River below Ichetucknee Worst Water Quality Areas: Alligator Lake, Rocky Cr., Lake Rowell Water Quality Trends: stable quality at 10 sites, improving quality on the middle Santa Fe, Alligator Lake and Olustee Cr. OFW Waterbodies: O'Leno State Park Santa Fe River System Ichetucknee Springs State Park SWIM Waterbodies: Santa Fe River Alligator Lake Reference Reports: Santa Fe River System SWIM Plan, SRWMD, 1988 Florida Rivers Assessment, DEP&REAC/NPS, 1989 Florida Nonpoint Source Assessment, DEP (Tallahassee), 1988 City of Stark WWTP Biological Assessment, DEP, 1991 Ichetucknee Springs Hydrogiology Study, Karst Environmental Services, Inc., High Springs, Florida, December, 1991 SWIM 1990 Priority List, SRWMD, 1990 Basin Water Quality Experts: Robert Mattson, SRWMD, 904/362-1001 Homer Royals, FGFWFC, 904/357-6631 ------------------------------ - ---------------------------- - -------- - - -- In thg New * A largemouth bass consumption advisory was issued in May, 1989 in parts of the basis. The advisory remains in effect. Research is being conducted on the problem. * Flooding occurred on the lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers in late winter of 199 1. * DEP denied a permit for a 3,000 and a 10,000 cow dairy operation in January and August, 1992, respectively. * Navy Plane crashed near Worthington Springs in the Santa Fe/Worthington Creek in May, 1992. The fuel spill was controlled. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 51 Ecological Characterization The Santa Fe River Basin drains 1,390 square miles of mixed land uses in north central Florida. The Santa Fe River has its source in hardwood swamps surrounding and draining Santa Fe/Little Santa Fe Lake and other lakes and swamps nearby apparent, with sinking streams in the region of the Cody Scarp. In this upper part of the basin, it is a sand bottomed creek with blackwater characteristics. In the middle part of the basin, the Santa Fe is joined by two of its main tributaries, New River and Olustee River, both blackwater rivers draining mostly forest, agricultural, pasture, and swamp lands. Further downstream karst features become more apparent. Downstream of its confluence with Olustee River, the Santa Fe disappears into a sinkhole at O'Leno State Park at the toe of the Cody Scarp. The river rises after traveling about 3 miles underground where it receives an average additional flow of 211 cfs of groundwater. From here to its confluence with the Suwannee River, many springs add to the flow. Notably, the Ichctucknee River contributes about 400 cfs of crystal clear spring water to the Santa Fe, bringing its flow to about 2,000 cfs. Water quality on the lower Santa Fe is characterized by higher pH, higher conductivity and alkalinity, and increased water clarity. The river as a whole supports a diverse biological community. There are increasing amounts of low density residential land use in the basin. The Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers are both popular for recreation. There are dairy operation in the lower Santa Fe/lchetucknee River area. Apthro Mgenic Impacts The Santa Fe River has been declared an Outstanding Florida Water. Most of the reaches and lakes in the basin that have been sampled meet their designated uses. Because much of this river is naturally low in pH and/or dissolved oxygen due to swamp land drainage and spring flow, the calculation of the WQI is more complicated. However, it is noted from the basin water quality index table that several reaches have minor problems with nutrients and bacteria. These Teaches drain mostly swamp lands so the high values appear to be of natural origin or perhaps some agricultural runoff. There are a few specific problem areas in the basin due primarily to WWTP effluent. Alligator Lake has been partially diked and drained for farmland. It receives Lake City stormwater and, in the past, discharge from the Lake City WWTP which was diverted in the fall of 1987. It has nutrient, algal bloom, aquatic weed and fish kill problems. During low water conditions, the North Lobe of the lake is drained by a sinkhole. Lake Rowell demonstrates a slight cutrophication problem. Some enrichment of heavy metals is evident in the lake's sediment. The City of Starke WWTP discharges to Alligator Creek which drains into the lake. Alligator Creek is impacted by WWTP discharge and possible titanium mining in the area. Santa Fe Lake exhibits good water quality, but with increasing levels of nitrogen. It is connected by the Waldo Canal to Lake Alto. It is also threatened by the City of Melrose storm drainage and development along the shoreline. Portions of New River exhibit elevated bacteria, nutrient and turbidity values. It receives discharge from the Raiford WWTP and the PRIDE facility, and indirectly from the Lake Butler WWTP. A waste load allocation has been developed for New River because of these sources. There is also a considerable amount of cattle farming in the headwaters that may account for some of the problem values. Conditions in the Santa, Fe below New River reflect the lower water quality of the New River. Local experts also indicate that Olustee Creek has poorer water quality than the Santa Fe. At present, the SRWMI:) is 52 producing a detailed water quality and aquatic biological assessment of the New River to better define the impacts or WWTPs, The final area of concern is the lower Santa Fe near its confluence with the Suwannee River. There are many dairy farms in the area, and while there is very little surface water drainage from the farms, there is a high potential for ground water contamination. Initial data from the Suwannee River dairy study indicate existing waste management practices at the dairies have the potential to contaminate ground water with elevated nitrates. Based on this data, DEP is requiring all new dairies in the Suwannee River Basin to apply for industrial wastewater permits and provide reasonable assurances that surface water and ground water will be protected. In 199 1, data indicate elevated nitrates in ground water near Ft. VVhite and the Ichetucknee River. The Department is currently conducting a sampling investigation to assess the nitrate levels in the area. Because there are so many springs and underground conduits of water flow, any threat to the ground water is also very important to surface water quality. A pilot study was performed in 1991 to determine the sources of water to springs feeding the Ichetucknee River. Additional studies are proposed to better define the sources in an effort to ensure protection of the spring water qualiti. The Santa Fe Basin has been designated a SVVTM priority water by the SRWMD. Under the SWIM program a water quality and biological monitoring program of the basin was begun in 1989. 53 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03110206 SANTA FE RIVER INDEX GOOD FAIR POOR SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 1970-1993 ----------- ----- ----- ----- MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED WQI-RIVER 0-44 45-59-60-90 CURRENT PERIOD OF RECORD (1989-1993) USED WHERE AVAILABLE TSI-ESTUARY 0-49 50-59 60-100 ----- PERIOD PRIOR TO 1989 IS EVALUATED AS HISTORICAL INFORMATION TSI-LAKE 0-59 60-69 70-100 1 1 BIOL40GICAI WATER WATERSHED WATERSHED DATA RECORD WATER DISSOLVED OXYGEN PH TROPHIC SPECIES QUALITY ID NAME ---------------------- CLARITY OXYGEN DEMAND ALKALINITY STATUS COLIFORM DIVERSITY COND FLOW INDICES ----- --------------------------------- Pw BEG END DATA ---------------------------- ---------- --------------- -------- - --------------- ---------- --------------- ----- ----- --------------- #OBS YR YR PERIOD TURB SD COL40R TSS DO DOSAT BOD COD TOC PH ALK NITRO PHOS CHLA TOTAL FECL MAT ART BECK COND FLOW KI TSI � WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 1 HAMPTON LAKE 74 89 92 Current 2.8 1.8 23 3 7.5 83 1.0 8 5.6 2 0.53 0.04 3 5 67 43 4 LAKE ROWELL 94 89 92 Current 5.8 1.0 38 5 7.6 83 2.1 10 7.0 21 0.66 0.08 12 27 278 53 11 ALTHO DRAINAGE 79 69 93 Current 2.0 1.2 70 3 6.9 B4 0.8 12 5.9 4 0.74 0.03 7 62 68 46 12 SANTA FE LAKE 186 89 92 Current 1.9 1.6 45 3 7.5 86 1.0 11 5.7 3 0.53 0.04 4 9 71 44 43 LAKE CROSBY 74 89 92 Current 3.7 1.1 39 4 7.5 84 1.1 13 5.8 3 0.66 0.04 6 20 75 49 47 LAKE BUTLER 25 80 80 Historical 4.0 1.1 80 . 8.1 86 6.0 2 0.53 0.03 16 51 52 49 ALLIGATOR LAKE 171 89 93 Current 3.5 0.7 50 3 8.2 94 3.9 16 8.5 44 1.51 0.22 40 5 1 148 67 � WATER BODY TYPE: SPRING 30 HORNSBY SPRING RUN 4 92 92 Current 0.2 25 2 0.6 6 7.4 144 0.77 0.14 363 48 �WATER BODY TYPE* STREAM 2 OLUSTES CREEK 46 89 93 Current 2.5 0.4 250 3 5.0 58 1.9 34 5.8 10 0.94 0.29 7 150 59 so 3 NEW RIVER 36 90 93 Current 3.0 0.5 375 4 5.2 55 1.9 43 4.6 5 1.29 0.65 5 500 63 51 5 ALLIGATOR CREEK 40 89 92 Current 2.9 0.8 39 3 5.7 64 1.7 7 6.8 31 1.21 0.26 1 185 353 46 6 SANTA FE RIVER 62 89 93 Current 0.6 2.3 54 2 5.7 60 0.8 8 7.4 134 0.81 0.11 0 220 312 29 a SANTA FE RIVER 138 89 93 Current 1.1 1.0 150 3 5.1 56 0.5 13 7.2 81 0.82 0.17 0 110 290 38 9 SANTA FE RIVER 68 89 93 Current 2.0 0.9 220 3 6.9 72 1.0 27 6.8 25 1.00 0.27 1 170 65 124 ill 39 10 SANTA FS RIVER 47 89 93 Current 1.6 0.9 200 3 6.3 66 1.0 28 6.3 18 0.89 0.10 0 238 135 43 13 BLUE CREEK 50 79 81 Historical 4 '6. 4 68 107 4.8 0.85 48 14 SANCHEZ PRAIRIE 14 80 81 Historical 4 8.8 93 22 8.0 0.12 26 is COW CREEK 5 92 93 Current 0.7 0.4 320 3 7.7 77 31 7.2 55 0.69 0.05 560 116 35 17 ROCKY CREEK 13 92 93 Current 1.4 0.5 266 3 4.0 40 1.5 31 6.0 18 1.07 0.27 580 267 2.1 3 85 55 37 SAMPSON RIVER 47 89 93 Current 0.9 0.7 100 3 7.7 82 1.0 21 6.8 23 0.77 0.05 1 430 189 29 40 PARENERS BRANCH 5 92 93 Current 5.6 0.7 65 14 8.0 86 11 6.7 31 1.60 0.79 920 99 47 44 FIVEMILE CREEK 8 92 93 Current 3.5 0.4 350 4 4.7 49 1.1 4.7 6 1.07 0.35 911 379 3.7 13 73 45 45 ICHMCKN.EE RIVER 108 89 93 Current 0.2 1.0 3 2 4.7 51 0.5 2 7.5 140 0.54 0.06 0 75 295 26 46 NEW RIVER 113 89 93 Current 2.4 0.5 240 3 6.6 69 1.2 28 6.5 25 1.18 0.36 1 423 86 47 48 SWIFT CREEK 20 71 71 Historical 4.0 . . 9.2 88 0.63 1.22 52 12 31 50 OLUSTEE CREEK 21 84 84 Historical 2.0 0.5 320 0 3.5 41 1.4 92 5.4 0 0.82 0.17 3100 285 55 52 51 CANNON CREEK 4 92 93 Current 2.2 . 208 5 7.8 77 23 6.4 45 0.61 0.06 330 . 99 33 LEGEND -I BOD-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN MG/L MAX #OBS-MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES SD-SECCHI bISC METERS TURB-TURBIbITY MG/L ALK-ALKALINITY MGIL C14LA-CHLOROPHYLL UG/L , DOSAT-DO I SATURATION NAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSiTY TOC-tOTAL C;RGANIC CARBON MG/L 140I-WATER QUALITY INDEX ART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DI COD-CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L END YA-ENDING YEAR NITRO-TOTAL NITROGEN MG/L TOTAL-TOTAL COLIFORM MP14/100ML BEG YR-BE61NNING SAMPLING YEAR COLOR-CbLOR PCU FECL-FECAL COLIFORM MPN/100ML PH-PH STANDARD UNITS TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX rOND-CONDUCTIVITY UMHOS FLOW-FLOW CE'S PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L 4@ M on SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03110206 SANTA FE RIVER MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED SCREENED 'x'=EXCEEDS SCREENING CRITERIA SCREENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA '0'--WITHIN SCREENING CRITERIA '.'=MISSING DATA I RANK DATA RECORDI TN ISTREAM I LAKE I PH I ALK I TUBB & I COND I OXYGEN I DO ICOLIFORM I BIOL I CHLA I SECCHI I ------------------ I TP I TP I I TSS I I DEMAND I BACTI I DIV I I DISC I WQI CURRENT WATERSHED OR OR TN>2.0 TP>.46 TP>.12 PH>8.8 ALK<20 @TURB>16.5@COND>1275@ BOD>3.3 DO<4 @TOT>3700 !DIART<1.95@ CHLA>40 SD<.7 ID NAME I TSI HISTORICAL I I i I PH<5.2 I i TSS>18 I I OOD>102 I IFECAL>4701DINAT<1.5 I ----- -------------------------------------------- I I I I I I TOC>27.51 I BECK<5.5 I WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE I HAMPTON LAKE IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 4 LAKE ROWELL IGOOD Current 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 11 ALTHO DRAINAGE IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 12 SANTA FE LAKE IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 43 LAKE CROSBY IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 47 LAKE BUTLER IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 49 ALLIGATOR LAKE IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 WATER BODY TYPE: SPRING 30 HORNSBY SPRING RUN IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I I WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 2 OLUSTEE CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 x 1 0 0 1 0 x 1 3 NEW RIVER IFAIR Current 1 0 1 a I I x I x 1 0 0 x 1 0 0 1 0 1 x I 5 ALLIGATOR CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 6 SANTA FE RIVER IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 8 SANTA FE RIVER IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 9 SANTA FE RIVER IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 10 SANTA FE RIVER IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 0 x 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 13 BLUE CREEK IFAIR Historical I I x I I x I 1 0 1 x 0 1 1 14 SANCHEZ PRAIRIE IGOOD Historical I 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 15 COW CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 a I F. 1 0 1 0 1 1 x 1 17 ROCKY CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 x I x I a x I x 1 37 SAMPSON RIVER IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 40 PARENERS BRANCH IFAIR Current 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 44 FIVEMILE CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 x 1 45 ICHETUCKNEE RIVER IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 46 NEW RIVER IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 x I a 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 48 SWIFT CREEK IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 x I I I 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 . I 50 OLUSTEE CREEK IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 x 1 51 CANNON CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 LEGEND: COND-CONDUCTIVITY FECAL-FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA TP-PHOSPHORUS WQ1 OR TSI-WATER QUALITY INDEX RATING ALK-ALKALINITY DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN HISTORICAL-1970 TO 1988 TOT-TOTAL COLIFORM BACTERIA WHICH INDEX USED, WQ1 OR TSI, IS BECK-BECKIS BIOTIC INDEX CURRENT-1989 TO 1993 OXYGEN DEMAND-BOD,COD,TOC TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS BASED ON WATERBODY TYPE BIOL DIV-BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY DIART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY PH-PH TURB-TURBIDITY CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL DINAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TN-NITROGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT tt USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03110206 SANTA FE RIVER TRENDS-SOURCES-6LEANUP 'x'=DEGRADING TREND 19,84 - 1993 TRENDS I '0'-STABLE TREND ----------------------------------------------------- '+'-IMPROVING TREND 1W TI T T C Sl P At T T1 B TI D D1 T Fl T F l<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY '.'-MISSING DATA IQUALITY RANK tOVER-IQ or Sl N PH D1 H Ll U Sl 0 01 001 C Cl 8 L I i------------- I ALL 11 it L I KI R Sl D Cl Sl 0 01 M 0 1 I WVI ITRENDI i A I I B I I At L Ll P W I WATERSHED I MEETS OR I I I I I I I Tj I Ii I ID NAME IUSE ? TSI I I I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND- CLEANUP EFFORTS ----- ------------------------ I------------- ------------------------------------------------- 7----------------- 7 --------------------------- � WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 1 HAMPTON LAKE IYES GOOD I . I . I . . . . I 4 LAKE ROWELL IYES C-00bi 0 1 0 1 0+ 0 01 0 1 + 1 .1 0at .1 0 1 11 ALTHO DRAINAGE IYES GOOD 1 0 1 0 1 00 0 01 0 +1 0 xl 0 01 001 0 .1 0 1 12 SANTA FE LAKE IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 00 0 01 0 01 0 xl x .1 xxt 0 .1 x 1 43 LAKE CROSBY IYES GOOT)l . I . I . . I . .1 . .1 . .1 -.1 .,.1 - 1 47 LAKE BUTLER IYES GOODI I I I I I I I 1 1 49 ALLIGATOR LAKE IPARTIAL FAIRI + I + I ++ + I+ 01 + +1 t .1 0+1 .1 0 1 � WATER BODY TYPE: SPRING 30 HORNSBY SPRING RUN IPARTIAL FAIRI .1 .1 ..1 .1 - I �WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 2 OLUSTEE CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI + I + 1 00 01 0 01 + 01 01 001 .1 + 1 3 NEW RIVER IPARTIAL FAIRI . I . I . . . . I - .1 . .1 .1 ..1 .1 . 1 5 ALLIGATOR CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 00 . 01 0 .1 0 .1 .1 001 1 0 1 6 SANTA FE RIVER IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 0+ 0 01 0 at + X1 0 01 x01 + 01 0 1 8 SANTA FE RIVER IYES GOODI + 1 0 1 0+ 0 01 0 Of + X1 0 01 001 + .1 0 1 9 SANTA FE RIVER IYES GOODI 0 1 a 1 00 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 01 001 0 01 0 0 1 10 SANTA FE RIVER IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 x0 0 + 10 01 + 01 0 X1 001 .1 0 1 23 BLUE CREEK IPARTIAL PAIRI I I I I t I I 1 1 14 SANCHEZ PRAIRIE IYES GOODI I I I I I I I 1 1 15 COW CREEK IYES GOOD I . I . I . . I . .1 . .1 . .1 ..1 1 . 1 17 ROCKY CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI . I . I . . . .I - .1 . .1 . .I -.1 .1 - 1 37 SAMSON RIVER IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 00 + 10 01 0 01 01 001 .1 0 1 40 PARENEELS BWCH IPARTIAL FAIRI I I I I I I I I I 44 FIVEMILE CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 1 45 ICHSTUCKNEE RIVER IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 00 1 x 01 0 +1 +1 001 .1 + I 46 NEW RIVER IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 x 1 0+ +1 x xl 0 01 xl 001 0 .1 + 1 48 SWIFT CREEK IYES GOOD I I I I I I I I 1 1 50 OLUSTEE CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . .I 51 CANNON CREEK IYES GOODI I I . . . .I LEGEND: DOSAT-DO SATURATION TCOLI-TOTAL COLIFORM TURB-TURBIDITY FOOLI-FECAL COLIFORM TEMP-TEMPERATURE TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX FOR LAKES AND ESTUARIES ALK-ALKALINITY FLOW-FLCW TN-NITROGEN NOI-WATER OULAITY INDEX FOR STREAMS AND SPRINGS BOD-BIOCHE24. OXYGEN DEMAND MEETS USE-MEETS DESIGNATED USE TOC-T,ORGANIC CARBON CHIJk-CHLOROPHYLL PH-PH TP-PHOSPHORUS DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MOM mm Im m m m mmmwm NPS QUALITATIVE SURVEY RESULTS AN "X" INDICATES A PROBLEM WITH POLLUTANT OR SOURCE THE - ON MAPID INDICATES NO STORET INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR THIS WATERSHED -SEE PAGE 11 FOP, LEGEND FOR THIS TABLE- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CATNAME=SANTA FE RIVER HUC=03110206 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ N B S P 0 S 0 F T F 0 U A E E T A H T T I U I T M T C D S H D 0 L A H H S R S N N H A B W W R T I T E E X I M B E E H A B H 0 0 E P W A Q Q I E M I R B Y N E I F R R K L W 1 0 D S F R B S 3 N E R E 0 C C R G I T T L M P I G E D D E W I S I S y I 1 0 P N I N I I H I E T P A A 0 A 0 L A E 1 0 C I S Y N T A R S L U 0 D D N 5 S T A T L D E S N Y H L T W L L L L D T R L M H M D P G E L D R M T 2 3504a OLUSTEE CREEK FAIR THREAT x x 6 3605a SANTA FE RIVER GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x K x x x x x x x x 7. 3605b SANTA FE RIVER THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 8 3605c SANTA FE RIVER GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 9 3605d SANTA FE RIVER GOOD THREAT x x x K x x x x x x x x K x x x 10 3605e SANTA FE RIVER GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 11 3605f ALTHO DRAINAGE GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x K x x x x x x x 12 3605g SANTA FE LAKE GOOD THREAT X K X x x x x x x x x x x x x x 13 3682 BLUE CREEK FAIR THREAT x x 14 3681 SANCHEZ PRAIRIE GOOD THREAT x x x 16. 3678 HAGUE BRANCH THREAT x x x 17 3641 ROCKY CREEK FAIR GOOD IS- 3671 ALACHUA SLOUGH THREAT x x x 19* 3654 MONTEOCRA. CREEK GOOD 20- 3670 BURNETTS LAKE DRAIN THREAT x x K x x 21- 3663 LITTLE MONTEOCHA CREEK GOOD 22* 3666 UNNAMED BRANCH GOOD 23* 3669 UNNAMED BRANCH GOOD 24* 3660 UNNAMED SLOUGH THREAT x x K 25- 3664 UNNAMED BRANCH GOOD 26* 3658 UNNAMED CREEK GOOD 27* 3651 UNNAMED BRANCH GOOD 28* 3648 RHUDA BRANCH GOOD 29* 3657 UNNAMED BRANCH GOOD 30 3653 HORNSBY SPRING RUN FAIR GOOD 31* 3655 TROUT POND OUTLET GOOD 32* 3644 MILL CREEK SINK THREAT x x 33* 3647 UNNAMED BRANCH THREAT x x 34- 3638 UNNAMED SLOUGH GOOD 35* 3637 UNNAMED BRANCH GOOD 36- 3642 TOWNSEND BRANCH GOOD 38* 3627 UNNAMED BRANCH GOOD 39* 3625 UNNAMED CREEK GOOD 40 3626 PARENERS BRANCH FAIR THREAT x 41* 3621 UNNAMED CREEK GOOD 42* 3623 UNNAMED DRAIN THREAT x 50 3504 OLUSTEE CREEK FAIR THREAT x x RD RIVER Sis@tr,@ Creek z TRO4rlGV--F-.k Ilk 0 SIXMIL CREE z IVER 180 ORTEGA RIVER C 0 'BURG S JULINGT Ll Ul Lh 3. BLAC,K- '87 CRE 777@ FO NORTH BLACK CRE K CRE Al LOWER ST. JOHN'S RIVER BASIN WATER QUALITY 03080103 GOOD AVERAGE WATER QUALITY THREATENED 1984-1993 STORET DATA FAIR WATERSHED ID NUMBERS LINK MAP TO TABLES POOR INDICATES QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT UNKNOWN page 57 PE R CR 2 RI CR EK ST. JOHNS RIVE CRESCENT LAKE 44M CREEK 7'11:,@". DDLE HAW CREEK .4 LAKE DISSTON LOWER ST. JOHN'S RIVER BASIN WATER QUALITY 03080103 GOOD AVERAGE WATER QUALITY THREATENED 1984-1993 STORET DATA FAIR WATERSHED ID NUMBERS LINK MAP TO TABLES POOR INDICATES QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT UNKNOWN 57 page 57 LOWER ST. JOHNS RIVER BASIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Basic Eacts Drainage Area: approximately 2,200 square miles; 13 major sub-basins Major Land Uses: forestry, agriculture, rapid transition to urban, intense urbanization in downstream areas Population Density: moderate, except in highly urban Jacksonville area (Palatka, Green Cove Springs, Orange Park) Major Pollution Sources: urban stormwater, WWTP's, industry, agriculture septic tanks Best Water Quality Areas: Black Creek (North Fork), Simms Cr., Kingsley Lake, Lake Broward Worst Water Quality Areas: Cedar River, St. Johns River above Buckman Bridge and Warren Bridge, Fishing Creek, Goodbys Cr. Water Quality Trends: stable quality at 18 sites, degrading trend at St. Johns River above Warren Bridge, and Trout River, improving trend at Ortega River, Etonia Cr., Black Cr., and the St. Johns River above US I OFW` Waterbodies: Haw Creek State Preserve Mike Roess Gold Head Branch State Park Nassau River-St. Johns Marshes Aquatic Preserve Kingsley Lake and North Fork Black Creek (upper portion) Ravine Gardens SWIM Waterbodies: entire basin, including Crescent Lake Lake Disston Sub-basin Reference Reports: Lower St. Johns River SWIM Plan, revised November 1989 Lower St. Johns River Water Quality Review, 1986 Florida Rivers Assessment, DEPYFREAC/NPS, 1989 Florida Nonpoint Source Assessment, DEP (Tallahassee), 1988 Biological Water Quality Characteristics of the Crescent Lake Basin, DEP Biology, 1990 City of Jacksonville Stormwater Master Plan, 1991 City of Palatka WWTP Biological Assessment, DEP, Dec., 1992 Seminole Kraft Corp. Biological Assessment, DEP, March, 1993 Orange Park WWTP Biological Assessment, DEP, May, 1993 Jefferson Smurfit Corp, Biological Assessment, DEP, May, 1993 Basin Hydrogeology, SJRWMD, Publication Si 93-7 Surface Water Hydrology, SJRWMD, Publication SJ 92-1 Hydrodynamics of Surface Water, SJRWMD, Draft Surface Water Quality, SJRWMD, Draft River Sediment Characteristics and Quality, SJRVRVID, Publication SJ 93-6 Biological Resources, SJRWMD, Publication Sf 94-2 Pollution, Land Use, Water Use, SJRWMD, Draft Economic Values, SJRVRvM, Draft Intergovernmental Management, SJRWMD, In Writing Basin Water Quality Experts: John Hendrickson, SJRWMD, 904/329-4370 Lee Banks, Jim Wright, DEP (Jacksonville), 904/448-4300 Bob Brody, SJRWMD, 904/329-4500 58 Betsy Deuerling, RESD, 904/630-3461 Alan Flood, Public Utilities, 904/630-4230 Fred Cross, FGFVVTC, 904/985-5282 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the him * Since 1987 the City of Jacksonville has reduced 43% of the small package wastewater treatment plants with regionalization to larger treatment facilities. * Since 1988, through the efforts of the SWIM Program of the Duval County Health Unit, 1038 failing septic tank systems were located and repaired by permit. An additional 1435 failing septic systems have been referred to the City of Jacksonville's Public Utilities Depart- ment for regional connection through the Superfund Septic Tank Phase Out Program. * In 1992, Seminole Kraft, a manufacture of unbleached paper, recon- figured the mill to produce linerboard from 100% recycled fiber reducing their wastewater flow to an average of 10 MGD, a reduction of approximately 75%. ------- - ------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- Ecological Characterization The St. Johns River is Florida's longest river (300 miles) and flows northward from its origins west of Ft. Pierce, to its mouth, near Jacksonville. It is extremely slow moving with a drop of less than 30 feet over its entire length. The lower St. Johns River is defined as the section between the Oklawaha River (entering at about 160 cfs) and the Atlantic Ocean. This segment of the river is essentially an elongated lagoon, having a low gradient and narrow floodplain. The river averages more than two miles in width downstream of Palatka (in some places it exceeds three miles) and contains numerous tributary streams and embayments. The entire lower St. Johns River is subject to tidal influence. The low gradient in the St. Johns River combined with the effects of low flow, tides, and wind direction result in short-term reverse flows. Although these reverse flows may continue for several days, there is a net downstream flow approximately 75% of the time. The total average flow of the river is estimated at 7000 cfs. Development impacts along the river vary by area. The reach between Palatka and Green Cove Springs has experienced only modest development as homesites, but below Doctors Lake to the Trout River, the river is almost entirely lined with homes, buildings, marinas and docks. In contrast, there are few docks and homes from Trout River to Mayport. From downtown Jacksonville to the Atlantic Ocean, the river is dredged and maintained by the Corps of Engineers for deepwater navigation (a 12 foot deep channel is maintained by Corps of Engineers from Jacksonville to Lake George). Also there are several bridge crossings: seven in Duval County; one in Green Cove Springs; and one in Palatka. The tributary systems entering the St. Johns are generally blackwater in nature and drain mostly low pine lands. Downstream of Doctors Lake, on the west bank and in the Julington Creek area, most of the tributaries have considerable urban development, both residential and, near Jacksonville, industrial. 59 An1hropogenic Impacts This assessment of the lower St. Johns River begins in the southern portion of the basin, and then moves northward to the Duval County portion of the basin. Water quality of the southern portion of the lower St. Johns River is judged to be good, especially at its confluence with the Oklawaha, but generally degrades downstream. There is an increase in nonpoint source nutrient discharge resulting from runoff from row-crop agriculture. The Palatka area also provides urban runoff and septic tank leachate. There are problems in most of the tributary stream systems of the river. The first tributary system in the southern basin is Haw Creek/Crescent Lake/Dunns Creek. It has acidic colored water attributable to its swampy drainage area and DO and nutrient problems attributable to agricultural runoff, septic tariks and WWTP effluents. Point sources in this area include the Crescent City WWTP discharging to Crescent Lake and the City of Bunnell WWTP discharging to Haw Creek. Crescent Lake is eutrophic and a 1975 EPA study estimated that about half the nutrient load to the lake came from Haw Creek. Recent estimates of nutrient loading identified agricultural runoff as the main source of nutrient loads. A second study of the lakeby DEP's Biology Section was performed in June, 1990. That study found depressed macroinvertebrate diversities, significant blue-green algal blooms, ana high algal growth potential and chlorophyll a concentrations in Crescent Lake, Bull Creek Canal, and Dead Lake. Depressed oxygen levels, below State water quality standards, were encountered in Dead and Crescent Lakes. In addition, elevated levels of zinc, copper, and cadniium were found in sediments from the vicinity of potato and cabbage fanning operations. The Wce is used for fishing and blue crab trapping, though few people use the lake for swimming. Lake Disston is threatened by land clearing operations close to the shoreline and row-crop farming, but is still enjoyed for both fishing and swimming. The Rice Creek tributary system, located just north of Palatka, arises from a pine flatwood/mesic hammock system. The creek's discharge has low DO and pH. Elevated bacteria counts in the vicinity of the Etonia Creek watershed may be accounted for by dairy farms. The lower portion of Rice Creek receives a large volume of effluent from a paper mill (Georgia-Pacific) which has very low DO values and high nutrient, BOD and color values. The macroinvertebrate communities in the creek exhibit a low diversity with only a few highly tolerant species. Georgia-Pacific uses 'a process of supersaturating their effluent with oxygen before discharging to Rice Creek and in the vicinity of the discharge high values of DO are encountered. In the past, a short distance downstream the low DO problem reoccurred. More recent data indicate that the problem has abated. Rice Creek degrades the St. Johns River both upstream and downstream of its confluence. Simms Creek, Boggy Branch, Greens Creek, and Clarkes Creek have sporadic turbidity problems due to spills from upstream titanium mining operations. The next problem area in the lower St. Johns River basin is Trout Creek. For a few years in the mid- I 980s, it received very poorly treated effluent from the Homer Smith scallop processing plant. The plant has ceased operation in 1986, which has improved water quality. St. Johns County acquired the site and turned it into a park in 1992 with a boat ramp and picnic area. There is a nonpoint source threat from development in the upper Trout Creek drainage. The Black Creek/Peters Creek tributary system has fairly good water quality but is threatened by urban and agricultural runoff. Nutrient and BOD problems occur, probably caused by agricultural and dairy runoff. These problems are more evident in Peters Creek, labeled as seriously impaired by the Nonpoint Source Assessment. The area is undergoing rapid development which is affecting the stream system with increased domestic wastewater discharge, septic tank and stormwater runoff. 60 Julington and Durbin Creeks are undergoing some of the most rapid development in.the basin. Increased siltation and an associated decrease in fish breeding ground and fish populations have been documented in these sub-basins. Wasteload allocations are proposed for the numerous small WWTPs in the Julington Creek and Durbin Creek area. Both of these tributary systems drain low-gradient swampy lands into a large floodplain. Poorly drained upland areas are scattered throughout the drainage. Thus, continued development frequently involves wetland disruption. It is estimated that about one-half of the wetlands in the Julington Creek drainage have been lost in the last 20 years. The eastern riverbank downstream of this drainage (area of Mandarin and Goodbys) is severely altered and degraded by marinas and near-shorp development. Doctors Lake is highly eutrophic as a result of excessive nutrient loading from historic WWTP discharge, septic tank leachate and urban runoff. New golf courses, residential developments and shopping centers are being built in the Doctor's Lake watershed. The lake's poor circulation and limited hydraulic flushing further compound water quality problems. The effluents from the Orange Park plant and several other WWTPs were diverted from the lake in the late seventies and routed to the St. Johns River. The lake still exhibits eutrophication problems (algal blooms, fish kills, turbidity) attributed to urban runoff, and has been closed to swimming. The most concentrated area of water quality problems in the lower St. Johns River is found in the Duval County portion of the basin. This section of the basin is one of several large industrialized regions in the State and one of the largest residential centers as well. Duval County has approximately 300 permitted point source dischargers. A wide range of water quality problems are found including dissolved oxygen, nutrient, bacteria and toxics. Also an outbreak of Ulcerative Disease Syndrome (UDS) in a variety of fish species has persisted in the Lower St. Johns River for the past decade. Studies were unable to determine whether the outbreaks of disease were related to pollution levels. A Lower St. Johns River Water Quality Review prepared by DEP in 1986 presented a overview of the river's status and made recommendations for controlling domestic and industrial effluents and stormwater runoff. That report, as well as the findings of other studies and experts on the basin, indicated that the tributaries were more heavily polluted than the river itself, particularly in sediment quality. A brief review of the problem areas is presented below. Starting in the southern portion of Duval County, one of the notable problem areas is the Cedar River/Wills Branch/Ortega River system. Cedar River has the worst water quality in the area with frequent fish kills. The area receives discharges from wire and chemical industries as well as numerous wastewater treatment package plants. This tributary system appears to have a negative impact on the quality of the St. Johns River itself. However, just north of this segment (at the horizontal "bend" in the river), the St. Johns also receives drainage from two severely polluted urban creeks (not shown on map) and the Jacksonville shipyards. Adjacent to this reach are Strawberry and Pottsburg Creeks which also exhibit poor water quality caused by pollution loads from WWTPs and stormwater runoff. The "bend" area is probably the most polluted and developed portion of the river. Both banks are almost completely sea-walled and lined with industries or downtown development. It appears that the shipyard, which previously conducted sandblasting and painting directly adjacent to the river, is closing down. While the shipyard is being closed down there still is much sandblasting and painting at the docks. Two other major sources are Jacksonville's regional WWTP (Buckman Street WWTP) discharging 52 MGD, and Jefferson Smurfit (formerly Alton Box and Packaging Corporation) with a total d ischarge of 14 MGD. The Buckman plant, which generally provides good treatment, also accepts some industrial wastes which cause occasional upsets in the treatment process. The Ribault River, lower Trout River and Moncrief Creek, probably the second worst tributary system after Cedar River, also empty into the St. Johns River a few miles north of this area. Downstream from 61 ,he conflucncc olTroul River, he St. Johns River receives treated paper mill wastewater effluent (Kraft Paper Company at 20 MGD). Discharges ftom Broward River and Dunn Creek further affect the river. These tributaries, although not as severely degraded as the previously mentioned systems, exhibit low DO values and high concentrations of nutrients and BOD from domestic and industrial point sources and some dairy operations. From Dunn Creek to the mouth there is more flushing and dilution from the tides and more vegetated banks and marshes. Commercial shrimpers work the St. Johns between May Port and the Matthews Bridge, seaward of downtown Jacksonville. Only recreational shrimping occurs between Jacksonville and Lake George- In summary, the southern portion of the Lower St. Johns Basin generally exhibits good to fair water quality. With the exception of one tributary system with poor water quality due to a point source, the major sources of pollution are runoff from rangelands and construction sites. On the contrary, the Duval County portion of the basin generally has poor water quality. Both domestic and industrial point sources are major contributors to the problem as well as urban stormwater and septic tanks. For several years it has been recognized that the tributary systems in this area are seriously degraded. However, more recently there has been growing concern over the river itself. Benthic biological data indicate poor diversities and low density. Water quality trends for most of the river reaches indicat@ degradation problems. However, there is improvement of the river's water quality near its mouth due to the flushing effects of the tides. Duval County continues to grow and several of the WWTPs discharging to the St. Johns are considering expansion. However, there are active efforts to regionalize the county, and centralize wastewater treatment into larger facilities in order to decrease or remove small facilities and septic tank drainage from the tributaries. Duval County has a $4,000,000 revolving trust fund which is used to purchase private package plants and connect them to the county's regional WWTP. The 1987 Florida Legislature passed the Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Act which will provide funds to the State's Water Management Districts to restore or preserve some of the critically threatened water bodies. Key aspects of the SWIM Plan submitted by the St. Johns River Water Management District area: 1. a Master Stormwater Plan being developed by the City of Jacksonville and the water management district; 2. increased enforcement of regulations regarding septic tanks, package plants, etc. (through SWIM funded contracts with Duval, St. Johns, Clay and Putnam Counties); 3. studies and programs designed to reduce nutrient input from agricultural activities in St. Johns, Flagler and Putnam Counties; 4. more comprehensive monitoring of the river and tributaries (as a system); and 5. technical assistance to local governments. 6. monitoring to determine phytoplankton species and productivity, benthic fauna and toxic substance contamination, and demersal fish assemblages to determine assimilative capacity and food chain dynamics. 62 There was a 305b meeting held in the Northeast District DEP office on July 18, 1994. Part of the objective of this meeting was to designate reaches on the lower St. Johns River and to determine what indices should be used for each reach. Attached is the location and the justification for the indices used for each reach. The following indices are used in the attachment. Index Description Application WQI Water Quality Index River systems with high flow TSI-L Trophic State Index-Lake Freshwater bodies with little or no flow. TSI-E Trophic State Index-Estuary Large water bodies such as bays or lagoons with low flow used to mix freshwater from the rivers with saltwater from the ocean LOWER ST. JOHNS RIVER REACH DESIGNATIONS MAPID, LOCATION INDEX JUSTIFICATION 204 From just west of the ICW to WQI River with highflow the mouth 203 From Dames Pt. to just west WQ1 River with high flow of the ICW 195 From just south of the Trout WQI River with high flow River to Dames Point 196 From just south of the Fuller WQI River with high flow Warren Bridge to just south of the Trout River 197 From Piney Pt. to just south TSI-E Fresh and salt water of the Fuller Warren Bridge mixing zone with low flow. 198 From just north of Doctors TSI-E Fresh and salt water Lake to Piney Point mixing zone with low flow. 199 From just south of fulington TSI-L Freshwater with low Creek to just north of flow Doctors Lake 200 Fromjust south of Black TSI-L Freshwater with low Creek to just south of flow Julington Creek 72 Flomjast south of Palmo TSI-L Freshwater with low Cove to just south of Black flow Creek 49 From just south of Tocoi TSI-L Freshwater with low Creek to just south of Palmo flow Cove 50 From Federal Point to just TSI-L Freshwater with low south Tocoi Creek flow 51 From just south of Rice TSI-L Freshwater with low Creek to Federal Point flow 52 From just west of Dunns WQI River with high flow Creek to just south of Rice Creek 52 From just south of the WQI River with high flow Oklawaha River to just west of Dunns Creek 9 From Black Point to just WQI River with high flow 63 south of Oklawaha River mmm USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03080103 ST JOHNS RIVER, LOWER SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 1970-1993 INDEX GOOD FAIR POOR MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- CURRENT PERIOD OF RECORD 14QI-RIVER 0-44 45-59-60-90 (1989-1993) USED WHERE AVAILABLE TSI-SSTUARY 0-49 50-59 60-100 ----- PERIOD PRIOR TO 1989 IS EVALUATED AS HISTORICAL INFORMATION TSI-LAKE 0-59 60-69 70-100 1 I WATERSHED BIOLOGICAL WATER WATERSHED DATA RECORD WATER DISSOLVED OXYGEN PH TROPHIC SPECIES QUALITY ID NAME ---------------------- CLARITY OXYGEN DEMAND ALKALINITY STA7US COLIFORM DIVERSITY COND FLOW INDICES ----- --------------------------------- MAX BEG END DATA ---------------------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ----- ----- --------------- #OBS YR YR PERIOD TURB SD COLOR TSS DO DOSAT BOD COD TOC PH ALK NITRO PHOS CHLA TOTAL FECL NAT ART BECK COND FLOW KI TSI WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 149 1CWw 242 89 93 Current 3.8 0.8 58 40 6.6 71 1.1 7.5 77 0.75 0.11 303 63 15205 56 197 SJR AB FULLER WARREN B 447 89 93 Current 4.7 0.7 65 17 7.3 63 1.0 7.7 1.08 0.13 7 400 40 198 SJR AB PINEY POINT 9474 62 333 89 93 Current 3.5 0.6 69 13 7.8 85 1.0 7.7 1.18 0.10 1 90 20 4800 63 207 SISTERS CREEK 40 92 93 Current 4.2 1.0 35 16 7.4 '15 1.1 7.1 84 0.65 0.07 75 13 38275 55 213 BRC1.4NS CREEK 4 92 92 Current 6.8 0.9 25 19 6.5 73 6 6.9 135 0.35 0.09 1 10 43000 47 WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 3 La.ke Disstan 35 89 89 Current 1.1 0.8 200 1 6.6 80 6.4 6 0.8 7 Crescent Lk 7 0.03 10 70 54 96 89 93 Current 13.7 0.6 188 8 7.7 84 1.7 7.3 40 1.36 0.08 26 157 24 671 68 19 GRANDIN LAKE OUTLET 4 90 91 Current 8.1 0.9 29 8 7.2 87 4 4.9 2 0.56 0.05 18 40 GEORGES LAKE 57 55 4 89 89 Current 2.3 2.2 50 1 8.8 95 0.6 4.4 1 0.21 0.00 2 50 20 42 LAKE JOHNSON 5 90 92 Current 5.1 1.0 8 5 7.9 96 1 4.2 1 0.26 0.02 4 43 BEDFORD LAKE 1 50 43 7 90 91 Current 5.4 1.1 15 7 7.7 94 2 5.0 3 0.38 0.03 10 63 49 44 CRYSTAL LAKE 2 90 90 Current 2.1 1.0 8 8.2 98 6 7.2 10 0.80 0.01 10 49 SJR AB PALMO CR 40 47 12 91 91 Current 3.2 0.7 150 19 5.2 58 1.9 7.3 63 1.22 0.05 10 5 995 64 so SJR AB TOCIO 64 89 93 Current 5.1 0.7 98 10 7.4 83 2.5 15 7.6 80 1.27 0.10 24 20 5 51 SJR AB FEDERAL PT loco 0 63 82 89 92 Current 11.2 0.8 108 8 7.6 87 2.1 14 7.5 76 1.14 0.06 23 122 11 960 62 58 KINGSLEY LAKE OUTLET 68 92 93 Current 0.6 4.9 5 2 8.8 94 0.9 6.7 9 0.35 0.01 8 1 79 72 SJR AB BLACK CR 18 80 89 93 Current 4.4 0.9 115 9 8.0 87 1.7 14 7.7 68 1.20 0.08 13 93 9 1000 0 60 87 DOCTORS LAKE 107 89 93 Current 5.6 0.7 100 12 8.4 91 1.0 17 7.8 60 1.38 0.08 35 130 10 199 SJR AB DOCTOR LAKE 2102 0 66 192 89 93 Current 3.5 0.6 70 10 8.9 89 1.0 7.7 . 1.12 0.09 105 15 2214 63 200 SJR AB JULINGTON CR 28 90 92 Current 3.4 0.8 105 10 6.5 73 1.2 13 6.8 62 1.16 0.11 12 66 11 995 0 61 WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM I Dunns Creek 32 89 93 Current 4.3 0.8 150 8 7.0 79 2.1 17 7.3 68 1.31 0.05 23 2300 40 2 ORTEGA RIVER 6 910 0 42 28 89 90 Current 3.1 26 6.7 91 7.6 . 1.03 0.44 1610 173 531 44 4 MIDDLE HAW CREEK 30 89 89 Current 1.6 0.7 240 2 3.8 44 5.9 7 1.19 0.03 760 . 5 HAW CK AB CRESCENT LK 153 45 29 93 93 Current 5.9 0.9 175 4 3.2 32 1.0 7.0 46 1.03 0.ll 3125 1'731 3.0 1.6 5 1130 57 6 HAW CREEK 30 89 89 Current 4.0 0.9 200 2 3.4 39 7.2 57 1.39 0.05 415 . 15 83o 48 9 SJR ab Oklawaha River 63 91 93 Current 3.1 0.7 95 13 8.6 93 2.2 6.0 71 1.34 0.05 24 5 1229 34 11 BULL CREEK DITCHES 10 89 89 Current 4.4 . 123 3 3.5 39 1.2 7.0 147 1.34 0.34 3 1655 54 16 RICE CREEK 43 89 92 Current 3.8 0.5 325 3 6.3 72 0.9 33 6.4 34 1.09 0.06 0 56 18 MILL BRANCH 0 91 205 43 12 89 89 Current 10.8 . 125 6 5.0 56 1.6 6.7 82 1.47 0.99 2 1020 63 20 WEST RUN INTERCEPTER D 17 89 93 Current 9.1 0.2 329 9 4.5 49 1.2 6.7 125 1.25 0.19 2 25 RICE CREEK 1296 62 54 90 93 Current 13.0 0.3 600 8 4.9 55 4.5 35 7.1 128 1.73 0.19 10 160 20 995 0 65 37 ETONIA CREEK 16 89 92 Current 1.4 0.7 48 2 7.1 81 0.8 4 7.2 80 0.44 0.09 38 1 53 210 0 20 DEEP CREEK 31 89 93 Current 2.5 1.0 100 5 3.5 37 2.1 19 6.8 89 1.21 0.37 2 1530 0 61 39 CEDAR CREEK 9 91 91 Current 1.8 0.6 80 8 5.0 63 1.5 7.0 82 1.32 0.07 41 34 Illo 40 MOCCASIN BRANCH 17 89 93 Current 2.9 0.6 275 4 4.4 48 0.8 6.6 97 1.17 0.22 1 1006 49 LEGEND: SOD-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN MG/L MAX #OBS-MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TURB-TURBIDITY MG/L ALK-ALKALINITY MG/L CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL UG/L DOSAT-DO I SATURATION NAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TOC-TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON MG/L WQI-WNTER QUALITY INDEK ART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DI COD-CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L END YR-ENDING YEAR NITRO-TOTAL NITROGEN MG/L TOTAL-TOTAL COLIFORM MPN/100ML BEG YR-BEGINNING SAMPLING YEAR COLOR-COLIDR PCU FECL-FECAL COLIFORM MPN/100ML PH-PH STANDARD UNITS TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX COND-CONDUCTIVITY UMHOS FLOW-FDOW CFS PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L m LI) USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03080103 ST JOHNS RIVER, LOWER INDEX GOOD FAIR POOR SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 1970-1993 ----------- ----- ----- ----- MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED WQI-RIVER 0-44 45-59-60-90 CURRENT PERIOD OF RECORD (1989-1993) USED WHERE AVAILABLE TSI-ESTUARY 0-49 50-59 60-100 ----- PERIOD PRIOR TO 1989 IS EVALUATED AS HISTORICAL INFORMATION TSI-LAKE 0-59 60-69 70-100 1 I BIOLOGICAL WATER WATERSHED WATERSHED DATA RECORD WATER DISSOLVED OXYGEN PH TROPHIC SPECIES QUALITY ID NAME ---------------------- CLARITY OXYGEN DEMAND ALKALINITY STATUS COLIFORM DIVERSITY COND FLOW INDICES ----- --------------------------------- MAX BEG END DATA ---------------------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ----- ----- --------------- #OBS YR YR PERIOD TURB SD COLOR TSS DO DOSAT BOD COD TOC PH ALK NITRO PHOS CHIA. TOTAL FECL NAT ART BECK COND FLOW WQI TSI 45 SI104S CREEK 5 89 89 Current 2.3 . 150 1 6.8 71 0.6 5.1 4 0.58 0.04 0 60 15 47 ATES CREEK 11 91 92 Current 1.3 0.7 225 4 7.3 69 1.2 28 4.2 1 0.62 0.13 0 170 50 60 32 48 TOCOI CREEK 18 89 89 Current 1.5 . 93 1 2.3 26 1.0 6.5 75 1.09 0.26 1 1625 42 52 SJR AB RICE CR 163 89 93 Current 3.7 0.8 75 11 7.6 87 1.7 14 7.5 81 1.17 0.05 23 64 22 1085 0 37 54 GREENE CREEK 14 91 91 Current 2.0 0.6 140 4 6.3 58 1.9 5.9 5 1.15 0.05 . 1230 700 55 46 55 CLARKES CREEK 4 89 99 Current 8.1 . 400 3 6.4 32 0.7 14 6.4 36 0.67 0.06 0 160 32 57 SIXMILE CREEK 31 89 93 Current 2.0 0.9 225 5 4.7 55 2.1 17 6.8 68 1.26 0.10 11 680 0 52 60 Black Creek S.fork 7 92 92 Current 2.0 0.4 75 3 8.9 91 8 6.0 4 0.42 0.10 0 83 55 26 61 PETERS CREEK 34 89 92 Current 4.3 0.6 150 3 2.5 30 2.0 22 6.2 19 1.59 0.36 5 485 92 120 66 62 MILL CREEK 3 92 92 Current 5.7 0.3 100 3 5.6 60 14 6.6 113 1.02 0.13 0 300 410 52 67 TROUT CREEK 8 89 92 Current 2.7 0.4 163 4 5.9 68 1.4 15 6.8 63 1.24 0.06 24 100 695 43 69 MILL CREEK 3 92 92 Current 6.6 0.5 250 3 8.8 88 15 5.8 13 0.41 0.02 1 227 80 36 70 Black Creek S.fork 42 90 93 Current 2.7 1.2 169 2 6.1 68 1.2 15 6.0 12 0.56 0.10 1 668 205 77 0 36 74 BLACK CK AB STJR 51 91 91 Current 2.1 0.6 200 3 3.9 38 0.8 6.6 21 1.29 0.11 190 20 198 35 - 3 92 92 Current 2.8 0.3 250 1 7.9 81 17 6.2 31 0.40 0.06 0 186 15 BIG BRANCH 100 34 77 BLNCK CREEK 50 89 93 Current 2.7 1.1 175 1 5.5 60 0.7 18 6.2 13 0.66 0.08 0 150 50 93 33 80 GROG BRANCH 4 92 92 Current 10.7 0.7 325 8 7.5 76 22 6.2 24 0.66 0.02 2 147 110 45 82 CUNNINGHAM CREEK 3 92 92 Current 3.1 1.0 100 1 2.2 27 13 6.2 25 0.74 0.05 2 92 130 46 83 LITTLE BLACK CREEK 3 92 92 Current 2.3 0.5 400 1 3.3 34 30 5.5 11 0.78 0.02 0 106 90 50 84 NORTH FORK BLACK CREEK 13 91 91 Current 2.0 1.2 150 2 7.7 71 0.7 6.8 10 0.98 0.65 280 120 95 23 88 NORTH FORK BLACK CREEK 28 91 91 Current 1.1 1.1 55 1 7.8 75 0.7 6.0 12 0.44 .0.05 1850 190 135 23 B9 " BRANCH 4 92 92 Current 2.9 0.5 300 1 8.4 85 21 5.9 8 0.52 0_07 0 94 70 34 90 DURBIN CREEK 4 92 92 Current 4.8 0.8 250 5 4.7 51 32 6.6 53 1.37 0.,09 1 168 240 63 95 LONG BRAklf 3 92 92 Current 3.6 0.3 600 2 7.6 77 34 5.4 7 0.87 0.02 0 200 80 42 100 BIG DAVIS CREEK 3 92 92 Current 2.3 0.4 120 1 4.4 46 14 6.9 60 0.59 0.10 1 66 190 42 106 YELLOW WATER CREEK 3 92 92 Current 7.0 0.5 400 14 7.0 67 22 6.3 10 0.76 0.08 1 60 90 47 117 SAL TAYLOR CREEK 3 92 92 Current 3.5 0.5 150 3 7.0 72 15 6.4 27 1.11 0.07 1 32 120 34 129 FISHING CREEK 4 92 92 Current 10.8 0.3 50 18 4.9 57 11 6.3 77 2.49 0.48 9 92 170 63 133 ROWELL CREEK 3 92 92 Current 3.5 0.3 150 3 6.5 74 15 6.2 30 2.17 0.21 3 50 180 44 135 BUTCHER PEN CREEK 4 92 92 Current 8.9 0.3 55 22 5.0 57 12 6.6 88 1.14 0.21 66 1650 260 65 138 CALDWELL BRANCH 3 92 92 Current 3.3 0.5 500 1 5.2 56 26 5.8 7 0.90 0.01 1 42 90 41 144 ORTEGA RIVER 49 89 93 Current 3.4 0.8 108 4 3.2 34 1.3 12 6.6 42 0.88 0.10 1 920 123 236 49 154 POTTSBURG CREEK 4 92 92 Current 7.3 0.5 70 6 6.0 74 12 6.7 81 1.01 0.16 45 170 990 51 162 WILLIS BRANCH 5 92 92 Current 7.0 0.7 40 10 3.8 42 11 6.8 94 1.29 0.17 16 720 360 64 165 CEDAR RIVER 54 92 92 Current 7.8 .0.7 50 5 3.6 40 11 7.0 10.5 0.87 0.19 14 1364 520 61 166 MCCOYS CREEK 15 92 92 Current is 8 . 1.39 0.23 57 168 Arlington River 15 89 92 Current 4.8 0.5 60 25 7.9 83 12 7.8 76 1.09 0.17 32 718 300 19800 47 180 STRAWBERRY CREEK 4 92 92 Current 3.5 0.7 50 2 4.8 54 8 6.5 81 0.91 0.09 9 927 420 48 185 SIXMILE CREEK REACH 3 92 92 Current 4.9 0.3 100 4 5.9 64 14 6.8 53 0.65 0.10 1 570 180 50 188 LITTLE SIXMILE CREEK 5 92 92 Current 3.9 1.1 23 i 3.5 43 6 7.0 119 0.38 0.14 1 375 670 47 192 MONCRIEF CREEK 4 92 92 Current 18.0 0.4 40 32 5.0 58 10 6.8 97 1.24 0.24 31 664 3130 66 LEGEND- BOD-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN M/ L MAX #OBS-MAXIMUM NUMBEROF SAMPLES SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TURB-TURBIDITY MG/L ALK-ALKALINITY Mr/L CHLPL-CHL40ROPHYLL UG/L DOSAT-DO I SATURATION NAT-NATURAL SUBSTRA:TE DIVERSITY TOC-TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON MG/L KI-WATER QUALITY INDEX ART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DI COD-CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L END YR-ENDING YEAR NITRO-TOTAL NITROGEN M/L TOTAL-TOTAL COLIFORM MPN/100ML BEG YR-BEGINNING SAMPLING YEAR COLOR-COL40R PCU FECL-FECAL COLIiORM MPN/100ML PH-PH STANDARD UNITS TSITROPHIC STATE INDEX BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX COND-CONDUCTIVITY UMHOS FLOW-FLOW CFS PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS M/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L m m = M m M m mm = m m USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03080103 ST JOHNS RIVER, LOWER INDEX GOOD FAIR ?OOR SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 1970-1993 ---- ------ ----- ----- ----- MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED WQI-RIVER 0-44 45-59-60-90 CURRENT PERIOD OF RECORD (1989-1993) USED WHERE AVAILABLE TSI-ESTUARY 0-49 50-59 60-100 ----- TSI-LAKE 0-59 60-69 70-100 1 PERIOD PRIOR TO 1989 IS EVALUATED AS HISTORICAL INFORMATION I BIOLOGICAL WATER 'WATERSHED WATERSHED DATA RECORD WATER DISSOLVED OXYGEN PH TROPHIC SPECIES QUALITY ID NAME ---------------------- CLARITY OXYGEN DEMAND ALKALINITY STATUS COLIFORM DIVERSITY COND FLOW INDICES --------------- ----- ----- --------------- ----- --------------------------------- MAX BEG END DATA ---------------------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- BECK COND FLOW VJQ I TSI #OBS YR YR PERIOD TURB SD COLOR TSS DO DOSAT BOD COD TOC PH ALK NITRO PHOS CHLA TOTAL FECL NAT ART 195 SJR AB DAMES PT 64 89 92 Current 6.4 0.6 56 18 6.8 74 1.1 7.2 . 0.92 0.10 3 20290 43 196 SJR AB TROUT R 300 89 93 Current 6.8 0.7 73 19 7.0 77 1.0 7.6 95 1.03 0.14 3 400 55 16365 44 203 SJR AB ICW 99 89 92 Current 6.0 0.7 59 26 6.7 73 1.3 7.4 0.64 0.10 3 46 28 31325 42 208 TROUT RIVER 41 89 92 Current 6.7 0.6 81 21 6.8 75 1.3 7.3 1.02 0.16 2 285 105 20329 45 212 BROWARD RIVER 29 90 91 Current 10.0 43 37 6.7 75 1.8 7.6 1.25 0.14 900 200 15089 56 215 LITTLE TROUT PIVSR 50 91 91 Current 7 34 2.11 0.33 72 LEGEND: BOD-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN MG/L MAX #OBS-MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TURB-TURBIDITY MG/L ALK-ALKALINITY MG/L CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL UG/L DOSAT-DO % SATURATION NAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TOC-TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON MG/L WQI-WATER QUALITY INDEX ART-ARTIPICM SUBSTRATE DI COD-CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L END YR-MING YEAR 141TRO-TOTAL NITROGEN MIL TOTAL-TOTAL COLIFORM MPN/10014L BEG YR-BEGINNING SAMPLING YEAR COLOR-OODDR PCU FECL-FECAL COLIFORM MPN/100ML PH-PH STANDARD UNITS TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX BECK-BECKIS BIOTIC INDEX COND-CONDUCTIVITY UMHOS FLOW-FLOW CPS PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L 0) c_n SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03080103 ST JOHNS RIVER, LOWER MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED SCREENED 'x'=BXCEEDS SCREENING CRITERIA SCREENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA '0'=WITHIN SCREENING CRITERIA USSING DATA 1 RANK DATA RECORDI TN I STREAM I LAKE I PH I ALK I TURB & I COND IOXYGEN I DO 1COLIFORM I BIOL I CHLA I SECCHI I I------------------ I I TP I TP I I I TSS I IDEMAND I I BACTI I DIV I I DISC I I WQI CURRENT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WATERSHED I OR OR I TN>2.0 I TP>.46 I T?>.12 IPH>8.8 IALK<20 ITURB>16.51COND>12751 BOD>3.3 I DO<4 ITOT>3100 IDIART<1.951 CHLh>40 I SD<.7 ID NAME I TSI HISTORICAL I I I IPH<5.2 I ITSS>18 I ICOD>102 I IFECAL>4701DINAT<1.5 I I ----- -------------------------------------------- ITOC>27.51 I I BECK<5.5 - WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 149 ICkw IFAIR Current 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 x x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 197 SJR AB FULLER WARREN B IPOOR Current 1 0 x 1 0 1 1 0 j x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 198 SJR AB PINEY POINT IPOOR Current 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 207 SISTERS CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 213 BROWNS CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 - WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 3 Lake Disston IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 7 Crescent Lk IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 x 19 GRkiD:N LAZE OUTLET IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 40 G@ECRGES :.&KE IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 42 LAKE J01-_NSON IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 43 BEDFORD LAKE IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 44 CRYSTAL LAKE IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 49 S_'A AB PAZA0 CR IFAIR Current 1 0 ) 0 0 1 0 x 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 50 SJR AB TOCIO IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 x 1 51 SjR AB FSDERAI, PT IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 58 KINGSLEY LAKE OUTLET IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 72 SJR. AB BLACK CR IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 87 DOCTORS LAKE IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 199 SJR AB DOCTOR LAKE IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 x 200 SiR AB @-JLINGTON CR IFAIR Current I a 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM I Dunns Creek IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 - 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 ORTEGA R_'VER IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 4 MIDDLE HAW CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 5 HAW CK AB CRESCENT LK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I x I x 1 0 6 HAW CREEK fFAIR Current f 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 a 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 9 SJR. ab oklawaha River IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 11 BUIL CREEK DITCHES IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 x I I 1 0 1 . 16 RICE CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 18 MILL BRANCH IPOOR Current 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 20 WEST RUN INTERCEPTER D IPOOR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 x 1 0 1 0 0 25 RICE CREEK 1POOR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 37 ETON'A CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 a f 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 f 0 f 0 1 0 a 38 DEEP CREEK IPOOR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 x I I 1 0 1 0 1 39 CEDAR CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 x 1 41 MOCCASIN BRANCH IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 x I LEGEND: COND-CONDUCTIVITY FECAL-FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA TP-PHOSPHORUS WQI OR TSI-WATER QUALITY INDEX RATING ALK-ALKALINITY DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN HISTORICAL-1970 TO 1988 TOT-TOTAL COLIFORM BACTERIA WHICH INDEX USED, WQI OR TSI, IS BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX CURRENT-1989 TO 1993 OXYGEN DEMAND-BOD,COD,TOC TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS BASED ON WATERBODY TYPE BIOL DIV-BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY DIART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY PH-PH TURB-TURBIDITY CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL DINAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TN-NITROGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS 0) m mm mm m mmmm mmmm@ SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03080103 ST JOHNS RIVER, LOWER MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED SCREENED : x*=EXCEEDS SCREENING CRITERIA SCREENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA 0'=WITHIN SCREENING CRITERIA '.'=MISSING DATA I RANK DATA RECORDI TN ISTREAM I LAKE I PH I ALK I TURB & I COND I OXYGEN I DO 1COLIFORM I BIOL I CHLA ISECCHI i I------------------ I I TP I TP I I I TSS I I DEMAND I I BACTI I DIV I I DISC i I wQl CURRENT I I I I I I I I I I I I I WATERSHED I OR OR ITN>2.0 ITP>.46 ITP>.12 I PH>8.8 I ALK<20 ITURB>16.51COND>12751 BOD>3.3 I D01<4 ITOT>3700 IDIART<1.951 CHLA>40 I SD<.7 I ID NAME I TSI HISTORICAL I IPH<5.2 I I TSS>18 I I COD>102 I IFECAL>4701DINAT<1.5 I I ----- -------------------------------------------- I I I I I I TOC>27.51 I I BECK<5.5 I 45 SIMMS CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 47 ATES CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x t 48 TOCOI CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 . ! 52 SJR AB RICE CR IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 54 GREENE CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x I x 55 CLARKES CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 57 SIXMILE CREEK (FAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 60 Black Creek S.fork IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 61 PETERS CREEK IPOOR Current a 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 62 MILL CREEK IFAIR Current a 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 67 TROUT CREEK IGOOD Current 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 69 MILL CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 70 Black Creek S.fork IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 '74 BLACK CK AB STJR IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 x 1 75 BIG BRANCH IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I 77 BLACK CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 80 GROG BRANCH IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 82 CUNNINGHAM CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 83 LITTLE BLACK CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 84 NORTH FORK BLACK CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 i 88 NORTH FORK BLACK CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 89 GUM BRANCH )GOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 90 DURBIN CREEK IPOOR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 95 LONG BRANCH IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I 100 BIG DAVIS CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 a I 1 0 1 x 1 106 YELLOW WATER CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 117 SAL TAYL40R CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 a 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 129 FISHING CREEK IPOOR Current I x I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 133 ROWELL CREEK IGOOD Current I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 135 BUTCHER PEN CREEK IPOOR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 x I x I x I 138 CALDWELL BRANCH IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 144 ORTEGA RIVER IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 154 POTTSBURG CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 162 WILLIS BRANCH IPOOR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I x I 1 0 1 0 1 165 CEDAR RIVER IPOOR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 166 MCCOYS CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 . 1 168 Arlington River IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 180 STRAWBERRY CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 D x 1 0 1 0 1 185 SIXMILE CREEK REACH IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 x 1 188 LITTLE SIXMILE CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 a 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 192 MONCRIEF CREEK IPOOR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 x I LEGEND: COND-CONDUCTIVITY FECAL-FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA TP-PHOSPHORUS WQI OR TSI-WATER QUALITY INDEX RATING ALK-ALKALINITY DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN HISTORICAL-1970 TO 1988 TOT-TOTAL COLIFORM BACTERIA WHICH INDEX USED, W01 OR TSI, IS BECK-BECKIS BIOTIC INDEX CURRENT-1989 TO 1993 OXYGEN DEMAND-BOD, COD, TOC TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS BASED ON WATERBODY TYPE BIOL DIV-BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY DIART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY PH-PH TURB-TURBIDITY CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL DINAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TN-NITROGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS m SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03080103 ST JOHNS RIVER, LOWER MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED SCREMNED 'x'=EKCEEDS SCREENING CRITERIA SCREENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA '0--VITHIN SCREENING CRITERIA '.'=MISSING DATA I RANK DATA RECORDI IN I STREAM I LAKE I PH I ALK I TURB & I COND I OXYGEN I DO ICOLIFORM I BIOL I CHLA I SECCHI I I------------------ I I TP I TP I I I TSS I I DEMAND I I BACTI I DIV I I DISC I I w0i CURRENT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WATERSHED I OR OR ITN>2.0 I TP>.46 I TP>.12 I PH>8.8 IALK<20 17URB>16.51COND>12751 BOD>3.3 f DO<4 ITOT>3700 IDIART<1.951 CHLA>40 I Sr)<. 71 ID NAME I TSI HISTORICAL I I I I PH<5.2 I I TSS>18 I I COD>102 I IFECAL>4701DINAT<1.5 I I I ----- -------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I TOC>27.51 I IBECK<5.5 I I 195 SJR AB DAMES PT I GOOD Current 1 0 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 x I 196 SJR AB TROUT R I GOOD Current 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 203 SJR AB ICW I GOOD Current 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 208 TROUT RIVER I-FAIR Current 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 f x I x I a 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 212 BROWARD RIVER I FAIR Current 1 0 a I 1 0 1 1 x 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 215 LITTLE TROUT RIVER I POOR Current I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I LEGEND: COND-CONDUCTIVITY FECAL-FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA TP-PHOSPHORUS WQI OR.TSI-WhTER QUALITY INDEX RATING ALK-ALKALINITY DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN HISTORICAL-1970 TO 1988 TOT-TOTAL COLIFORM BACTERIA WHICH INDEX USED, WQI OR TSI, IS BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX CURRENT-1989 TO 1993 OXYGEN DEMAND-BOD,COD,TOC TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS BASED ON WATERBODY TYPE BIOL Div-sroLoGrc&L DIVERSITY DIART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY PH-PH TURB-TURBIDITY CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL DINAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TN-NITROGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS m co m m m m m m m m m m M m M m m m m m m SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03080103 ST JOHNS RIVER, LOWER TRENDS-SOURCES-CLEANUP :X'=DEGRADING TREND 1984 - 1993 TRENDS 0'=STABLE TREND ----------------------------------------------------- '+'=IMPROVING TREND 1W I] T T C Sl P Al T T1 B TI D DI I Fl T F I<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY '.'-MISSING DATA IQUALITY RANK IOVER-IQ or Sl N P H DI H Ll U Sl 0 01 0 01 C Cl E L I I------------- I ALL 11 11 L I KI R Sl D Cl Sl 0 01 M 0 1 1 WQI ITRENDI I A I I B I I A] L Ll P W I WATERSHED I MEETS OR @ i I I I I I T1 I Il I ID NAME IUSE ? TSI I I I I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ----- ------------------------ i------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 149 ICWW PARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 x I x + I + I + 01 . .1 + 01 0 01 + 197 SJR AB FULLER WARREN B INO PCORI x I x 1 0 0 xl 0 1 + 01 + 1 0 01 0 01 0 198 SJR AB PINEY POINT INO POOR[ 0 1 x 1 0 + 01 0 1 + 01 + 1 0 01 + +1 0 1 207 SISTER$ CREEK tPARTIAL FAIRI 213 BROWNS CREEK IYES GOODI WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 3 Lake Disston ]YES GOODI I 7 Crescent Lk IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 x 0 01 x I + .1 1 0 X1 .1 0 1 19 GRANDIN LAKE OUTLET IYES GOODI .1 1 40 GEORGES LAKE [YES GOODI .1 .1 .1 -t 1 42 LAKE JOHNSON IYES GOODI .1 .1 .1 .1 1 43 B33DFORD LAKE IYES GOODI .1 .1 1 44 CRYSTAL LAKE IYES GOODI .1 .1 1 49 SJR AB PALMO CR IPARTIAL FAIRI .1 -1 1 50 SJR. AB TOCIO IPARTIAL FAIR) 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Of 0 X1 0 01 0 X1 x X1 .1 0 1 51 SJR AB FEDERAL PT IPARTIAL FAIRI x 1 0 1 x 0 . X1 0 .1 + .1 .1 0 01 .1 + 1 58 KINGSLEY LAKE OUTLET IYES GOODI , I . I . . . . I . .1 . .1 .1 . .1 .1 . 1 72 SJR AB BLACK CR IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 x + 0 01 0 01 + +1 0 1 0 01 0 +1 x 1 87 DOCTORS LAKE @PARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 x 0 0 Of 0 01 0 01 + 1 0 01 0 01 0 1 199 SJR AB DOCTOR LAKE IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 x I x 0 . +1 + .1 + 01 + 1 0 01 + +1 0 1 200 SJR AB JULINGTON CR IPARTIAL FAIRI , I . I . . . . I -WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM I Dunns Creek IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 x + 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 01 .1 0 1 2 ORTEGA RIVER ]YES GOOD 1 0 1 0 1 . 0 . .1 0 . I + 01 1 0 01 0 01 0 1 4 MIDDLE HAW CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I 5 HAW CK AB CRESCENT LK iPARTIAL FAIRI I i . . . . I 6 HAW CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I 9 SJR ab Oklawaha River IYES GOODI I I . . . . I 11 BULL CREEK DITCHES IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I 16 RICE CREEK IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 x 0 + 01 0 01 0 01 0 t a 0 k k 0 18 MILL BRANCH INO POORI . I . I . . . . I . .1 . .1 - .1 . .1 .1 . 1 20 WEST RUN INTERCEPTER D IND POORI 0 1 0 1 0 0 . .1 0 .1 0 01 1 0 01 .1 0 1 25 RICE CREEK INO POOR[ + 1 0 1 0 + 0 01 0 01 0 01 .1 + +1 01 0 1 37 ETONIA CREEK IYES GOODI + I + I + + 0 .1 0 +1 0 +1 + .1 + +1 .[ 0 1 38 DEEP CREEK INO POORI x I x I x 0 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 .1 0 01 .1 0 1 39 CEDAR CREEK IYES GOODI , I . I . . . . I . .1 . .1 - .1 . .1 .1 - I LEGEND: DOSAT-DO SATURATION TCOLI-TOTAL COLIFORM TURB-TURBIDITY FCOLI-PECAL COLIFORM TEMP-TEMPERATURE TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX FOR LAKES AND ESTUARIES ALK-ALKALINITY FLOW-FLOW TN-NITROGEN WQI-WATER QULhITY INDEX FOR STREAMS AND SPRINGS BOD-BIOCHEM. OXYGEN DEMAND MEETS USE-MEETS DESIGNATED USE TOC-T.ORGANIC CARBON CHIA-CHLOROPHYLL PH-PH TP-PHOSPHORIJS DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METER$ TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03080103 ST JOHNS RIVER, LOWER TRENDS-SOURCES-CLEANUP 'x'=DEGRADING TREND 1984 - 1993 TRENDS '0'-STABLE TREND ----------------------------------------------------- '+'=IMPROVING TREND 1W TI T TC S1 P Al T T1 B TI D DI T F1 T F 1<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY '.'=MISSING DATA IQUALITY RANK IOVER-IQ or S1 NP H DI H Ll U S1 0 01 0 01 C C1 E L I I------------- I ALL 1I Il L I KI R S1 D Cl S1 0 01 M 0 1 1 W1QI I TRENT) I I A I I B I I Al L Ll P W I WATERSHED I MEETS OR I I I I I I I Tj I Il I ID NAME IUSE ? TSI I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ----- ------------------------ I------------- I I----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41 MOCCASIN BRANCH )PARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 00 . .1 0 .1 0 01 . .1 0 01 0 45 SIMMS CREEK IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 00 + 01 0 01 0 01 0 . 1 0 01 0 47 ATES CREEK IYES GOODI 48 TOCOI CREEK IYES GOODI 52 SJR AB RICE CR IYES GOOD 1 0 1 0 1 0+ 0 01 0 +1 0 01 0 01 0 01 .1 + 54 GREENE CREEK 1PARTIAL FAIRI . I . I . . I - -I . -I - I . I I 55 CLARKES CREEK IYES GOODI . I . I . . I - f . .1 - .( -f f 57 SIXMILE CREEK 1PARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 00 0 1 0 01 0 xi 0 01 0 01 .1 0 60 Black Creek S-fork IYES GOODI . I . f . . I . I . I . I I I 61 PETERS CREEK INO POORI 0 1 0 1 00 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 . 1 0 01 1 + 62 MILL CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI . I . I . . I . .1 . .1 - .1 . . I I . 67 TROUT CREEK IYES GOOD 1 0 t 0 1 00 0 .( 0 Of a of .1 0 01 0 69 MILL CREEK IYES GOODI I I . . . .I 70 Black Creek S.fork IYES GOODI I I . . . .I 74 BLACK CK AB STJR IYES GOODI I 75 BIG BRANCH IYES GOOD I 77 BLACK CREEK IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 x0 0 .1 0 01 0 0) 0 0 0) J 0 80 GROG BRANCH 1PARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . .I 82 CUNNINGHAM CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI 83 LITTLE BLACK CREEK 1PARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . .I 84 NORTH FORK BLACK CREEK IYES GOODI I I . . . .I 88 NORTH FORK BLACK CREEK IYES GOODI I I . . . .j j -j .1 1 1 89 GUM BRANCH IYES GOODI I I . . . .I 90 DURBIN CREEK INO POORI I I . . . t I 95 LONG BRANCH IYES GOOD I I I . . . .I 100 BIG DAVIS CREEK IYES COODI I I . . . .I 106 YELLOW WATER CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . .I 117 SAL TAYLOR CREEK IYES GOODI I I . . . .I 129 FISHING CREEK INO POORI I I 1 .1 .1 .1 1 - 1 1 133 ROWELL CREEK IYES GOODI I I 1 .1 1 .1 135 BUTCHER PEN CREEK INO POORI I I . . . .I 138 CALDWELL BRANCH IYES GOOD I I I . . . .I 144 ORTEGA RIVER IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 + 1 0+ 0 01 0 01 0 X1 0 .1 0 01 + Of + 154 POTTSBURG CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI . I . I . . I . .1 . .1 - .1 . .1 - .1 . 162 WILLIS BRANCH INO POORI I . . . .I 165 CEDAR RIVER INO POORI 1 . . . .I 166 MCCOYS CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . .I 168 Arlington River (PARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 00 . .1 + .1 a 01 t a of 0 of 0 1 180 STRAWBERRY CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . .I 185 SIXMILB CREEK REACH 1PARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . .I LEGEND: DOSAT-DO SATURATION TCOLI-TOTAL COLIFORM TURB-TURBIDITY FOOLI-FECAL COLIFORK TEMP-TEMPERATURE TSZ-TROPHZC STATE INDEX FOR LAKES AND ESTUARIES ALK-ALKALINITY FLOW-FLOW TN-NITROGEN WQI-WATER OULAITY INDEX FOR STREAMS AND SPRINGS BOD-BIOCHEK. OXYGEN DEMAND MEETS USE-MEETS DESIGNATED USE TOC-T.ORGANIC CARBON CHLK-CHTOROPHYLL PH-PH TP-PHOSPHORUS DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN SD-SECCHI DISC 14ETERS TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CD m m m m m m m m m m m m m 'm m m m m m SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03060103 ST JOHNS RIVER, LOWER TRENDS - SOURCES -CLEANUP 'X'=DEGRADING TREND 1984 - 1993 TRENDS 10'=STABLE TREND ----------------------------------------------------- '+*-IMPROVING TREND I 1W TI T T CSl PA[ T T1 BTi D Di T Fl T F l<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY '-'=MISSING DATA IQUALITY RANK JOVER-IQ or Sl N P HDI HLl U Sl 001 0 01 C Cl E L I I------------- I ALL 11 11 L I KI R 51 DCl Sl 0 01 M 0 1 1 WQI ITRENDI I A I I B I I Al L Ll P W I WATERSHED I MEETS OR I I I I I I I TI 1 11 1 ID NAME IUSE ? TSI I I i I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ----- ------------------------ I------------- I I I I----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 188 LITTLE SIXMILE CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI 1 .1 192 MONCRIEF CREEK [NO POORI 1 .1 195 SJR AB DAMES PT IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 x 0 1 x.1 + +1 0.1 xl - .1 0 1 196 SJR AB TROUT R IYES GOODI 0 1 + 1 0 0 001 0.1 0 01 0 1 0 01 0 01 0 1 203 SJR AB ICW [YES GOOD( 0 t 0 1 x 0 .1 0.1 0 +1 0 1 x xi 0 01 0 1 208 TROUT RIVER IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 .1 0 f 0 01 0 1 x X1 0 Of 0 1 212 BROWARD RIVER IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 1 +.1 0 01 .1 0 01 01 0 1 215 LITTLE TROUT RIVER INO POOR( LEGEND: DOSAT-DO SATURATION TCOLI-TOTAL COLIFORM TURB-TURBIDITY FCOLI-FECAL COLIFORM TEMP-TEMPBRATURE TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX FOR LAKES AND ESTUARIES ALK-ALKALINITY FLcW_FLCW TN-NITROGEN WQI-WATER. QULAITY INDEX FOR STREAMS AND SPRINGS BOD-BIOCHEM. OXYGEN DEMAND MEETS USE-MEETS DESIGNATED USE TOC-T.ORGANIC CARBON CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL PH-PH TP-PHOSPHORUS DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS NPS QUALITATIVE SURVEY RESULTS AN "X" INDICATES A PROBLEM WITH POLLUTANT OR SOURCE THE - ON MAPID INDICATES NO STORET INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR THIS WATERSHED -SEE PAGE 11 FOR LEGEND FOR THIS TABLE- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CATNAME=ST JOHNS RIVER, LOWER HUC=03080103 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- N B S P 0 S 0 F T F 0 U A E E T A K T T I U I T M T C D S H D 0 L A H H S R S N N H A B W W R T I T E E X I M B E E H A B H 0 0 E P W A Q Q I E M I R B Y N E I F R R K L W 1 0 D S F R B S 3 N E R E 0 C C R G I T T L M P I G E D D E W I S I S I 1 0 P N I N I I H I E T P A A 0 A 0 L A E 1 0 C I S Y N T A R S L U C H 0 D D N 5 S T A T L D E S N Y H L T W L L L L D T R L M H M D P G E L D R N M T 1 2606A Dunns Creek GOOD THREAT x x x 2 2213P ORTEGA RIVER GOOD FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 7 2606B Crescent Lk FAIR THREAT x x x 8- 2625 LAKE STELLA OUTLET THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x 9 22130 SJR ab Oklawaha River GOOD FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 10* 2623 SILVER LAKE OUTLET THREAT x x x 12* 2619 ACOSTA CREEK GOOD 13* 2616 CAMP BRANCH GOOD 14* 2611 HAMMOCK BRANCH GOOD 15* 2605 CROSS FLORIDA BARGE CA THREAT x x x x 1-7* 2589 SIXTEENMILE CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x 18 2592 MILL BRANCH POOR THREAT x x x x x x x x 21* 2583 COW BRANCH THREAT x x x 22* 2585 UNNAMED DITCHES THREAT x x x x x x 23* 2578 DOG BRANCH THREAT x x x 24* 25*79 UNNAMED DITCHES THREAT X X X x x x 26* 2571 UNNAMED DITCH THREAT x x x x x x x 2-7* 2568 UNNAMED DITCH THREAT x x x x x x x 28* 2555 CRACKER BRANCH THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 29* 2563 UNNAMED DITCHES THREAT X X X x x x x 30* 2511A SIMMS CREEK THREAT x x x x x 31* 2562 UNNAMED DITCHES THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x 32* 2564 UNNAMED DITCHES THREAT x x x x x x x 33* 2561 UNNAMED DITCHES THREAT x x x x x x x 34* 2559 UNNAMED DITCHES THREAT x x x 35* 25.43B ETONIA CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x 36* 25@2 UNNAMED DITCHES THREAT x x x x x 37 2543A ETORIA CREEK GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x 38 2549 DEEP CREEK POOR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x 41 2540 MOCCASIN BRANCH FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 45 2511B SIMMS CREEK GOOD THREAT x x x x x 46* 2522 UNNAMED CANAL THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x 48 2492 TOCOI CREEK GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x 49 2213J SJR AS PALMO CR FAIR FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x so 2213K SJR AB TOCIO FAIR FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 51 2213L SJR AB FEDERAL PT FAIR FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 52 2213N SJR AB DUNNS CR GOOD FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 52 2213N SJR AB RICE CR GOOD FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 56* 2495 TOWN BRANCH THREAT x x x 57 2411 SIXMILE CREEK FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 59* 2474 UNNAMED DRAIN THREAT x x x x x 62 2460 MILL CREEK FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x 63- 2461 UNNAMED BRANCH THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x 64* 2453 PETTY BRANCH THREAT x x x x x x x x 65- 2450 MOLASSES BRANCH THREAT x 66* 2448 KENDALL CREEK THREAT x x 67 2431 TROUT CREEK GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x 68* 2443 ORANGE GROVE BRANCH THREAT x x 71* 2436 KENTUCKY BRANCH THREAT x x x x x x x x x IM M NPS QUALITATIVE SURVEY RESULTS AN "X" INDICATES A PROBLEM WITH POLLUTANT OR SOURCE THE * ON KAPID INDICATES NO STORET INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR THIS WATERSHED -SEE PAGE 11 FOR LEGEND FOR THIS TABLE- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CATNAME=ST JOHNS RIVER, LOWER HUC=03080103 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (continued) N B; 5 P 0 S 0 F T F 0 U A E E T A H T T I U I T M T C D S H D 0 L A H H S R S N N H A B W W R T I T E E X I M B E E H A B H 0 0 E P W A Q Q I E M I R B Y N E I F R R. K L W 1 0 D S F R B S 3 N E R E 0 C C R G I T T L M P I G E D D E W I S I S y I 1 0 P N I N I I H I E T P A A 0 A 0 L A E 1 0 C I S Y N T A R S L TJ C H 0 D D N 5 S T A T L D E S N Y H L T W L L L L D T R L M H M D P G E L D R N M I 72 22131 SJR AB BLACK cp, FAIR FAIR X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 73* 2426 UNNAMED BRANCH THREAT X X X X X X X X X 76* 2417 MILL CREEK THREAT X X X X X X X X X X 78* 2402 BOWEN BRANCH THREAT X X X X X X X 79* 2409 BIG LIGE BRANCH THREAT X X X X X X 81* 2408 UNNAMED SLOUGH THREAT X X X 82 2404 CUNNINGHAM CREEK FAIR THREAT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 85* 2398 UNNAMED SLOUGH THREAT X X X 86* 2397 FLORA BRANCH THREAT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 90 2365 DURBIN CREEK POOR THREAT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 91* 2381 CORMORANT CREEK THREAT X X X X x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 92* 2385 MANDARIN DRAIN THREAT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 93* 2379 UNNAMED RUN THREAT X X X X x X X X X X X X X X X 94* 2376 UNNAMED BRANCH THREAT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 95 2342 LONG BRANCH GOOD THREAT X X X X x X X X X X X X X X X 96. 2315 N. MEADCWBROOK TERR SL THREAT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 97* 2382 UNNAMED DRAIN THREAT X X X X X x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 98. 2359 CAMP BRANCH THREAT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 99* 2351 JULINGTON CREEK FAIR X X X X X X X X X X X X x X X X X X X X X X x X X X 100 23S6 BIG DAVIS CREEK GOOD FAIR X X X X X X X X X X x X X X X X X X X X X 101* 2369 UNNAMED RUN THREAT X X X X X X X X x X X X X X X 102* 2358 UNNAMED BRANCH THREAT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 103* 2367 UNNAMED RUN THREAT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 104* 2361 DEEP BOTTOM CREEK FAIR X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 105* 2362 UNNAMED RUN THREAT X X X X X X X X X X x X x X X 106 2323 YELLOW WATER CREEK FAIR THREAT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 107* 2350 SWEETWATER CREEK FAIR X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 108* 2357 UNNAMED RIJN THREAT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 109- 2355 UNNAMED BRANCH THREAT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 110* 2353 UNNAMED BRANCH THREAT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Ill* 2341 BOX BRANCH THREAT X X X X X X X X 112* 2349 MOORE BRANCH THREAT X x X X X X X X X X X X X X X 113* 2352 UNNAMED RUN THREAT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 114* 2344 UNNAMED BRANCH THREAT x X X X X X X X X X K X X X 115* 2203 PABLO CREEK THREAT X X X X X X X X 116* 2347 UNNAMED STREAM THREAT X x X X X X X X X X X X X X X 117 2327 SAL TAYLOR CREEK GOOD THREAT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 118* 2346 UNNAMED BRANCH THREAT X x X X X X X X X X X X X X 119* 2345 UNNAMED DITCH THREAT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 120* 2343 UNNAMED STREAM THREAT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 121* 2338 UNNAMED BRANCH THREAT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 122* 2326 GOODBYS CREEK THREAT X X X X X X X X X K X X x X X X X X X X 123* 2340 UNNA14ED BRANCH THREAT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 124* 2328 CABBAGE CREEK THREAT X x X X X X X X X X X 125- 2271 PUNCHEON GUM SWAMP THREAT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 126* 2335 UNNAMED BRANCH THREAT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 127* 2334 VENETIAN TERRACE DITCH THREAT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 128* 2333 UNNAMED DITCHES THREAT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X NPS QUALITATIVE SURVEY RESULTS AN "K" INDICATES A PROBLEM WITH POLLUTANT OR SOURCE THE - ON MAPID INDICATES NO STORET INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR THIS WATERSHED -SEE PAGE 11 FOR LEGEND FOR THIS TABLE- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ CATNAME=ST JOHNS RIVER, LOWER HUC=03080103 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (continued) N B S P 0 S 0 F T F 0 U A E E T A H T T I U I T M T C D S H D 0 L A H H S R S N N H A B W W R T I T E E X I M B E E H A B H 0 0 3 P W A Q Q I E M I R B Y N E I F R R K L W 1 0 D S F R B S 3 N E R E 0 C C R G I T T L M P I G E D D E W I S I S T I 1 0 P N I N I I H I E T P A A 0 A 0 L A E 1 0 C I S Y N T A R S L U C H 0 D D N 5 S T A T L D E S N Y H L T W L L L L D T R L M H M D P G S L D R N M T 129 2324 FISHING CREEK POOR POOR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 130- 2336 OAK HILL PARK DITCH THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 131- 2332 UNNAMED DITCH THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 132* 2330 SO. TIGER HOLE SWAMP THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X 133 2309 ROWELL CREEK GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 134* 2321 CHRISTOPHER BRANCH THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 135 2322 BUTCHER PEN CREEK POOR POOR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 136- 2319 BENNETT BRANCH THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 137@ 2312 NO. TIGER HOLE SWAMP THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 138 2310 CALDWELL BRANCH GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 139* 2302 RYALS SWAMP THREAT x x x x x x x x 140* 2317 UNNAMED DRAIN THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 141- 2306 NEW ROSS CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 142* 2316 WILLIAMSON CREEK POOR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 143* 2315 UNNAMED DRAIN THREAT x x x x x x x x x X X K X X 144 2249A ORTEGA RIVER FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 145* 2299 OPEN CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x 146* 2305 NORMANDY VILLAGE RUN POOR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 147- 2290 CEDAR S;VM CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x 148* 2308 UNNAMED DITCHES THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 149 2205C ICWW FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x 150* 2273 MILL DAM BRANCH THREAT x x X X K X x x x x x x x x x x x 151* 2304 UNNAMED CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 152- 2293 UNNAMED DRAIN THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 153- 2272 UNNAMED DITCH THREAT x x i x x x x x x x x x x x 154 2265B POTTSBURG CREEK FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 155- 2277 WILLS BRANCH POOR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 156* 2284 LITTLE POTTSBURG CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 157* 2297 CRAIG CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 158* 2295 SOUTHSIDE ESTATE DRAIN THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 159- 2264 SPRING GLEN DRAIN THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 160* 2287 MILLER CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 161- 2280 BIG FISHWEIR CREEK POOR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 162 2282 WILLIS BRANCH POOR POOR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 163- 2286 UNNAMED DITCH THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 164* 2278 SILVERSMITH CREEK THREAT x x x K x x x x x x x x x x x x x 165 2262 CEDAR RIVER POOR POOR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 166 2262A MCCOYS CREEK FAIR POOR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 167* 2266 HOPKINS CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x 168 2265A Arlington River FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 169* 2249B McGirts Creek THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 170* 2257 MCCOY CREEK POOR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 171* 2246 JONES CREEK THREAT x x x x 9 x x x x x x x 172* 2260 WHITEHOUSE BRANCH THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 173* 2259 CAMBON BRANCH POOR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 174* 2248 GIN HOUSE CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x X X x x x 175* 2254 RED BAY BRANCH THREAT x x x x x x x X X x x x 176* 2252 HOG CREEK POOR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X X X 4@- NPS QUALITATIVE SURVEY RESULTS AN "X" INDICATES A PROBLEM WITH POLLUTANT OR SOURCE THE * ON MAPID INDICATES NO STORET INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR THIS WATERSHED -SEE PAGE 11 FOR LEGEND FOR THIS TABLE- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CATNAME=ST JOHNS RIVER, LOWER HUC=03080103 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (continued) N a S p 0 S 0 F T F 0 U A E E T A H T T I U I I M T C D S H D 0 L A H H S R S N N H A B W W R T I T E E X I M B E E H A B H 0 0 E P W A 0 0 1 E M I R 3 Y N E I F R R K L W 1 0 D S F R B S 3 N E R E 0 C C R G I T T L M P I G E D D E W I S I S y I 1 0 P N I N I I H I E T P A A 0 A 0 L A E 1 0 C I S Y N T A R S L U C H 0 D D N 5 S T A T L D E S N Y H L T W L L L L D T R L M H M D P G E L D R N M T 177' 2240 GREENFIELD CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x 178* 2256 DEER CREEK POOR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X K x x x x x x 179* 2244 COW HEAD CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x 180 2239 STRAWBERRY CREEK FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x 181* 2253 UNNAMED DITCHES POOR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 182* 2243 AIRFIELD DRAIN POOR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 183* 2251 BULTS BAY POOR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 184* 2234 MOUNT PLEASANT CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x 185 2232 SIXMILE CREEK REACH FAIR POOR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 186* 2237 TIGER POND CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x 187* 2235 NEW CASTLE CREEK THREAT x x x K x x x x x x x x 188 2238 LITTLE SIXMILE CREEK FAIR POOR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 189* 2233 LIDNG BRANCH POOR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 190* 2227 SHERMAN CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x 191* 2231 UNNAMED BRANCH FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 192 2228 MONCRIEF CREEK POOR POOR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 193* 2224 RIBAULT RIVER POOR x x x x x x x K x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 194- 2221 BAY DRAIN FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 195 2213C SJR AR DAMES PT GOOD FAIR x x x x K x x x y x K x K x x x x x x x x x x x x 196 2213D SJR All TROUT R GOOD FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 197 2213E SJR AB FULLER WARREN B POOR FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 198 2213F SJR AB PINEY POINT POOR FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 199 2213G SJR AB DOCTOR LAKE FAIR FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 200 2213H SJR AB JULINGTON CR FAIR FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 201* 2223 UNNAMED BRANCH FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 202* 2220 NINEMILE CREEK FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 203 2213B SJR. AB ICW GOOD FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 204* 2213& SJR ab mouth FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 205* 2218 DRUMMOND DREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 206* 2216 NICHOLS CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x 207 2205A SISTERS CREEK FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x I x x 208 2203 TROUT RIVER FAIR FAIR x x K x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 209* 2207 BLOCK HOUSE CREEK FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 210* 2204 TERRAPIN CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x 211 2205B CEDAR POINT CREEK POOR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x 212 2191 BROWARD RIVER FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 213 2209 BROWS CREEK GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x 214* 2210 WEST BRANCH FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 215 2206 LITTLE TROUT RIVER POOR FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 216* 2200 HALF CREEK FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 217* 2201 GULLEY BRANCH FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 218* 2188 CLAPBOARD CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2191 2181 DUNN CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x 220* 2186 LITTLE CEDAR CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 221* 2189 RUSHING BRANCH THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x 222* 2187 BEEGHLY HEIGHTS DRAIN THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 223- 2183 CANEY CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x 224* 2190 AIR 14AT GUARD DITCH THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x GEORGIA ST. MARYS RIVER LITTLE ST. MA IVER 0 Am RIVE NORTH PRONG ST. MARYS RIVER ILL CREEK L ST. MARYS RIVER 19 CREEK MIDDL G ST. M EEP CREEK TURKEY CREEK ST. MARY'S RIVER BASIN WATER QUALITY 03070204 GOOD AVERAGE WATER QUALITY THREATENED 1984-1993 STORET DATA E:D FAIR WATERSHED ID NUMBERS LINK MAP TO TABLES POOR INDICATES QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT UNKNOWN page 79 C@51 ST. MARYS RIVER BASIN ---------------------------------------- - --------------------------------- Ba�i@, Fata Drainage Area: 1,610 square miles (about 60% in Florida) Major Land Uses: forest Population Density: low (Fernandina Beach, Macclenny) Major Pollution Sources: WWTP, pulp mills Best Water Quality Areas: upper regions of St. Marys River Worst Water Quality Areas: John Row Branch Water Quality Trends: stable quality at 4 sites, improving water quality at mouth of St. Marys and degrading water qualityjust upstream OFW Waterbodies: Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge Ft. Clinch State Aquatic Preserve SWIM Waterbodies: none Reference Reports: Coastal Area BAS, DEP (Jacksonville), 1987 Florida Rivers Assessment, DEP/FREAC/NPS, 1989 Florida Nonpoint Source Assessment, DEP (Tallahassee), 1988 Biological Assessment of Container Corporation of America, DEP January, 1992 Biological Assessment of ITT Rayonier, Inc., DEP, December, 1991 Basin Water Quality Experts: John Hendrickson, SJRWMD, 904/329-4370 Lee Banks, DEP (Jacksonville), 904/4484300 -------------------------------------- --------------------- -------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In IhQ Nm The U.S. House passed and sent to President Bush legislation authorizing the National Park Service to study the St. Marys River to determine if sections should be protected as part of the National Wild and Scenic River System. The Final Draft of the study was published for public comment in December 1993. The study found some portions of the river eligible and suitable for the designation. It includes recommendations on who to manage the protected areas. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ecological Characterization The St. Marys River has its origins in the Okefenokee and associated swamps in the western portion of the basin. The average flow of the river is about 1,200 cfs. This remote blackwater stream forms the northeast border between Florida and Georgia. There is little development in the upper basin. Where accessible, land use is primarily silviculture. A small urban and agricultural area exists in the South Prong drainage. The lower portion of the St. Marys River is tidally influenced and reverse flows occur 80 daily. Amelia River forms the estuarine portion of the basin and has a drainage area of approximately 5 square miles. AnthropMenic Impacts The St. Marys River with its extensive marsh system generally has excellent water quality. There are three areas of concern in the basin: the South Prong, Little St. Marys, and Amelia River. The basin, upstream of Boulogue, is generally characterized by naturally high color, low pH and low DO. The South Prong, in the past, has shown minor problems with high bacteria and nutrient concentrations, possibly due to agricultural impacts and to the effluents from the Macclenny WWTP and the Northeast Florida State Hospital WWTP. Both effluents discharge to Turkey Creek, a tributary of the South Prong. Finally, the Amelia River estuary has historically exhibited fair water quality with DO, water clarity and nutrient problems. The Fernandina Beach WWTP discharges directly to the Amelia River. Two Florida, one Georgia pulp paper mills, and urban runoff from rapidly developing Fernandina Beach and Amelia Island also affect the water quality. More recent data indicates the DO problem has been reduced. Also, the City of St. Marys on the Georgia border is growing rapidly, related to the Kings Bay Naval Base and the paper industry. A site specific alternative criterion of 3.2 mg/I dissolved oxygen has been issued for the Amelia River in the vicinity of the ITT Rayonnier (paper mill) discharge point during certain tidal flows. Additionally, high ammonia-ammonium concentrations are being found in the Fernandina Beach area. 81 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT- 03070204 ST MARYS RIVER INDEX GOOD POOR SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 1970-1993 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED WQI-RIVER 0-44 45-59-60-90 CURRENT PERIOD Oy RECORD (1989-1993) USED WHERE AVAILABLE TSI-ESTUARY 0-49 SO-59 60-100 ----- PERIOD PRIOR TO 1989 IS EVALUATED AS HISTORICAL INFORMATION TSI-LAKE 0-59 60-69 70-100 1 1 BIOLOGICAL WATER WATERSHED WATERSHED DATA RECORD WATER DISSOLVED OXYGEN PH TROPHIC SPECIES QUALITY ID NAME ---------------------- CLARITY OXYGEN DEMAND ALKALINITY STATUS COLIFORM DIVERSITY 00\D -Low INDICES ----- --------------------------------- MAX BEG END DATA ---------------------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ----- ----- --------------- #OBS YR YR PERIOD TURB SD COLOR TSS DO DOSAT BOD COD TOC PH ALK NITRO PHOS CHIA TOTAL FECL NAT ART BECK COND LOW WQI TSI WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 21 JACKSON CREEK 63 90 93 Current 5.1 0.9 38 26 6.6 70 1.3 7.7 109 0.68 0.07 50 41 3.3 37138 58 23 AMELIA RIVER 37 90 92 Current 4.2 1.0 45 24 5.7 65 1.3 6 7.5 110 0.65 0.08 5 71 6 45850 54 27 St. Marys Riv AB ICkW 21 92 93 Current 5.9 0.8 5a 35 6.5 11 1.4 7.6 99 0.69 0.05 68 12 42250 60 WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE I HAMPTON LAKE 11 90 91 Current 3.3 0.7 200 7 5.1 57 1.2 14 5.7 7 0.81 0.05 6 235 20 68 60 3 OCEAN POND OUTLET 52 80 80 Historical 5.0 0.6 8.0 84 0.42 0.05 46 57 WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 2 SOUTH PRONG ST. MARYS 18 90 91 Current 6.6 0.4 195 3 6.0 65 1.0 16 6.0 24 0.95 0.13 1 520 120 103 37 4 JOHN ROW BRANCH 4 80 80 Historical 4.5 0.3 85 33 3.3 33 18.5 89 . 7.0 . 5.43 3.85 166E312650 245 83 5 TURKEY CREEK 5 93 93 Current 4.7 0.5 100 4 2.7 30 11 5.7 36 0.41 . 4 280 104 48 6 CEDAR CREEK 10 90 91 Current 9.9 . 418 3 6.6 69 1.4 19 5.4 14 1.40 0.14 0 Be 47 8 CALKINS CREEK 3 92 92 Current 1.8 0.3 400 1 5.6 66 36 4.5 1 0.86 0.02 1 44 60 41 9 DEEP CREEK 3 92 92 Current 6.3 0.3 400 3 3.7 44 27 6.0 9 1.24 0.19 1 40 90 se 10 St. Marys River 104 70 86 Historical 2.0 0.6 20fj 5 1 .) B2 0.b 23 5.3 3 0.79 0.05 175 65 50 280 33 11 St. Marys River 46 89 93 Current 2.3 0.4 320 3 6.8 78 1.3 4.9 2 0.92 0.04 1 240 20 2.6 19 58 31 12 MIDDLE PRONG ST. MARYS 25 90 93 Current 2.7 0.2 441 2 6.5 71 1.1 38 5.3 12 0.93 0.04 1 334 100 78 34 13 St. Marys River 3 92 92 Current 2.6 0.4 600 2 7.4 79 43 3 .7 1 1.02 0.02 1 20 70 34 14 BLUFF CREEK 3 92 92 Current 4.0 0.2 400 1 0.3 83 29 4.S 2 0.58 0.02 0 210 40 38 15 St. Marys R. N. Prong 39 90 93 Current 1.3 0.4 450 3 5.5 57 1.0 64 3.8 1 1.19 0.04 0 308 25 3.3 12 84 34 16 DEEP CREEK 4 92 92 Current 2.8 0.3 600 4 1.3 14 35 4.9 2 1.21 0.04 2 51 70 56 17 LITTLE RIVER 3 92 92 Current 3.0 0.2 600 2 6.0 63 55 3.5 1 1.21 0.02 0 20 90 40 18 MILL CREEK 3 92 92 Current 2.1 0.3 500 1 5.2 54 30 4.6 1 0.87 0.02 0 56 70 43 19 St. Marys River 33 90 93 Current 3.3 0.6 263 6 6.7 75 1.6 6.0 7 0.93 0.06 273 27 71 37 20 DEEP CREEK 3 92 92 Current 4.3 0.5 600 2 1.6 19 42 4.2 2 1.22 0.05 1 157 60 62 22 St. Marys River 3 92 92 Current 4.0 0.4 500 6 6.1 68 33 5.0 1 0.99 0.07 0 32 55 47 24 DUNN CREEK 3 92 92 Current 3.6 0.3 600 3 3.9 @47 30 4.2 4 0.90 0.11 1 827 50 63 25 St. Marys River 25 92 93 Current 6.1 0.9 75 23 6.5 71 1.0 7.4 81 0.86 0.07 40 12 34750 33 26 LITTLE ST. MARYS RIVER 9 92 93 Current 4.8 0.5 243 4 2.4 28 24 5.9 31 1.28 0.04 8 . 114 135 59 28 St. Marys River 40 89 93 Current 5.7 0.6 275 10 5.5 56 0.9 29 6.1 9 0.97 0.06 2 338 85 1180 47 29 PIGEON CREEK 12 92 93 Current 6.7 0.5 205 4 5.9 62 1.5 18 5.2 5 0.53 0.03 0 1575 368 1.7 14 50 47 30 St. Marys River 2 92 92 Current 6.3 0.4 450 5 5.8 69 32 5.5 5 0.95 0.06 1 42 55 49 31 CABBAGE CREEK 3 92 92 Current 7.0 0.2 400 3 1.8 22 32 5.7 11 1.41 0.05 1 154 100 65 32 St. Marys River 67 89 93 Current 3.4 0.6 250 5 4.5 53 1.1 26 6.0 17 1.04 0.06 0 373 50 75 43 LEGEND: BOD-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN MG/L MAX #OBS-MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TURB-TURBIDI?Y MG/L ALK-ALKALINITY MG/L CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL UG/L DOSAT-DO % SATURATION NAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TOC-TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON MGIL WQI-WATER QUALITY INDEX ART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DI COD-CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L END YR-ENDING YEAR NITRO-TOTAL NITROGEN M/L TOTAL-TOTAL COLIFORK MP14/100ML BEG YR-BEGINNING SAMPLING YEAR COLOR-COLOR PCU PECL-YECAL COLIFORM MPN/100ML PH-PH STANDARD UNITS TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX COND-CONDUCTIVITY UMHOS FL40W-FLOW CFS PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L 00 t_j SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03070204 ST MARYS RIVER MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED SCREENED 'x'-EXCEEDS SCREENING CRITERIA I SCREENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA '0'=WITHIN SCREENING CRITERIA '.'-MISSING DATA 1 1 RANK DATA RECORD[ TN I STREAM I LAKE I PH I ALK I TURB I COND I OXYGEN I DO ICOLIFORM I BIOL I CHLA I SECCHI I I------------------ I I TP I TP I I TSS I I DEMAND I I BACTI I DIV I I DISC I I wol CURRENT ( f I I I I I I I I I I I WATERSHED I OR OR ITN>2.0 I TP>.46 I TP>.12 I PH>8.8 IALK<20 ITURB>16.5]COND>12751 BOD>3.3 I DC1<4 ITOT>3700 IDIART<1.951 CHLA>40 I SD<.7 I ID NAME I TSI HISTORICAL I I I I PH<5.2 I I TSS>18 I I COD>102 I IFECAL>4701DINAT<1.5 I I I ----- -------------------------------------------- I I I I I TOC>27.51 I I BECX<5.5 I I � WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 21 JACKSON CREEK I FAIR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 23 AMELIA RIVER I FAIR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 a f x I x f 0 t 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 27 St. Marys Riv AB I CWW I UNKN Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 �WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 1 HAMPTON LAKE I FAIR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 3 OCEAN POND OUTLET 1 GOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 x I �WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 2 SOUTH PRONG ST. MARYS I GOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 - 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 a 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 4 JOHN ROW BRANCH I POOR Historical I x I x I I a I I x I I x I x I x I I x 1 5 7URKEY CREEK I FAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 6 CEDAR CREEK I FAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 . I 8 CALKINS CREEK I GOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 9 DEEP CREEK I FAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 x I 10 St. Marys River I GOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x f 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I 11 St. Marys River j GOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 12 MIDDLE PRONG ST. MARYS I GOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I 13 St. Marys River I GOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I 14 BLUFF CREEK I GOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 15 St. Marys R. N. Prong I GOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 x I 16 DEEP CREEK J FAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 17 LITTLE RIVER I GOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 18 MILL CREEK I GOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 19 St. Marys River GOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 x 1 20 DEEP CREEK UNKN Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 22 St. Marys River FAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 24 DUNN CREEK I UNKN Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 1 x I x I x 1 0 1 x 1 25 St. Marys River i GOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 26 LITTLE ST. MARYS RIVER i FAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 28 St. Marys River 1 FAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 29 PIGEON CREEK I FAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 x 1 30 St. Marys River 1 FAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 31 CABBAGE CREEK I UNKN Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 32 St. Marys River I GOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 t 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I LEGEND: COND-CONDUCTIVITY FECAL-FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA TP-PHOSPHORUS WQI OR TSI-WATER QUALITY INDEX RATING ALK-ALKALINITY DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN HISTORICAL-1970 TO 1988 TOT-TOTAL COLIPORM BACTERIA WHICH INDEX USED, WQI OR TSI, IS BECK-BECKIS BIOTIC INDEX CURRENT-1989 TO 1993 OXYGEN DEMAND-BOD,COD,TOC TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS BASED ON WATERBODY TYPE BIOL DIV-BIOLIDGICAL DIVERSITY DIART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY PH-PH TURB-TURBIDITY CHIA-CHL40ROPHYLL DINAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TN-NITROGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS Ilk, L I m m m m m m m m m m m m m m M M M SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03070204 ST MARYS RIVER TRENDS-SO-ORCES-CLEAMUP 'x"DEGRADING TREND 1 1984 - 1993 TRENDS I 'O'@STABLE TREND ----------------------------------------------------- '+'-IMPROVING TREND Iw TI T T C SI P Al T TI B TI D DI T FI T F I<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY DATA [QUALITY RANK ]OVER-IQ or SI N P H DI H L[ U Sl 0 01 0 01 C C[ E L I I------------- I ALL 11 Il L I KI R SI D Cl SI 0 01 M 0 1 1 WQI ITRENDI I A I I B I I Al L Ll P W I WATERSHED I MEETS OR I I I I I I I TI I Il I ID NAME IUSE ? TSI I I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ----- ------------------------ I------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- � WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 21 JACKSON CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI x I x I x 0 01 0 1 + 01 0 1 0 01 0 1 0 1 23 AMELIA RIVER IPARTIA.L FAIRI . I . I . . I . .1 . .1 . .1 . .1 - .1 . 1 27 St. Marys Riv AB ICWW INC, UNKNI 0 1 x 1 0 + 01 0 1 0 01 0 1 0 01 1 0 1 � WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 1 HAMPTON LAKE PARTIAL FAIR[ I I I - I - .1 .1 .1 .1 3 OCEAN POND OUTLET IYES GOODI I I I I I I I I � WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 2 SOUTH PRONG ST. MARYS IYES GOODI I I . . . . 4 JOHN ROW BRANCH ]NO POORI I I I I I I I 1 1 5 TURKEY CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI I I 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 6 CEDAR CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 8 CALKINS CREEK IYES GOODI I I 1 .1 .1 t .1 .1 1 9 DEEP CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI I I 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 1 10 St. Marys River IYES GOODI I I 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 1 11 St. Marys River IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 x + 0 01 + 01 + 01 0 .1 0 01 0 +1 0 1 12 MIDDLE PRONG ST. MARYS IYES GOODI . I . I . . I - .( . .1 . .1 . .1 - .1 - 1 13 St. Marys River IYES GOODI I I . . . .1 - .1 . .1 .1 .1 .1 1 14 BLUFF CREEK IYES GOODI I I . . . . I 15 St. Marys R. N. Prong )YES GOODI 16 DEEP CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I 17 LITTLE RIVER iYES GOOD I 18 MILL CREEK IYES GOODI I 1 .1 - .1 - .1 .1 .1 .1 1 19 St. Marys River IYES GOOD I D 1 0 1 0 0 .1 0 01 0 01 0 .1 0 01 .1 0 1 20 DEEP CREEK INO UNKNI I I - . .1 . .1 - .1 . .1 . .1 .1 22 St. Marys River tPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I 24 DUNN CREEK INO UNKNI I I . . . . I 25 St. Marys River IYES GOOD I + I + 1 0 + . 01 0 .1 0 01 0 .1 0 +1 .1 0 1 26 LITTLE ST. MARYS RIVER IPARTIAL FAIRI . I . I . . . . I - .1 - .1 - .1 . .1 .1 . 1 28 St. Marys River IPARTIAL FAIRI x 1 0 1 x 0 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 .1 x X1 .1 0 1 29 PIGEON CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI .1 .1 .1 .1 - 1 30 St. Marys River IPARTIAL FAIRI 1 .1 .1 .1 1 31 CABBAGE CREEK INC, UNKRI I . . . . I - .1 - .1 .1 .1 .1 1 32 St. Marys River IYES GOOD( 0 1 0 1 0 a 0 .1 0 01 0 01 0 01 x X1 01 0 1 LEGEND: DOSAT-DO SATURATION TCOLI-TOTAL COLIFORM TURB-TURBIDITY FCOLI-FECAL COLIFORM TEMP-TEMPERATURE TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX FOR LAKES AND ESTUARIES ALK-ALKALINITY FLOW-FLOW TN-NITROGEN WQI-WATER QUIAITY INDEX FOR STREAMS AND SPRINGS BOO-BIOCHZM. OXYGEN DEMAND MEETS USE-MBETS DESIGNATED USE TOC-T.ORGANIC CARBON CHIA-CHLOROPHYLL PH-PH TP-PHOSPHORUS DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 00 4@. NPS QUALITATIVE SURVEY RESULTS AN "X!' INDICATES A PROBLEM WITH POLLUTANT OR SOURCE THE ON MAPID INDICATES NO S'fORET INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR THIS WATERSHED -SEE PAGE 11 FOR LEGEND FOR THIS TABLE- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CATNAME=ST MARYS RIVER HUC=03070204 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ N B S P 0 S 0 F T F 0 U A E E T A H T T I U I T M T C D S H D 0 L A H H S R S N N H A B W W R T I T E E X I M B E E H A B H 0 0 E p W A 0 0 1 E M I R B Y N E I F R R K L W 1 0 D S F R B S 3 N E R E 0 C C R G I T T L M P I G E D D E W I S I S I 1 0 P N I N I I H I E T P A A 0 A 0 L A E 1 0 C I S Y N T A R S L U C H 0 D D N 5 S T A T L D E S N Y H L T W L L L L D T R L M H M D P G E L D R N M T 3 2339 OCEAN POND OUTLET GOOD THREAT x x 6 2242 CEDAR CREEK FAIR THREAT x x x x x x 7- 2268 SCOUT POND DRAIN THREAT x x x x LITTLE RIVER E EE RIVER West ast Pass GULF OF MEX100 WATER QUAL17Y LOWER SUWANNEE RIVER BASIN GOOD 03110205 THREATENED FAIR AVERAGE WATER QUALITY POOR 1984-1994 STORET DATA UNKNOWN WATERSHED ID NUMBERS LINK MAP TO TABLES INDICATES NPS ASSESSMENT page 86 LOWER SUWANNEE RIVER BASIN --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Basic Futs Drainage Area: 1,596 square miles M#r Land Uses: forestry, agriculture Population Density: low (Live Oak, Branford, Chiefland) Major Pollution Sources: poultry processing facility, dairy and agriculture operations Best Water Quality Areas: Lower Suwannee River Worst Water Quality Areas: Owens Spring Water Quality Trends: stable quality at one site, improving quality in Suwannee River OFW Waterbodies: Suwannee River, Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge SWIM Waterbodies: Suwannee River System Reference Reports: Suwannee River System SWIM Plan, SRWMD, 1991 Limnology of the Suwannee River, DEP (Tallahassee), 1985 Analysis of Trends in Water Quality in the Suwannee River Basin, USGS, 1988 Suwannee River Floodplain Onsite Sewage Disposal System Inventory Annual Report 199 1, I4RS/SRWMD, 1991 Florida Rivers Assessment, DEP/FREAC/NPS, 1989 District Lakes Assessment, SRWMD Technical Report, 1991. Review and Development of Water Quality Critcria for the Suwannee River, University of Florida, 1992 Basin Water Quality Experts: Robert Mattson, SRWMD, 904/362-1001 Gray Bass, FGFWFC, 904/957-4172 Jerry Krumnirich, FGFVVTC, 904n58-0525 -------------------------------- - ------------------------ - ---- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ifthg-Nm * A 10-20 year flood occurred on the Suwannee River during the late winter of 1991. * The Dixie County Board of County Commissioners passed a county ordinance, creating a Water and Sewer District for the Town of Suwannee in November, 1992. In doing so the town is moving toward centralized WWTP and removal of septic tanks. * A major winter storm, known as the Storm of the Century, impacted the Suwannee River late winter of 1993. * DER released PRFT monies to Suwannee River Water Management District in November 1991 for the restoration of Ruth Springs, Royal Springs and the tidal shore line of the Town of Suwannee. Restorations were completed in August 1993. --------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- 87 Ecological Characterization The Suwannee River, with an average flow of 11,000 cfs, is one of Florida's largest, relatively unspoiled rivers, and one of its most treasured. From its headwaters in the Okeefenokee Swamp, it travels 245 miles to the Gulf of Mexico. The Lower Suwannee River Basin begins at the junction of the Withlacoochee River where the Suwannee River renews its southerly course. From the headwaters, the downstream increase in flow reflects not only the larger drainage area but also a major contribution of ground water from the Floridan Aquifer through springs along the river's course. The lower river also receives flow from two major tributaries: the Withlacoochee River with a discharge of 1,600 cfs, and the Santa Fe River ,writh an average flow of 2,000 cfs. Most of the Suwannee River flows through excessively well-drained soils, thus there is relatively little overland drainage and few tributaries. Instead, water percolates through the soil and into the ground water. Conduits of the karst terrain account for the numerous springs. The springs can be thought of as tributaries of exceptionally good water quality, however, when the river is under flood conditions, it covers the springs and a reverse flow occurs. The springs drain the river water which causes impact to the groundwater. Because of its drainage characteristics, the land may not be well suited for agriculture and dairy operations. There is concern that the impacts of dairies and other high intensity agricultimal operations will degrade ground water. Monitoring wells, as part of the DEP/SRWMD VISA Network, are being sampled. The basin is sparsely populated and there are only a few communities adj acent to the river. Below Fanning Springs, the river passes into the lower coastal areas which are primarily forested swamp land where silviculture is the major land use. The Town of Suwannee lies next to the estuary. Manatees are found in the lower reaches of the Suwannee River. Anthr-onge-nic Impacts The Suwannee River has been designated an Outstanding Florida Water and is considered to be one of the State's treasures. Water quality is generally good in all reaches of the lower Suwannee River. Phosphorus is contributed by mining operations, which are located in the upper Suwannee River basin. Over the past decade total phosphorus concentrations have been declining. In addition, Gold Kist, Inc., poultry processing plant discharges below the confluence of the Withlacoochee River. There are a few other pollution sources in the basin such as septic tanks and dairies. The Withlacoochee basin has several pollution problems. It receives a considerable sediment, nutrient, and possibly pesticide loading from agricultural runoff. Additionally, several WWTPs discharge to the Withlacoochee in Georgia. The Withlacoochee also receives effluent from a pulp mill in Georgia via Jumping Gully Creek. Eutrophication, however, is not a severe problem in the Suwannee because of the rapid flushing of the system and the spring inflow to the river. The effects of this enrichment on the receiving estuary, Suwannee Sound, have not been determined. The lower river is threatened by housing developments within the floodplain. The Town of Suwannee relies entirely on septic tanks for wastewater treatment. A 1991 HRS study of on-site septic tanks found that most of the septic tank systems were inadequate. Additionally, the town is built on a low lying, swampy area connected with a network of drainage canals. A past study by the Northeast DEP District indicated that the Town had an extensive bacteriological impact on the area due to chronic wastewater leachate problems. Nearby shellfishing areas are frequently closed due to high bacteria values. The Town recently created a Water and Sewer District which will facilitate its efforts to obtain a centralized wastewater treatment plant. 88 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03110205 SUWANNEE RIVER, LOWER INDEX GOOD FAIR POOR SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 1970-1993 ----------- ----- ----- ----- MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED WQI-RIVER 0-44 45-59-60-90 CURRENT PERIOD OF RECORD (1989-1993) USED WHERE AVAILABLE TSI-ESTUARY 0-49 50-59 60-100 ----- PERIOD PRIOR TO 1989 IS EVALUATED AS HISTORICAI, INFORMATION TSI-LAKE 0-59 60-69 70-100 1 BIOLOGICAL WATER WATERSHED WATERSHED DATA RECORD WATER DISSOLVED OXYGEN PH TROPHIC SPECIES QUALITY ID NAME ---------------------- CLARITY OXYGEN DEMAND ALKALINITY STATUS COLIFORM DIVERSITY COND FL40W INDICES ----- --------------------------------- MAX BEG END DATA ---------------------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ----- ----- --------------- #OBS YR YR PERIOD TURB SD COLOR TSS DO DOSAT BOD COD TOC PH ALK NITRO PHOS CHLA. TOTAL FECL NAT ART BECK COND FLOW WQI TSI WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 7 MORGAN LAGOON 3 90 90 Current 56.0 6.9 . 210.052.00 399E3 2690 100 WATER BODY TYPE: SPRING 3 ROCK BLUFF SPRING 4 92 92 Current 0.2 8.5 3 2 3.0 32 7.5 125 1.02 0.06 275 44 6 OWENS SPRING 2 92 92 current 0.2 5.0 3 2 1.8 18 7.3 155 3.33 0.05 376 53 8 BLUE SPRING 8 91 93 Current 1.9 22 0.5 7.3 . 1.90 0.05 383 103 51 9 ALLEN MILL POND DRAIN 3 92 92 Current 0.2 3 2 0.1 2 7.3 185 0.58 0.06 413 43 10 PEACOCK SLOUGH 3 92 92 Current 0.2 3 2 2.6 27 7.4 155 2.31 0.06 371 52 WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM I SUWANNEE RIVER (LOWER) 218 89 93 Current 2.2 1.1 140 3 6.5 70 1.0 14 7.2 83 0.92 0.13 1 85 259 34 2 SUWANNEE RIVER (LOWER) 46 69 93 Current 1.6 1.1 175 3 6.5 67 0.8 15 7.3 81 1.03 0.15 1 96 211 33 5 SUWANNEE RIVER (LOWER) 245 89 93 Current 2.6 0.9 183 3 6.2 67 1.0 19 7.0 73 0.97 0.20 1 95 16 194 4960 34 11 BETHEL CREEK 4 93 93 Current 2.6 . 400 4 7.3 76 27 7.2 108 0.66 0.04 198 36 LEGEND; BOD-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MGIL DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN W.IL MAX #OBS-MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TURB-TURBIDITY MG/L ALK-ALKALINITY MG/L CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL UG/L DOSAT-DO % SATURATION NAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TOC-TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON MG/L WQI-WATER QUALITY INDEX ART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DI COD-CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L END YR-ENDING YEAR NITRO-TOTAL NITROGEN MG/L TOTAL-TOTAL COLIFORM MPN/100ML BEG YR-BEGINNING SAMPLING YEAR COLOR-COLOR PCU FECL-FECAL COLIFORM MPN/100ML PH-PH STANDARD UNITS TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX BECK-BECKIS BIOTIC INDEX COND-CONDUCTIVITY UMHOS FDOW-FLOW CFS PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L 00 SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03110205 SUWANNEE RIVER, LOWER MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED SCREENED 'x'-EXCEEDS SCREENING CRITERIA SCREENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA '0'-WITHIN SCREENING CRITERIA '.'-MISSING DATA I I RANK DATA RECORDI TN I STREAM I LAKE I PH I ALK I TURB & I COND I OXYGEN I DO ICOLIFORM I BIOL I CHIA I SECCHI I I------------------ I I TP I TP I I TSS I I DEMAND I I BACTI I DIV I I DISC I I W10 I CURRENT I I I I I I I I I I I I I WATERSHED I OR OR I TN>2.0 I TP>.46 I TP>.12 I PH>8.8 I ALK<20 ITURB>16.SICOND>12751 BOD>3.3 I DO<4 ITOT>3700 IDIART<1.951 CHLA>40 f SD<.7 f ID NAME I TSI HISTORICAL I I I I PH<5.2 I I TSS>18 I I COD>102 I IFECAL>4701DINAT<1.5 I I I -------------------------------------------- I I 1 1 TOC>27.51 I IBECK<5.5 I I I � WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 7 MORGAN IJAZOON IUNKN Current I x I I x 1 0 1 x I x x �WATER BODY TYPE: SPRING 3 ROCK BLUFF SPRING IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I 1 0 1 6 OWENS SPRING IFAIR Current I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 8 BLUE SPRING IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 a i t f 0 1 x 9 ALLEN MILL POND DRAIN IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 x 10 PEACOCK SLOUGH IFAIR Current I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x � WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 1 SUWANNEE RIVER (LOWER) IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 a 0 1 0 1 2 SUWANNEE RIVER (LOWER) IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 5 SUWANNEE RIVER (LOWER) IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 11 BETHEL CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 LEGEND: COND-CONDUCTIVITY FECAL-FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA TP-PHOSPHORUS WQI OR TSI-WATER QUALITY INDEX RATING ALK-ALKALINITY DO-DISSOLVED OXYG13N HISTORICAL-1970 TO 1988 TOT-TOTAL COLIFORM BACTERIA WHICH INDEX USED, WQI OR TSI, IS BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX CURRENT-1989 TO 1993 OXYGEN DMIAND-BOD, COD, TOC TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS BASED ON WATERBODY TYPE BIOL DIV-BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY DIART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY PH-PH TURB-TURBIDITY CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL DINAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TN-NITROGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m M SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03110205 SUWANNEE RIVER, LOWER TRENDS-SOURCES-CLEAYUP :X: -DEGRADING TREND 1 1984 - 1993 TRENDS 0 =STABLE TREND I----------------------------------------------------- '+'=IMPROVING TREND I 1W T1 T I C Sl P A[ T TI B TI D DI T Fl I F j<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY '.'=MISSING DATA IQUALITY RANK IOVER-IQ or St 14 P H D1 H Lt U Si 0 01 0 01 C Cl E L I I------------- I ALL II il L I KI R Sl D Cl si 0 Ol M 0 1 1 WQI ITRENDI t A I i B I I A( L Ll P W I WATERSHED I MEETS OR i I I I I I I T1 1 11 1 ID NAME IUSE ? TSI I I I I I I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ----- ------------------------ I------------- I I I I--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 7 MORGAN LAGOM INO UNKNI I 1 .1 WATER BODY TYPE: SPRING 3 ROCK BLUFF SPRING IYES GOOD I I I 6 OWENS SPRING IPARTIAL FAIRI I I 8 BLUE SPRING IPARTIAL FAIRI I 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 1 9 ALLEN MILL POND DRAIN IYES GOOD] 10 PEACOCK SLOUGH I PART IAL FAIRI I 1 .1 WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM I SUWANNEE RIVER (LOWER) IYES GOODI + 1 0 1 + + 0 01 0 X1 0 01 0 X1 x X1 + .1 0 0 1 2 SUWANNEE RIVER (LOWER) IYES GOOD 1 0 j 0 1 0 + 01 0 xi 0 01 01 0 01 0 .1 0 . 1 5 SUWANNEE RIVER (LOWER) IYES GOOD I + 1 0 1 + + 01 x xi 0 01 X1 0 Of + 01 + 0 1 11 BETHEL CREEK IYES GOODI . I . . I - .1 . .1 .1 . .1 . .1 . . I LEGEND: DOSAT-DO SATURATION TOOLI-TOTAL COLIFORM TURB-TURBIDITY FCOLI-FECAL COLIFORM TEMP-TEMPERA7URE TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX FOR LAKES AND ESTUARIES ALK-ALKALINITY FLOW-FLOW TN-NITROGEN KI-WATER QUIAITY INDEX FOR STREAMS AND SPRINGS BOD-BIOCHEM. OXYGEN DEMAND MEETS USE-MEETS DESIGNATED USE TOC-T.ORGANIC CARBON CHLA-CHIA)ROPHYLL PH-PH TP-PHOSPHORUS DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS NPS QUALITATIVE SURVEY RESULTS AN "X" INDICATES A PROBLEM WITH POLLUTANT OR SOURCE THE - ON MAPID INDICATES NO STORET INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR THIS WATERSHED -SEE PAGE 11 FOR LEGEND FOR THIS TABLE- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CATNAME=SUWANNEE RIVER, LOWER HUC=03110205 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- N B S P 0 S 0 F T F 0 U A E E T A H T T I U I T M T C D S H D 0 L A H H S R S N N H A B W W R T I T E E X I M B E E H A B H 0 0 E P W A Q Q I E M I R B Y N E I F R R K L W 1 0 D S F R B S 3 N E R S 0 C C R G I T T L M P I G E D D E W I S I S y I 1 0 P N I N I I H I E T P A A 0 A 0 L A E 1 0 C I S Y N T A R S L U C H 0 D D N 5 S T A T L D E S N Y H L T W L I L D T R L M H M D P G E L D k N M T 1 3422A SUkAN-NEE RIVER (LOWER) GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2 3422 STkWNNEE RIVER (LOWER) GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x 4- 3597 UNNAIC0 SLOUGH THREAT x x x x x 5 3422B SU%W\.\ES RIVER (LOWER) GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x 6 3568 OWD;S SPRING FAIR THREAT x x x x x 11 3480 BETHEL CREEK GOOD THREAT x x x 12* 3476 WIL7_:AM WATERHOLE DR THREAT x x x x 13- 3472 BETHEL CREEK THREAT x x x x 14- 3471 UNN'A_-@D DITCH GOOD 15* 3469 SPR:l;GHEAD CREEK THREAT x x x x 16* 3439 UN'NAICD DRAIN GOOD GEORGIA LrME SUWANNEE CREEK SUWANNEE RIVER TtR CR Ft R ROARING CR PC INSON CREEK FALUNG CREEK ROCKYCREEK UPPER SUWANNEE RIVER BASIN WATER QUALITY 03110201 GOOD AVERAGE WATER QUALITY THREATENED 1984-1993 STORET DATA FAIR WATERSHED ID NUMBERS LINK MAP TO TABLES POOR LEI S C INDICATES QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT UNKNOWN page 93 UPPER SUWANNEE RIVER BASIN ------------------------------------------------------------- - ------- - ---- Basic Fact Drainage Area: 1,273 square miles Major Land Uses: forest, agriculture, mining Population Density: low (Ellaville, White Springs) Major Pollution Sources: mining activities, chemical processing Best Water Quality Areas: Sugar Creek, Robinson Creek, Upper Suwannee River Worst Water Quality Areas: Swift Creek and Camp Branch Water Quality Trends: stable quality at 8 sites, improving quality at Swift Creek, Rocky Cr., Falling Cr., and Suwannee R below Wliite Springs OFW Waterbodies: Suwannee River SWIM Waterbodies: Alligator Lake (Columbia County) Falling Creek (Columbia County) Upper Suwannee River including the Withlacochee River and all tributaries as part of Suwannee River System Reference Reports: Suwannee River System SWIM Plan, SRWMD, 1991 Analysis of Trends in Water Quality in the Suwannee River Basin, USGS, 1988 The Limnology of the Suwannee River, DER (Tallahassee), 1985 Florida Rivers Assessment, DNR/FREAC/NPS, 1989 District Lakes Assessment, SRWMD Technical Report, 1991 Review and Development of Water Quality Criteria for the Suwannee River, University of Florida, 1992 Biological Assessment of Occidental Chemical Corp., DEP, July, 1992 EPA Report for Monitoring Associated with "Four Point Agreement" Volume I & 11, Environmental Services & Perniitting, Inc. February 1988, for Occidental Chemical Corp Basin Water Quality Experts: Robert Mattson, SRWMD, 904/362-1001 Ron Ceryak, Nolan Col, SRWMD, 904/362-1001 Gray Bass, FGFWFC, 904/957-4172 Jerry Krummrich, FGFWFC, 904n58-0525 ------------------------------------------------------------------ - - ------- -------------- -In the News * The Nature Conservancy has purchased an additional 610 acres in the Pinhook Swamp area. * DEP permitted a new discharge point for Occidental Chemical in Camp Branch in 1991. The discharge is essentially rainfall runoff which falls in the watershed from dewatering operation during mining. * Health advisories recommending limited consumption of largemouth bass due to mercury content have been issued for the Suwannee River. The 94 health advisories remain in effect and research is being conducted on the problem. � A 10-20 year flood occurred during the winter of 1991. � In 1993, DEP established two new biological reference sites on Deep Creek and Robinson Creek. � Occidental chemical is currently conducting a quarterly biological integrity sampling program for the Upper SuwanneeRiver Basin. � A major winter storm known as the Storm of the Century impacted the basin in March, 1993. --- - ----- - ------- - - - ----- - - - --------- - ------------------- - - Ecological Characterization The Suwannee River is one of Florida's least developed and least polluted large rivers, and as such, is. one of its most treasured resources. The upper Suwannee River basin drains portions of Florida and Georgia, encompassing a total area of 9,950 square miles. Approximately 926 miles of the drainage area are located in north central Florida; the remainder of the watershed drains parts of south central. Georgia. Traveling a total distance of 265 miles from- the headwaters, the Suwannee River ultimately discharges into the Gulf of Mexico. Below White Springs, the Suwannee River and its principal tributaries (Alapaha River, Withlacoochee River, and Santa Fe River) are fast-flowing streams with deep channels underlain by karst topography and characterized by numerous sinks and springs. Headwaters of the upper Suwannee River near Fargo, Georgia, are formed by the convergence of numerous channels flowing from the southwest comer of the Okeefenokee Swamp. Consequently, the river at this point is very darkly stained and acidic. Flow measured below the swamp averages 1,800 cfs. Average daily flow 30 miles above the mouth of the Suwannee is 11,000 cfs, making. it the second largest (by flow) river in Florida. The southward flowing river turns sharply westward near White Springs, Florida, near the Cody Scarp. The Alapaha and Withlacoochee Rivers originate in Georgia and join the Suwannee River as it renews its southward course. The average discharge rate of the Alapaha River and the Withlacoochee is 1,600 cfs/each. At low flow the Alapaha River is captured by a sinkhole. It is believed to discharge to the Suwannee River through Alapaha Rise Spring. This area also receives substantial flow from the Floridan Aquifer through numerous springs. Land use in the upper Suwannee River basin is primarily silviculture and agriculture. There is also substantial drainage of swamp lands. The basin is sparsely populated and White Springs is the only community actually located on the river. Watersheds and headwaters of Hunter Creek, Roaring Creek, Four-mile Branch, Swift Creek, and Camp Branch are currently being mined for phosphates. Anthropggenic ILnpacts The Suwannee River is an Outstanding Florida Water and sections of the river have very good water quality. The Florida portion of the Upper Suwannee River Basin is surrounded by the Alapaha River Basin to the west, the Lower Suwannee River Basin and the Santa Fe River Basin to the south, and the St Mary's River Basin to the east. In generally exhibits low pH, high color and low conductivity. These conditions are typical of waters draining swampland. A large number of point source discharges to tributaries of the river arc located in Georgia. These include municipal and industrial WVTP's, paper mill effluent, and effluent from aluminum product manufacturing. The river receives a large loading of phosphates, organic nitrogen, sulfates, and fluorides at Swift Creek from Occidental Chemical Company. The elevated nutrient values are evident downstream 95 until they become diluted from flows of the Withlacoochee and Alapaha Rivers and several springs. Hunter Creek, which also receives Occidcntal effluent, exhibits high phosphorus values. Coliform levels are high in Roaring Creek, Swift Creek, Hunters Creek and the Suwannee River area above and below the confluence of Swift Creek. The original stream channel of Roaring Creek is being mined for phosphates. A new channel has been created. Occidental has been permitted a new discharge point at Camp Branch. The discharge consists of excess water from rainfall runoff in the watershed and from dewatering operations during mining. The excess water is routed to previously mined pits or reclaimed areas for clarification before being discharged to Camp Branch. A detailed study of the entire Suwannee River was published by the Department of Environmental Regulation in 1985. It emphasized the marked difference in the upper and lower rivers, predominantly caused by a drastic pH change (from about 4 to 7) in the area of the Withlacoochee/Alapaha Rivers resulting from the inflow of the springs. Aside from the water quality changes associated with the ground water inflow, mining and phosphate beneficiation operations had the greatest impact on water quality. The upper Suwannee River is a SWIM priority water. Since 1989, an extensive surface water quality and biological monitoring program of the river and its tributaries has been performed by the SRWMD and their contractors. HRS is conducting an assessment of on-site septic tarl systems compliance within the floodplain of the river. Finally, a water quality study conducted by the University of Florida defined ambient water quality. This study will be useful in the future determination of water quality for both existing and future discharges to the river. Additional threats to the upper river are construction runoff, shoreline modification and septic tank seepage from residential development within the floodplain. However, at this point; the river is sparsely developed. A proposal for a large campground and trailer park was recently withdrawn. Agricultural land use may threaten springs within the river basin. Water quality threats from the Withlacoochee River are covered in the Lower Suwannee Basin. 96 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03110201 SUWANNEE RIVER, UPPER INDEX GOOD FAIR POOR SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 1970-1993 ----------- ----- ----- ------ MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED WQI-RIVER 0-44 45-59-60-90 CURRENT PERIOD OF RECORD (1989-1993) USED WHERE AVAILABLE TSI-ESTUARY 0-49 50-59 60-100 ----- PERIOD PRIOR TO 1989 IS EVALUATED AS HISTORICAL INFORMATION TSI-LAKE 0-59 60-69 70-100 1 1 BIOLOGICAL WATER WATERSHED WATERSHED DATA RECORD WATER DISSOLVED OXYGEN PH TROPHIC SPECIES QUALITY ID NAME ---------------------- CLARITY OXYGEN DEMAND ALKALINITY STATUS COLIFORM DIVERSITY COND FLOW INDICES ----- --------------------------------- MAX BEG END DATA ---------------------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ----- ----- --------------- #OBS YR YR PERIOD TURB SD COLOR TSS DO DOSAT BOD COD TOC PH ALK NITRO PROS CHLA TOTAL FECL NAT ART BECK COND FLOW WQI TSI �WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 1 WATERTOWN LAKE 5 80 80 Historical 2.1 20 8.3 74 0.64 0.03 20 153 48 5 LAKE LOUISE 3 80 80 Historical 1.9 43 6.5 5 0.59 0.03 5 47 42 �WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 2 FALLING CREEK 75 89 93 Current 1.4 0.4 313 3 5.0 53 1.0 36 4.8 5 1.06 0.17 2 109 64 42 3 ROCKY CRK NR WELLBORN 50 79 86 Historical 1.4 0.4 500 3 5.3 59 1.0 223 31 4.4 4 1.35 0.27 2 395 70 68 6 42 4 ROBINSON CREEK 55 89 93 Current 1.2 0.4 263 3 5.0 53 1.4 44 6.1 30 0.89 0.19 1 290 141 3.0 9 104 43 6 SUWANNEE RIVER (UPPER) 155 89 93 Current 1.1 0.6 388 3 7.0 77 1.2 45 4.3 5 1.17 0.18 1 105 66 37 7 JERRY BRANCH 6 89 90 Current 1.8 0.3 350 3 4.0 41 1.1 49 4.3 1 1.72 0.48 1 303 84 50 8 ROARING CREEK 46 89 93 Current 6.5 0.3 350 7 7.3 81 1.0 50 5.0 5 1.39 0.33 4 240 70 48 9 SUWANNEE RIVER (UPPER) 84 89 93 current 1.4 0.6 350 3 7.1 72 1.0 47 3.9 5 1.15 0.11 2 90 65 34 10 DEEP CREEK 55 89 93 Current 0.8 0.4 488 3 5.2 55 1.3 50 4.3 5 1.12 0.17 1 290 143 2.1 12 67 42 11 SUWANNEE RIVER (UPPER) 134 89 93 Current 2.0 0.8 275 3 5.3 55 1.1 26 6.8 42 0.86 0.40 1 90 145 44 12 CAMP BRANCH 38 89 93 Current 1.6 0.4 300 3 4.5 49 1.0 35 6.3 50 1.06 0.90 2 830 94 53 13 SUGER CREEK 4 93 93 Current 2.4 . 80 5 0.9 92 9 '7. 2 36 3.41 0.70 168 38 14 SWIFT CREEK 46 89 93 Current 3.8 0.4 45 8 6.0 63 1.8 13 7.0 70 2.27 4.75 8 270 384 49 15 LITTLE CREEK 4 93 93 currant 0.2 0.5 300 2 7.0 70 36 5.0 5 1.02 0.21 51 43 16 HUNTER CREEK 58 89 93 Current 2.7 0.2 200 3 6.2 66 1.0 22 6.7 37 1.27 0.75 1 7@0 140 47 17 ROCKY CREEK NR BENTON 46 89 93 Current 0.8 0.4 550 3 4.6 51 1.3 75 3.9 5 1.52 0.20 2 140 90 49 18 SUWANNEE RIVER (UPPER) 13 89 90 Current 1.5 0.5 340 1 6.2 69 0.9 3.9 1 0.86 0.07 1 395 62 28 LEGEND: BOD-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN MG/L MAX #OBS-MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TURB-TURBIDITY MG/L ALK-ALKALINITY MG/L CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL UG/L DOSAT-DO I SATURATION NAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATB DIVERSITY TOC-TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON MG/L WQI-WATER QUALITY INDEX ART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE D! COD-CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND M/L END YR-ENDING YEAR NITRO-TOTAL NITROGEN MGIL TOTAL-TOTAL COLIFORM MPN/100ML BEG YR-BEGINNING SAMPLING YEAR COLOR-CODOR PCU FECL-FECAL COLIFORM MPN/100ML PH-PH STANDARD UNITS TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX COND-CONDUCTIVITY UMHOS FLOW-FLOW CFS PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03110201 SUWANNEE RIVER, UPPER MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED SCREENED 'X'=EXCEEDS SCREENING CRITERIA SCREENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA '0'--WITHIN SCREENI14G CRITERIA '-'=MISSING DATA I RANK DATA RECORD] IN I STREAM I LAKE I PH I ALK I TURB & I COND I OXYGEN I DO ICOLIFORM I BIOL I CHIA I SECCHI I I------------------ I I TP I TP I I I TSS I I DEMAND I I BACTI I DIV I I DISC I I WQI CURRENT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WATERSHED I OR OR I TN>2.0 I TP>.46 I TP>.12 I PH>8.8 I ALK<20 ITURB>16.51COND>12751 BOD>3.3 I DO<4 ITOT>3700 IDIART<1.951 CHLA>40 I SD<.7 I ID NAME I TSI HISTORICAL I I I PH<5.2 I I TSS>18 I I COD>102 I IFECAL>4701DINAT<1.5 1 1 1 ----- -------------------------------------------- I TOC>27.51 IBECK<5.5 I � WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 1 WATERTOWN LAKE IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 5 LAKE LOUISE IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x I I 1 0 1 0 1 � WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 2 FALLING CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 3 ROCKY CRK NR WELLBORN IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 4 ROBINSON CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 6 SUWANNEE RIVER (UPPER) IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 7 JERRY BRANCH IFAIR Current 1 0 1 x I I x I x 1 0 1 1 x 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I 8 ROARING CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 9 SUWANNEE RIVER (UPPER) IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 a I 1 0 1 x I 10 DEEP CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I 11 SUWANNEE RIVER (UPPER) IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 12 CAMP BRANCH IFAIR Current 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 13 SUGER CREEK IGOOD Current I x I x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 . 1 14 SWIFT CREEK IFAIR current I x I x I t 0 0 t a 0 t 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 x 1 15 LITTLE CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 a I x 1 0 1 1 x 1 16 HUNTER CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 x 1 17 ROCKY CREEK NR BENTON IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 18 SUWANNEE RIVER (UPPER) IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I LEGEND: COND-CONDUCTIVITY FECAL-FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA TP-PHOSPHORUS WQI OR TSI-WATER QUALITY INDEX RATING ALK-ALKALINITY DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN HISTORICAL-1970 TO 1988 TOT-TOTAL COLIFORM BACTERIA WHICH INDEX USED, WQI OR TSI, IS BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX CURRENT-1989 TO 1993 OXYGEN DE14AND-BCD,CCD,TOC TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS BASED ON WATERBODY TYPE BIOL DIV-BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY DIART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY PH-PH TURB-TURBIDITY CHIA-CHLOROPHYLL DINAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TN-NITROGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS @c SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03110201 SUWANNEE RIVER, UPPER TRENDS-SOURCES-CLEANUP 'x'-DEGRADING TREND 1984 - 1993 TRENDS '0'=STABLE TREND ----------------------------------------------------- '+'-IMPROVING TREND W TI T T C Sl P Al T TI B TI D DI T Fl T F l<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY '.'=MISSING DATA IQUALITY RANK IOVER-IQ or Sl N P H D1 H Ll U Sl 0 01 0 01 C Cl E L I i------------- I ALL II il L I KI R Sl D Cl Sl 0 01 M 0 1 1 WQI ITRENDI I A I I B I I Al L Ll P W I WATERSHED I MEETS OR I I I I I I I Tj I Il I ID NAME IUSE ? TSI I I I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ----- ------------------------ I------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- �WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 1 WATERTOWN LAKE IYES GOODI I I I I I I I 1 1 5 LAKE LOUISE IYES GOODI I I I I I I I I I �WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 2 FALLING CREEK I YES GOOD I + 1 0 1 0 0 . @j 0 01 + +1 01 0 01 .1 + 1 3 ROCKY CRK NR WELLBORN IYES GOODI . I . I . . . . I . .1 . .1 .1 . .1 .1 - 1 4 ROBINSON CREEK IYES GOODI 0 1 x 1 0 0 +1 0 01 0 01 0 Of 0 01 0 .1 0 1 6 SUWANNEE RIVER (UPPER) IYES GOODI + 1 0 1 0 + 01 0 01 + +1 0 01 0 01 + .I + 0 1 7 JERRY BRANCH JPARTIAL FAIR] . I . I . . . . I . .1 . .1 . .1 . .1 . .1 . . 1 8 ROARING CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 01 x 01 x 01 0 01 0 01 0 .1 0 0 1 9 SUWANNEE RIVER (UPPER) IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 x 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 X1 0 01 0 1 + 0 1 10 DEEP CREEK IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 0 0 al x 01 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 1 0 . I 11 SUWANNEE RIVER (UPPER) IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 0 + 01 0 X1 0 X1 0 01 0 X1 0 .1 + 0 1 12 CAMP BRANCH I PART IAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 01 0 01 0 01 01 + +1 .1 0 - 1 13 SUGER CREEK IYES GOODI . I . I . . . . I . .1 . .1 .1 . .1 .1 . . 1 14 SWIFT CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI + I + I + 0 0 xl + 01 + 01 + 01 + 01 + .1 + 0 1 15 LITTLE CREEK IYES GOODI . I . I . . . . I . .1 . .1 . .1 . .1 . .1 . - 1 16 HUNTER CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 x 0 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 xl 0 .1 0 0 1 17 ROM CREEK NR BENTON I PARTIAL FAIRI + 1 0 1 0 + . 01 0 01 0 01 . 01 + +1 . .1 + I 18 SUWANNEE RIVER (UPPER) IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 a 0 0 01 0 01 a 01 0 .1 0 01 0 .( 0 1 LEGEND,. DOSAT-DO SATURATION TCOLI-TOTAL COLIFORM TURB-TURBIDITY FOOLI-FECAL COLIFORM TEMP-TEMPERATURE TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX FOR LAKES AND ESTUARIES ALK-ALKALINITY F LOW- F LOW TN-NITROGEN WQI-WATER QULAITY INDEX FOR STREAMS AND SPRINGS BOD-BIOCHEM. OXYGEN DEMAND MEETS USE-MEETS DESIGNATED USE TOC-T.ORGANIC CARBON CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL PH-PH TP-PHOSPHORUS DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS NPS QUALITATIVE SURVEY RESULTS AN "X" INDICATES A PROBLEM WITH POLLUTANT OR SOURCE THE I ON MAPID INDICATES NO STORET INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR THIS WATERSHED -SEE PAGE 11 FOR LEGEND FOR THIS TABLE- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CATNAME=WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER,NORTH HUC=03110203 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ N B S P 0 S 0 F T F 0 U A E E T A H T T I U I T M T C D S H D 0 L A H H S R S N N H A B W W R T I T E E X I M B E E H A B H 0 0 E P W A Q Q I E M I R B Y N E I F R R K L W 1 0 D S F R B S 3 N E R E 0 C C R G I T T L M P I G E D D E W I S I S T I 1 0 P N I N I I H I E T P A A 0 A 0 L A E 1 0 C I S Y N T A R S C H 0 D D N S T A T L D B S N Y H L 7 W L L L L D T R L M H M D P G E L D R V M T 1- 3366 LAKE FRANCIS THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2 3315 WITELACOOCHEE RIVER GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x 3 3322 LAKE CHERRY GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x OTTER CR A ENMILE CREEK CEDAR KEY SPRING RUN OA- WACCASASSA RIVER BASIN WATER QUALITY 03110101 GOOD AVERAGE WATER QUALITY THREATENED 1984-1993 STORET DATA FAIR WATERSHED ID NUMBERS LINK MAP TO TABLES POOR INDICATES QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT UNKNOWN pagme 1011 WACCASASSA RIVER BASIN -------------------------------------------------------------------------- l3asic Facts Drainage Area: 936 square miles Major Land Uses: forest, wetlands Population Density: low (Cedar Key, Bronson) Major Pollution Sources: none Best Water Quality Areas: Waccasassa River Worst Water Quality Areas: Horsehole Cr. and Little Waccasassa River Water Quality Trends: improving quality in the upper Waccasassa River OFW Waterbodies: Big Bend Seagrasses State Aquatic Preserve SWIM Waterbodies: Waccasassa River System Reference Reports: Waccasassa River System SWIM Plan, SRWMD, 1991 Florida Rivers Assessment, DNR/FREAC/NPS, 19119 Florida Nonpoint Source Assessment, DER (Tallahassee), 1988 Basin Water Quality Experts: Gray Bass, FGFVVTC, 904/957-4172 Homer Royals, FGFVVTC, 904/357-6631 Ernest Estevez, Ph.D., Mote Marine Laboratory, 813/388-4441 Rob Mattson, SRWMD, 904/362-1001 Lee Banks, DEP, 904/448-4300 ----------------------------------------------- - ------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the News * Land use in Waccasassa Flats is an issue between Gilchrist County residents and the County Commission. The most recent comprehensive plan for the county allows one shed per 80 acres or one house per 160 acres. Some local residents want no development. * The Town of Cedar Key has applied for a Wastewater Treatment Plant permit, which is expected to be issued in December, 1993. -------------------------------------------------------------- - - -------- Ecological Characterization The Waccasassa River Basin drains 936 square miles of forest land and wetland between the Suwannee and South Withlacoochee Rivers. The river is 29 miles long and has an average flow of approximately 300 cfs. Blue Spring, at the headwaters, and several other small springs, supply ground water to the river. However, much of its flow is swamp and woodland drainage, thus giving it the typical blackwater color. The river empties into the Gulf of Mexico via a large coastal Juncus marsh. There are no major urban areas in the basin, however, one of the barrier islands, Cedar Key, is a developed recreational and historical site. Anthropggenic Impacts 102 This basixf has very -good water quality and few. sources of pollutiom, Theonly point source in the basin is theCedArKey7WW.TP. Forestry clear-cutting-in-the basin@ could be a potential nonpoint source of pollution. 103 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03110101 WACCASASSA RIVER INDEX GOOD FAIR POOR ----------- ----- ----- ----- SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 1970-1993 WQI-RIVER 0-44 45-59-60-90 MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED CURRENT PERIOD OF RECORD (1989-1993) USED WHERE AVAILABLE TSI-ESTUARY 0-49 50-59 60-100 ----- PERIOD PRIOR TO 1989 IS EVALUATED AS HISTORICAL INFORMATION TSI-LAKE 0-59 60-69 70-100 1 1 BIOLOGICAL WATER WATERSHED WATERSHED DATA RECORD WATER DISSOLVED OXYGEN PH TROPHIC SPECIES QUALITY ID NAME ---------------------- CLARITY OXYGEN DEMAND ALKALINITY STATUS COLIFORM DIVERSITY COND FLOW INDICES ----- --------------------------------- MAX BEG END DATA ---------------------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ----- ----- --------------- #OBS YR YR PERIOD TURB SD COLOR TSS DO DOSAT BOD COD TOC PH ALK NITRO PHOS CHLA TOTAL FECL NAT ART BECK COND FLOW Ki TSI � WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 3 WACCASASSA RIVER 91 70 85 Historical 3.5 1.5 30 7 5.7 70 0.8 5 7.3 log 0.40 0.06 7 420 306 38 � WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 8 UNNAMED SLOUGH 49 70 70 Historical 4.0 50 4.2 52 5.0 0 1.31 0.02 28 37 � WATER BODY TYPE: SPRING 4 WEKIVA RIVER 34 70 85 Historical 2.0 3 5.0 57 0.5 1 7.5 79 0.20 0.04 169 57 36 � WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 1 TENMILE CREEK 22 89 92 Current 2.2 0.4 195 3 5.5 64 1.1 26 7.2 96 0.69 0.07 1 290 197 38 2 HORSEHOLE CREEK 50 70 72 Historical 7.0 . . 2.9 33 16 . 0.72 0.05 137 0 56 5 MULE CREEK 10 87 88 Historical 2.2 0.5 123 4 7.1 78 1.0 7.0 76 0.62 0.14 1 3346 555 3.1 30 151 33 6 OTTER CREEK 5 87 88 Historical 2.7 1.0 210 4 4.9 55 1.2 6.4 56 1.10 0.09 1 2375 288 151 48 7 WACCASASSA RIVER 64 89 93 Current 1.6 1.1 65 3 6.2 6B 1.0 12 7.5 114 0.55 0.05 1 659 160 322 27 9 LITTLE WACCASASSA RIVE 100 70 77 Historical 0.6 . 140 4.8 54 1.9 30 6.2 2 0.76 0.03 84 1 58 LEGEND: BOD-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN MG/L MAX #OBS-MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TURB-7URBIDITY MG/L ALK-ALKALINITY MG/L CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL UG/L DOSAT-DO I SATURATION NAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TOC-TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON MGIL WQI-MATER QUALITY INDEX ART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DI COD-CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L END YR-ENDING YEAR NITRO-TOTAL NITROGEN MG/L TOTAL-TOTAL COLIFORM MPN/100ML BEG YR-BEGINNING SAMPLING YEAR COLOR-COLOR PCU FECL-FECAL COLIFORM MPN/100ML PH-PH STANDARD UNITS TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX COND-CONDUCTIVITY UMHOS FLOW-FLOW CPS PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03110101 WACCASASSA RIVER MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED SCREENED 'x'-EXCEEDS SCREENING CRITERIA SCREENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA '0'=WITHIN SCREENING CRITERIA f DATA I RANK DATA RECORDI TN I STREAM I LAKE I PH I ALK I TUBB & I COND I OXYGEN I DO ICOLIFORM I BIOL I CHLA I SECCHI I I------------------ I I TP I TP I I I TSS I I DEMAND I I BACTI I DIV I I DISC I I WQI CURRENT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WATERSHED I OR OR I TN>2.0 I TP>.46 ITP>.12 I PH>8.8 IALK<20 17URB>16.SICOND>12751 BOD>3.3 I DO<4 ITOT>3700 IDIART<1.951 CHLA>40 I SD<.7 I ID NAME I TSI HISTORICAL I I I I PH<5.2 I I TSS>18 I I COD>102 I IFECAL>4701DINAT<1.5 I I I ----- -------------------------------------------- I I I I f TOC>27.51 I I BECK<5.5 I I � WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 3 WACCASASSA RIVER IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 � WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 8 UNNAMED SLOUGH IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I x I a I 1 0 1 � WATER BODY TYPE: SPRING 4 WEKIVA RIVER IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 - 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 � WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 1 TENMILE CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 2 HORSEHOLE CREEK IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I I I . 1 5 MLE CREEK IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 6 OTTER CREEK IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 a 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 7 WACCASASSA RIVER IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 9 LITTLE WACCASASSA RIVE IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I a I I x 1 0 1 1 LEGEND: CONDLCONDUCTIVITY FECAL-FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA TP-PHOSPHORUS WQI OR TSI-WATER QUALITY INDEX RATING ALK-ALKALINITY DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN HISTORICAL-1970 TO 1988 TOT-TOTAL COLIFORM BACTERIA WHICH INDEX USED, W19I OR TSI, IS BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX CURRENT-1989 TO 1993 OXYGEN DEMAND-BOD,COD,TOC TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS BASED ON WATERBODY TYPE BIOL DIV-BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY DIART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY PH-PH TURB-TURBIDITY CHLk-CHLOROPHYLL DINAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TN-NITROGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03110101 WACCASASSA RIVER TRENDS-SOURCES-CLEANUP :X:-DEGRADING TREND 1984 - 1993 TRENDS 0 =STABLE TREND ----------------------------------------------------- '+'=IMPROVING TREND I 1W Tj T I C Sl P Al T TI B TI D DI I Fl T F l<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY '.'=MISSING DATA QUALITY RANK IOVER-IQ or Sl N P H DI H Ll U Sl 0 01 0 01 C Cl E L I I------------- I ALL II Il L I KI R Sl D Cl sl 0 01 M 0 1 1 WQI ITRENDI I A I IB I I Al I Ll P W I WATERSHED I MEETS OR I I I I I I I TI I Il I ID NAME IUSE ? TSI I I I I I I I I I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ----- ------------------------ I------------- I I I I I I I I I I----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- �WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 3 WACCASASSA RIVER IYES GOODI I I 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 �WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 8 UNNAMED SLOUGH IYES GOOD I I I I I I I I WATER BODY TYPE: SPRING 4 WEKIVA RIVER IYES GOODI I I 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 1 TENMILE CREEK IYES GOODI I I 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 1 2 HORSEHOLE CREEK I PART IAL FAIRI I I I I I I I 1 1 5 MULE CREEK IYES GOODI I I . . . . I 6 OTTER CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I 7 WACCASASSA RIVER IYES GOODI + 1 0 1 0 + 0 01 0+1 + 01 0 .1 0 01 0 .1 + 1 9 LITTLE WACCASASSA RIVE [PARTIAL FAIRI I I I I I I I I I LEGEND: DOSAT-DO SATURATION TCOLI-TOTAL COLIFORM TURB-TURBIDITY FOOLI-FECAL COLIFORM TEMP-TEKPBRATUn TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX FOR LAKES AND ESTUARIES ALK-ALKALINITY FLOW-FLOW TN-NITROGEN V?QI-WATER QULAITY INDEX FOR STREAMS AND SPRINGS BOD-BIOCHEK. OXYGEN DEMAND MEETS USE-MEETS DESIGNATED USE TOC-T.ORGANIC CARBON CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL PH-PH TP-PHOSPHORUS DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS s ON NPS QUALITATIVE SURVEY RESULTS AN "X" INDICATES A PROBLEM WITH POLLUTANT OR SOURCE THE - ON MAPID INDICATES NO STORET INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR THIS WATERSHED -SEE PAGE 11 FOR LEGEND FOR THIS TABLE- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CATNAME=APALACHICOLA RIVER HUC=03130011 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- N B S P 0 S 0 F T F 0 U A E E T A H T T I U I T M T C D S H D 0 L A H H S R S N N H A B W W R T I T E E X I M B E E H A B H 0 0 E P W A 0 Q I E M I R B Y N E I F R R K L W 1 0 D S F R B S 3 N E R E 0 C C R G I T T L M P I G E D D E W I S I S I 1 0 P N I N I I H I E T P A A 0 A 0 L A E 1 0 C I S Y N T A R S L U C H 0 D D N 5 S T A T L D E S N Y H L T W L L L L D T R L M H M D P G E L D R N M T I 1039A CAMEL :.AKE REC AREA GOOD THREAT x x x 23 1039 LIT7'_S M:LLY CREEK GOOD THREAT x x x 26- 997 BAYOU GA.RCON POOR x x x x x x x x x x GEORGIA Jumping Gully Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . Awift WITHLACOOCHEE (NORTH) RIVER BASIN WATER QUALITY 03110203 GOOD AVERAGE WATER QUALITY THREATENED 1984-1993 STORET DATA FAIR WATERSHED ID NUMBERS LINK MAP TO TABLES POOR INDICATES QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT UNKNOWN page 1081 WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER BASIN, NORTH ----------------------------- - -------------------------------------------- Basic F Drainage Area: 2,330 square miles (about 9% in Florida) Major Land Uses: forest, agriculture Population Density: low (Bellville) Major Pollution Sources: pulp mill in Georgia Best Water Quality Areas: Withlacoochee River Worst Water Quality Areas: Jumping Gully Creek Water Quality Trends: stable trend at I site OFW` Waterbodies: none SWIM Waterbodies: part of Suwannee River System Reference Reports: Suwannee River System SWIM Plan, SRWMD, 1991 Florida Rivers Assessment, DNR/FREAC/NPS, 1989 Florida Nonpoint Source Assessment, DER (Tallahassee), 1988 Basin Water Quality Experts: Robert Mattson, SRWMD, 904/362-1001 Homer Royals, FGFWFC, 904/357-6631 ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- thp, h1cm Reclassification of Jumping Gully Creek as a Class III Waterbody in 1991. Packing Corporation of America has entered into a Consent Order with DEP, which requires it to conduct research, feasibility and engineering studies to meet class III standards in Jumping Gully Creek. Studies are under review. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ecological Characterization The Withlacoochee River basin originates in Georgia and terminates in the Suwannee River about 20 miles south of the Georgia-Florida border. The basin is 1,510 square miles in area and has 338 miles of river reach, but only 28 miles of river reach are located in Florida. The Withlacoochee River has a flow of 1,600 cfs before it enters the Suwannee River. The river is highly colored, but has alluvial characteristics as well. It carries more suspended sediments than most north central Florida streams. The river also receives flow ftorn the Floridan Aquifer through several springs along its course in Florida. Blue Springs, the largest, is located about 10 miles upstream of the confluence with the Suwannee River. The major tributary of the Withlacoochee in Florida is Jumping Gully Creek near the Florida-Georgia border. The Florida portion of the basin is about half forest land and half agriculture. However, much of the upper basin, in Georgia, is in agriculture. Anthropo-genic Impacts 109 The River receives several point discharges before it enters Florida from a total of six domestic wastewater and four industrial wastewater point sources. The industrial dischargers are involved in plating and polishing alun-iinum manufacturing. In Florida, the Withlacoochee River exhibits borderline good/fair water quality depending on flow. During the rainy season, the river is characterized by higher than average sediment load for Florida rivers due to agriculture being the dominant land use in the basin. When it's dry, the relatively greater spring flow and less runoff have a beneficial effect on water quality. Another major pollution source to the river is a paper mill located on Jumping Gully Creek that discharges about 12 MGD of high color and BOD effluent. The effluent discharges through an impoundment outfall. The Environmental Regulation Commission decided to reclassify Jumping Gully Creek as a Class III water. 110 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03110203 WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER,NORTH INDEX GOOD FAIR POOR SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 1970-1993 MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED WQI-RIVER 0-44 45-59-60-90 CURRENT PERIOD OF RECORD (1989-1993) USED WHERE AVAILA13LE TSI-ESTrUARY 0-49 50-59 60-100 ----- PERIOD PRIOR To 1989 IS EVALUATED AS HISTORICAL INFORMATION TSI-LAKE 0-59 60-69 '70-100 1 I BIOLOGICAL WATER WATERSHED WATERSHED DATA RECORD WATER DISSOLVED OXYGEN PH TROPHIC SPECIES Q@ZITY ID NAME ---------------------- CLARITY OXYGEN DEMAND ALKALINITY STATUS COLIFORM DIVERSITY COND FLOW !NDICES ----- --------------------------------- MAX BEG END DATA ---------------------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ----- ----- --------------- 0013S YR YR PERIOD TURB SD COLOR TSS DO DOSAT BOD COD TOC PH ALK NITRO PROS CHIA TOTAL FECL NAT ART BECK COND FLOW wv I TSI WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 3 LAKE CHERRY 3 80 80 Historical 1.6 4 5.9 3 0.32 0.03 7 44 43 WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 2 WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER 168 89 93 Current 4.2 0.8 120 3 6.2 65 1.0 12 7.0 59 0.80 0.13 1 135 72 3.1 16 172 35 LEGEND: BOD-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L I)O-DISSOLVED OXYGEN MG/L MAX #OBS-MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TURB-TURBIDITY MG/L ALK-ALKALINITY MG/L CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL UG/L DOSAT-DO % SATURATION NAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TOC-TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON MG/L WQI-WRTER QUALITY INDEX ART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DI COD-CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L END YR-ENDING YEAR NITRO-TOTAL NITROGEN MG/L TOTAL-TOTAL COLIFORM MPN/100ML BEG YR-BEGINNING SA14PLING YEAR COLOR-COLOR PCU FECL-FECAL COLIFORM MPN/100ML PH-PH STANDARD UNITS TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX COND-CONDUCTIVITY UMHOS FLOW-FLOW CPS PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03110203 WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER,NORTH MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED SCREENED 'x'=EXCEEDS SCREENING CRITERIA SCREENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA '0'=WITHIN SCREENING CRITERIA '.'=MISSING DATA I RANK DATA RECORD I TN ISTREAM I LAKE I PH I A.LK I TURB & I COND I OXYGEN I DO ICOLIFORM I BIOL I CHIA I SECCHI I I------------------ I I TP I TP I I I TSS I I DEMAND I I BACTI I DIV I I DISC I j WQI CURRENT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WATERSHED I OR OR I TN>2.0 ITP>.46 I TP>.12 I PH>8.8 I ALK<20 ITURB>16.51COND>12751 BOD>3.3 I DO<4 ITOT>3700 (DIART<1.951 CHLA>40 I SD<.? I ID NAME I TSI HISTORICAL I I I I PH<5.2 I I TSS>18 I I OOD>102 I IFECAL>4701DINAT<1.5 I ----- -------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I TOC>27.51 I I BECK<5.5 I WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 3 LAKE CHERRY I GOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x I I I 1 0 0 WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 2 WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER I GOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 LEGEND: COND-CONDUCTIVITY FECAL-FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA TP-PHOSPHORUS WQI OR TSI-MATER QUALITY INDEX RATING ALK-ALKALINITY DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN HISTORICAL-1970 TO 1988 TOT-TOTAL COLIFORM BACTERIA WHICH INDEX USED, WQI OR TSI, IS BECK-BECKIS BIOTIC INDEX 1-URRENT-1989 TO 1993 OXYGEN DEMAND-BOD,COD,TOC TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS BASED ON WATERBODY TYPE BIOL DIV-BIOLOGICAL DIVERS:TY DIART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY PH-PH TURB-TURBIDITY CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL DINAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TN-NITROGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS = = m = = m = m = = = = m = = = = m m SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03110203 WITHLACOOCHEE PIVER,NORTH TREINDS-SOURCES-CLEANUP 'x'-DEGRADING TREND 1 1984 - 1993 TRENDS I '0'-STABLE TREND I----------------------------------------------------- '-'-IMPROVING TREND I 1W Ti T T C Sl P Al T TI B TI D DI T Fl T F l<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY '.'-MISSING DATA IQUALITY RANK IOVER-IQ oz Sl N P H D1 H Ll U Sl 0 01 0 Of C Cl E L I I------------- I ALL 11 it L I KI RSl D Cl si 0 01 M 0 1 WQI :TREND: A B A@ L L@ P W WATERSHED MEETS OR 7 1 1 ID NAME I USE ? TSI I I I I I I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ------------------------ I------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- � WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 3 LAKE CHERRY IYES GOODI I I I I I � WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 2 WITHLACOOCHES RIVER IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 0 + . 01 0 X1 x xi + 01 + 01 1 + 0 1 LEGEND: DOSAT-DlO SATURATION TCOLI-TOTAL COLIF,)RM TURB-TURBIDITY PCOLI-FECAl COLIFORM TEMP-TEMPERATURE TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX FOR LAKES AND ESTUARIES ALK-ALKATLINITY FLOW-FLOW TN-NITROGEN WlQI-WATER OULAITY INDEX FOR STREAMS AND SPRINGS BOD-BIOCHEM. OXYGEN DEMAND MEETS USE-MEETS DESIGNATED USE TOC-T.ORGANIC CARBON CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL PH-PH TP-PHOSPHORUS DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS RICE CREEK 57 AI-APAHA RIVER 17 ROARING CREEK 93 ALLIGATOR CREEK 50 ROBINSON CREEK 93 A,LLIGATOR LAKE 50 ROCKY CREEK 50 ALTHO DRAINAGE 50 ROCKY CREEK NR BENTON 93 AMELIA RIVER 79 ROSE BAY 30 ARLINGTON RIVER 57 SAMPSON RIVER 50 ATES CREEK 57 SANCHEZ PRAIRIE 50 AUCILLA RIVER 23 SAND HILL CREEK 37 BANANA RIVER 79 SANTA FE LAKE so BEVINS (BOGGY) CREEK 37 SANTA FE RIVER 50 BLACK CREEK 57 SISTERS CREEK 57 BLUE CREEK 50 SIXMILE CREEK 57 BROWARD RIVER 57 SJ JOHNS RIVER 57 CAMP BRANCH 93 SOUTH AMELIA RIVER 44 CASA COLA CREEK 30 SOUTH PRONG ST. MARYS 79 CEDAR RIVER 57 SPRING CREEK 37 CRANE CREEK 79 SPRING WARRIOR @ MOUTH 37 CRESCENT LK 57 SPRUCE CREEK 30 DEEP CREEK 93 ST. MARYS RIVER 79 DOCTORS LAKE 57 STEINHATCHEE RIVER 37 DUNNS CREEK 57 SUWANNEE RIVER (LOWER) 86 EAU GALLIE RIVER 79 SUWANNEE RIVER (UPPER) 93 ECONFINA RIVER 31 SWIFT CREEK 93 EDWARDS CREEK 44 SYKES CREEK/BARGE CAN. 79 EIGHTMILE CREEK 37 TENMILE CREEK 101 ETONIA CREEK 57 THAYER CANAL 30 FALLING CREEK 93 TOCOI CREEK 57 FENHOLLOWAY RIVER 37 TOMOKA RIVER 30 FORT GEORGE RIVER 44 TROUT RIVER 57 GARDEN CREEK 44 TURKEY CREEK '79 GOAT CREEK 79 WACCASASSA RIVER 101 GREENE CREEK 57 WACISSA. RIVER 23 GUANO RIVER 30 WEKIVA RIVER 101 HALIFAX RIVER 30 WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER 108 HAMPTON LAKE 50 RAW CREEK 57 HORSE CREEK 79 HORSEHOLE CREEK 101 HUNTER CREEK 93 ICHETUCKNEE RIVER 50 ICWW 57 INDIAN RIVER 79 JACKSON CREEK 79 KINGSLEY LAKE OUTLET 57 LAKE BUTLER 50 LAKE CROSBY 50 LAKE DISSTON 57 LAKE ROWELL 50 LITTLE AUCILLA RIVER 23 LITTLE TOMOKA RIVER 30 LITTLE TROUT RIVER 57 LITTLE WACCASASSA RIVE 101 LOFTON CREEK 44 MATANZAS RIVER 30 MCCOYS CREEK 57 MIDDLE RAW CREEK 57 MIDDLE PRONG ST. MARYS 79 MILL BRANCH 57 MILLS CREEK REACH 44 MOCCASIN BRANCH 57 MOSQUITO LAGOON 79 MOULTRIE CREEK 30 NASSAU RIVER 44 NEW RIVER 50 NEWFOUND HARBOR 79 NORTH FORK BLACK CREEK 57 OCKAN POND OUTI,ET @19 01,11STKE CREEK 0 ORTKGA R I VKR '13,1 PAI@M COAST 30 PELLICER CREEK 30 PETERS CREEK 57 PIGEON CREEK 79 RAYSOR CREEK 23 I HOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY il@ill 1 3 6668 14111667 5 3 I I I I I I , I i I I I I I I I I