[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA DISTRICT WATER QUALITY 1994 305 (b) TECHNICAL APPENDIX .4m WITHLAOOOCHEE R RIVE TAMPA WATER QUALITY GOOD THREATENED FAIR POOR CHARLOTTE HARWR UNKNOWN JOE HAND, JANA COL, AND ERIC -GRIMISON BUREAU OF SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NOVEMBER, 1994 INDEX TO RIVER BASINS WtTHLACOCHEE CRYSTAL R. TO ST. PETE ---- PAGE 112 PAGE 31 HILLSBOROUGH PAGE 43 ALAFLok TAMPA SAY k PAGE 98 PAGE 16 L. MANATEE P.51 PEACE RIV MANATE ER PAGE 5: PAGE 73 SARASOTA BAY PAGE 90 MYAll PAGE 65 @ CHARLOTTE HARBOR PAGE 24 rt u, ARI HAR PA, 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 Procedure . . . . . . . . . 5 Trophic State Index Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Screening Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Trend Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Toxic Pollutant Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Nonpoint Source Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Making Use Support Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Alafia River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Charlotte Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Crystal River to St. Petersburg Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Hillsborough River 43 Little Manatee River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Manatee River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Myakka River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Peace River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Sarasota Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Tampa Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Withlacoochee River, South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 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 Reports - 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). 0 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. 0 ARC/INFO Water Ouality 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. 0 New Nonpoint Source Qualitative 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. Historic data were 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. Many individuals in the District Offices reviewed the report on their sections of the State. These individuals include Rick Bradburn, Glenn Butts, Donald Ray, and Tone Touart-Rohlke in the Northwest District; Cathy Krestalude, Ernie Frey, Lee Banks, Angela Halfacre, and Jim Wright of the Northeast District ; Eric Pluchino and Dave Herbster of the Central District; Paul Wierzbicki, Herb Zebuth, and John Moulton of the Southeast District; Gordon Romeis of the South District, and Pat Fricano of the Southwest District. Sid Flannery of the Southwest Florida Water Management District also reviewed the report for his area. 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 FAA Everglades Agricultural Area EPA Environmental Protection Agency FGFWFC Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission MGD millions of gallons per day NPDES Nati*onal 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 WLA wasteload allocation WMD Water Management District WQI water quality index WWTP wastewater treatment plant EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/OVERVIEW The 305(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 Quality Assessment Main Report submitted to EPA. The assessment required analysis of the available STORET 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) assessment also 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 EPA'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, 8 1 % 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 est-aries with fewer miles in the "meets use" category and more miles in the "does not meet use" category. Interestingly enough, this year's take assessment brought in many more small lakes with good overall quality, however, Florida's largest lakes (Lake Okeechobee and Lake George) still over-whelm the State average with their large mileages of 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 (24%) 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 WWTPs 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 I - - ----- 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 (1970-1988) 3. 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 80 70 ui ........ 47 60 RED 41 EMONITO U. ui 50 0 EVALUATED 9L 40 .. ... . .... E3 UNKNOWN Lu 4C 30 14 . ..... ..... 20 8 .... ... .... ... Lu IL ... . ... ....... 0 RIVERS LAKES ESTUARIES FIGURE 2. DESIGNATED USE SUPPORT IN FLORIDA WATERBODIES 70- 65 63 60,X 42 50,Z 39 0 I.- 8YES u. 40V 0 0 PARTIAL z 30-Z !Alm ONO 20-Z tu IL 10V 4 0- ...... RIVERS LAKES ESTUARIES FIGURE 3. TEN YEAR WATER QUALITY TREND ANALYSIS FOR FLORIDA WATERBODIES (1984-1993) 80- 68 ca 70- 0 60-'Z re ta 50-'Z 0 RIVER 40-Z 0 LAKE U. 26 0 24 23 30- 0 ESTUARY ul 20-Z 6 Lu 5 IL 10- TE WORSE BET R NO CHANGE WATER QUALITY TREND ix Ten Year Florida Water Quality Trends (1984-1993) I., Ilk, 10 year water quality trend Better M No change Worse 4-010" 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. Agricultural Runoff. The major pollutants involved include nutrients, turbidity, BOD, bacteria and herbicides/pesticides. These pollutants generally do their worst damage in lakes and slow moving rivers and canals, and sometimes, the receiving estuary. Problems are concentrated in the central and southern portions of the State, and in several of the rivers entering the State from the north. Traditionally, agricultural operations have had far more lenient regulation than point sources; however, there is increasing recognition of the need for improved treatment of runoff water. 3. Domestic Wastewater. This is an area that has shown significant improvement in the last decade. Most of the waterbodies with improving water quality trends can be traced to wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) upgrades. Further advancements are being encouraged with design innovations such as wastewater discharge to wetlands, water reuse and advanced treatment. Still, a problem exists in the rural areas of the State where financial and technological resources are limited. Consequently, several of these poorly operating facilities are polluting some of Florida's relatively pristine natural waterbodies. 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 major pollution sources (both point and nonpoint) in several of Florida's surface water basins. In addition, the mining of phosphate causes surface water hydrological modifications and major land use disturbances. 5. H I orm of damming running waters, ydrologica Modifications. This can take the f channelizing slow moving waters, or dredging, draining and filling wetlands. Such modifications are not strictly pollution sources. However, in most cases where the natural hydrological regime was modified (mostly for water quantity purposes) water quality problems have ensued. Rating the effect of hydrologic modification is difficult. Dredge and fill activities result in a loss of habitat. 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 contamination in the water and contaminated sediments of the Miarni 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 connections to the stormwater pipe system, leaking or broken sewer lines, and direct discharges of raw sewage when pump stations have exceeded their capacity. During acute contamination events (direct discharge of sewage) coliform bacteria counts in the Miami River and adjoining waters of 131scayne llay are hundreds of times higher than State criteria. Ftfforts are being made by the City of Miami and Dade County to correct these problems. Xii Southwest Reizion 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 southwest Florida: This area of the State has many good water quality coastal rivers, often with significant spring flow. The major pollution sources are associated with urbanization around Tampa and phosphate mining and processing operations. The rivers along the west coast of Florida from Waccasassa River to the Anclote River are mostly small, spring-fed streams and generally have good water quality. However, problems of high nutrient inputs and high bacterial counts exist for many of these rivers. High total coliform counts in the Weeki Wachee River resulted in the closure of Rodgers Park to swimming. The only large river basin in this stretch of the west coast, the Withlacoochee River, originates in Green Swamp, but also has significant ground water inflow. This basin generally has good water quality. The upper portion of Boca Ciega Bay and its tributaries have fair to poor water quality. Water quality problems are caused by runoff and wastewater discharges. The Hillsborough River has a considerable number of problems in its upper reaches and tributaries to these reaches. Pollution sources in the upper basin and tributaries include citrus processing, wastewater discharge, and construction and agricultural runoff. The lower portion of the Hillsborough River has been dammed to form a drinking water reservoir. The reservoir has frequent algal blooms and occasional fish kills due to low DO. The estuarine portion of the I-Ellsborough River is degraded by urban runoff from Tampa and severe bank modification (sea walls). Lake Thonotosassa, in the Hillsborough River Basin, receives excess nutrient loads from streams entering it. These loads have caused algal blooms and fish kills. This lake is a SWIM priority waterbody. The Alafia River is degraded by phosphate mining activities in the eastern portion of its basin. The surficial aquifer is degraded by seepage from gypsum stacks and this seepage enters the Alafia. The upper Alafia's reaches are particularly heavily impacted. Sources of pollutants to these two waterbodies are point source discharges, runoff from mined and barren lands, and spills originating from clay settling ponds. The lower Alafia River has elevated nutrient levels, low DO, and on occasion, fish kills and algal blooms. Radium levels in this river are some of the highest found in streams on the west coast of Florida. The biological and water quality degradation and recent improvement of the Tampa Bay system have been documented. Causes for this degradation have been identified as loss of vegetation in coastal areas, dredge and fill activities, destruction of submerged habitat and increased pollutant loading. Sources of pollution are wastewater discharges, storrawater runoff, spills and wash off at fertilizer loading docks, and oil, Xiii grease, and fuel from the shipping industry. Tampa Bay is part of the National Estuary Program. A plan has been designed and is beginning to be implemented to improve conditions in the bay. Tampa Bay also receives water from the Hillsborough, Manatee, Little Manatee, and Alafia Rivers. These rivers can also contribute nutrients or toxics to the bay in addition to point and nonpoint sources located around the bay. Hillsborough and Old Tampa Bays, have historically had eutrophication problems. Trends in Hillsborough Bay indicate that conditions are improving. The Sarasota Bay basin has fair to good water quality. The major pollution sources are urban runoff, which affects both the tributaries and the bay, historical V;IWP discharges, and septic tanks. Actions have been taken to upgrade WWTP to advanced treatment. Sarasota Bay is also part of the National Estuary Program. Studies have been initiated to address the problems of the bay. The Peace River has several problems, most of which originate in the upper reaches of the system. Tributaries to the upper Peace River originate from lakes which have eutrophic conditions. Sources of discharge to the upper Peace River include phosphate mining, fertilizer and other chemical manufacturing, discharge from WWTP, citrus processing, and runoff from agriculture and urban areas. Water quality in the middle and lower Peace River improves although it still has very high phosphorus values. Unmined tributaries are important sources of high quality water and benthic fauna for recolonizing the main channel when it becomes stressed. Many of the lakes in this basin have poor water quality. Banana Lake is considered to be the most polluted lake in the State. Sources of pollution to these lakes are historical direct discharges from WWTP, runoff from agricultural activities and phosphate mining, and industrial effluent discharges. The Myakka River has good water quality although it has naturally low DO concentrations from swamp drainage and has nutrient loading from agricultural runoff and natural phosphate rich soils. The river is impounded in its middle reach to form upper and lower Lake Myakkas. The upper lake is eutrophic with dense growth of hydrilla and hyacinth. The Charlotte Harbor Estuary system generally has good water quality. Phosphorus loading can be high as a result of contributions from the Peace River, which is affected by phosphate mining, and from the Myakka and Caloosahatchee Rivers' nonpoint source nutrient loading. The harbor is affected by urbanization, but still supports a healthy estuarine habitat. xiv INTRODUCTION AND METHODS 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: 1. 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 waterbody 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 Seechi 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 i nto 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 EPA's R173 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 tniles) 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 wat 'erbody 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 available). The area of lake and estuary waterbodies was determ@ined with crude GIS aerial measurement techniques (if estuary waterbodie's 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 IBM 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/100ml 31505 Conductivity Conductivity at 25c micromho 95 Conductivity Conductivity Field micromho 94 Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen % saturation 301 Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen mg/l 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/l 310 Oxygen Demand COD Hi Level mg/l 340 xygen Demand Tot Organic Carbon C mg/l 680 pH-Alkalinity pH SU 400 0 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/1 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 N02&NO3 N-Diss mg/l 631 Trophic Status Nitrogen N02&NO3 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/l 71887 Trophic Status Nitrogen Total N N mg/l 600 Trophic Status Phosphorus OrthoPO4 mg/l 660 Trophic Status Phosphorus Total As P04 mg/l 71886 3 Table 3. Storet Water Quality Assessment Parameters (continued). Category Storet Parameter Name Storet Parameter Code Trophic Status Phosphorus Total mg/l 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/l 530 Water Clarity Turbidity JKSN JTU 70 Water Clarity Turbidity TRBIDMTR HACH FTU 76 4 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 categories (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 watcr 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. Mssing water quality parameters and missing water quality categories are ignored in the final calculation. Therefore, the final WQ1 is based on an average of anywhere from 1 to 6 water quality index categories. Table 5 shows an example calculation of the WQI. The WQI 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 10* 204 304 4011 50* 60% 7011 80% 90P6 Category: Water Clarity Turbidity JTU 1.50 3.00 4.00 4.50 5.20 8.80 12.20 16.50 Z1.00 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: Nutrien,:s Total Nitrogen mg/l as N 0.55 0.75 0.90 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 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 nip aw am Table 5. An Example Calculation of the Florida Stream Water Quality Index (WQI). Parameter Water Quality Category' Water Quality Parameter 2 Value3 Index Value4 Index Average Water Clarity Turbidity 3.9 mg/1 29 40 Water Clarity Total Suspended Solids 7.0 mg/l 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/1 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' 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 cl assifying 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 takes 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 atrophic 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 limiting 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. 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 trendinformation 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 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 qoodj 50-59 is fair, 60-100 is poor Trophic State Chlorophyll Secchi Depth Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen Index CHIA SD TP TN TSI (ug/1) W (MgP/l) (mgN/1) 0 0.3 7.4 0.003 0.06 10 0.@ 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 TS-I e'quatioh-'s which generat'e the above criteria: 'CHLATs, = 16-.8 + [14.4 x IN (CHIA) (use Natural Log) S'DT@j = 60- [30 x IIN (SD)1 TNT11 = 56 + (19.8 x LN (TN)] 7@'PTsj = [18.6 x IN (TP x 1000)] -18.4 T.S."I (CH,LATs, + SDTSI + NUTRTsj.) /3 -Lirnf-ting Nutrient considerations for Calculating NUTRTsj: If TN/TP > 30 then NUTRTSI = TPTsj If -TN/-TP < 10 then NUTRTs, = TNTSI 1f '10 < TN/T-P <30 then NUTRTSI (TPTs, + TNTsi) /2 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/1 42.6 1. 42.1 Secchi Depth 1.8 meters 42.3 2- 42.3 Phosphorus* 0.04 mg P/1 50.2" Nitrogen* 0.67 mg N11 48. 14- 49.2 5. 47- 45.0 1. CHIA = 16.8 + [14.4 x IN (6.0)] = 42.1 (use Natural Log) 2. SD = 60 - [30 x IN (1.9)] = 42.3 3. TP = (18.6 x IN (0.04 x 1000)] - 18.4 = 50.2 4. TN = 56 + (19.8 x IN (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. 9 Table B. 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/l 13 (75) 150 20.0 mg/l min. beck's Biotic Index Index <5.5 4 (14) 32 BOD 5 Day mg/l >3.3 0.8 (1.5) 5.1 Not cause DO<5 mg/l Chlorophyll ug/l 1 (6) 30 COD mg/l >102 16 (46) 146 Coliform-Fecal #/100 ml >470 10 (151 960 200/100 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 5q0 abv background Dissolved Oxygen mg/l <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 q166) 90 Fecal Strep #/100 ml 20 q(15q) 1-700 Fluoride mg/l 0.1 (0.2) 0.8 10.0 mg/l Nitrogen-total mg/l as N >2.0 0.5 q(1.2) 2.7 Not cause imbalance pH standard units 6.1 q(7.1) 7.9 <6.0 >8.5 Phosphorus-total mg/l as P >0.46 0.02 (0.09) 0.89 Not cause imbalance Secchi Disc Depth meters 0.4 q(0.8) 1.7 min. 90% background Temperature centigrade 19 (23) 28 No nuisance conditions Total Organic Carbon mg/l >27.5 5 (14) 37 Total Suspended Solids mg/l >18.0 2 q(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/l >40. 1 (12) 70 Nitrogen-total mg/l as N >2.0 0.4 (1.1) 2.5 Not cause imbalance Phosphorus-total mg/l as P >0.12 0.01 (0.05) 0.29 Not cause imbalance Scchi 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/l as N >2.0 0.3 (0.8) 1.6 Not cause imbalance Phoshorus-total mg/l 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 210 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 1014 155 207* 0% Copper 1042 330 12* 10% Iron 1045 378 1000 22% Lead 1051 240 3.2* 30% Mercury 71900 129 0.012 47% Nickel 1067 130 158* 0% Zinc 1092 253 106 10% actual criteria is dependent on water hardness which was assumed to be 100 mg/I as calcium carbonate since hardness was not available in all waterbodies 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 surface waters 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: I . 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 wat erbodies, release of radioactive materials to groundwater, discharge of acid mine drainage and depletion of water supplies in aquifers. 12 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 UR Urban runoff CN Construction site runoff HM 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 305(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: I . Nutrients. An imbalance of nitrogen and or phosphorus which resulted in algal blooms or nuisance aquatic plant growth. Standards for Class III waterbodies are based on this criteria. 2. Bacteria. This refers to the presence of high levels of coliform, strep and enteric fecal organisms which cause the closure of waters to swimming and shellfishing. 3. Sediments. Soil erosion which results in high levels of turbidity. 4. Oil and Grease. Hydrocarbon pollution resulting from highway runoff, marina, and industrial areas. Their presence is evidenced as a sheen on the water surface. 5. Pesticides. These class of chemicals can be found in runoff from agricultural lands and some urban areas. 6. Other Chemicals. General category for other chemicals besides pesticides and oil and grease, typically associated with landfills, industrial land uses and hazardous waste sites. 13 7. Debris. This category includes trash ranging from Styrofoam plates and cups to yard clippings and dead animals. 8. Oxygen Depletion. Low levels of dissolved oxygen in the water column resulting in odor problems (anoxic waters) and fish kills. 9. Salinity. Changes in salinity caused by too much or too little freshwater inflows. Typical results are declines in the fishery and changes in species composition. 10. pH. Change in the acidity of surface waters with resultant declines in fisheries and other changes to flora and fauna, such as reductions in diversity or abundance. 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 which influence the flow characteristics of a watershed resulting in adverse affects upon flora and fauna. 14. Thermal Pollution. Activity which changes local temperature of receiving water relative to 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. 14 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 all 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 runoft) 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. 15 Toxic Pollutant Assessment The assessment of toxic pollutants in Florida's waters was accomplished by an inventory or 1991-93 (Table 9). The Florida surface water of 9 STORET toxic metal parameters f 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 a 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 mi 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 1�88 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. 15 ................ FEW BUCKHORN Aloft LE CR-' BELL , 74-ivA@ Som PRONG ALAFIA RIVER BASIN WATER QUALITY 03100204 GOOD THREATENED AVERAGE WATER QUALITY FAIR 1984-1993 STORET DATA POOR WATERSHED ID NUMBERS LINK MAP TO TABLES INDICATES QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT UNKNOWN page 16 ALAFIA RIVER BASIN --------- - --- - --- - - --- - --------- - -------------- Rasic Drainage Area: 460 square miles Major Land Uses: agriculture, mining, rangeland, urban development, aquaculture Population Density: moderate, higher at the mouth Major Pollution Sources: phosphate mining and processing, WWTP, agriculture, urban development Best Water Quality Areas: Lithia Springs area, Mid Alafia River and South Prong Worst Water Quality Areas: North Prong, Scott Lake Water Quality Trends: Stable quality at 4 sites, Alafia River at mouth and Little Alafia River are improving OFW Waterbodies: SWIM Waterbodies: None Reference Reports: Alafia River Biological Survey, DEP (Tampa), 1989 The Alafia River Study, 1-hllsborough County Planning Commission, 1989 Florida Rivers Assessment, DEP/FREAC/NPS, 1989 Basin Water Quality Experts: Peter Clark, TBRPC, 813/577-5151 Doug Farrell, DEP (Tampa) 813n44-6100 ------------------------ - --- - ------ - -------------- - ---- ------- - -- - -- - ---------- - --- -- ---------- - - In the New * Major upgrades of the processing and treatment facility and restoration of the property owned by Cargill, at the mouth of the river, are occurring. * IMC Fertilizer has proposed an 18,290 acre expansion of its phosphate mining operation in southeastern lEllsborough County (South Prong drainage). ----- - ---- - ---------- - ---- - --------- Ecological Characterization The Alafia River, formed by the confluence of the North Prong and the South Prongs, is a blackwater river located in Hillsborough and Polk counties, draining approximately 460 square miles. From the headwaters in the swamp and prairie area south of Mulberry, Florida, the river flows 24 miles westward through coastal lowlands prior to entering the southern end of 11illsborough Bay. The discharge of the Alafia River averages 330 cfs above Lithia Springs which contributes about 50 cfs, flow. Although there are a few springs, surface runoff contributes most of the flow. Its heavily vegetated main stem masks impacts in the headwater tributaries which have been seriously disrupted by phosphate mining activities. 17 Land use categories in the Alafia River basin include agriculture, rangeland, and barren land (12%). The relatively high percentage of barren land reflects the fact that the basin includes an area of extensive phosphate mining and processing operations. The lower basin has considerable urban development. ApthroNgenic Lkn@ The major pollution sources in this basin are the phosphate mining and processing industries. Also, Mulberry and Lakeland both have point source discharges to the Alafia River North Prong. Most of the phosphate processors are located along the North Prong, whereas mining occurs in both the North and South Prong drainages. Simply stated, phosphate processing involves strip mining of calcium phosphate deposits and treating them in suffuric acid to produce phosphoric acid (from which fertilizers are made) and calcium sulfate (gypsum). Pollutants evolved in this process are strong acids, phosphates, fluorides, sulfates, ammonia, and low levels of radiation., Pollutant loading occurs through point source discharges, runoff from mined and barren lands, and occasional spills of water from settling pools (slime ponds). The surficial aquifer is degraded by seepage from gypsum stacks (CaS04 waste), and this aquifer water seeps laterally into the river bed. The processing operations cause worse pollution problems than mining operation. Both the North and South Prong reaches exhibit high nutrient concentrations and frequent DO sags; however, the North Prong of the Alafia has considerably poorer water quality. A biological study of the Alafia Basin also indicated severe stress to both macroinvertebrates and floodplain vegetation in the North Prong. The report suggested that a significant problem in the river was toxicity from hydrogen sulfide, a toxic sulfur compound found when oxygen levels are low. The South Prong also showed stress, though not as pronounced. The study also indicated some community composition shifts from what would be expected in a similar unaffected stream. Both reaches flow through heavily vegetated wetlands which take up nutrient and dilute sulfates so that water quality is much improved at their confluence. Lithia Springs also contributes about 51 cfs of flow in this area. The water quality, however, is variable because the nature of the upstream discharge tends to be in slugs of highly polluted waters as well as some continuous flow. The effect of these slugs on the lower river and bay is poorly documented. The river below the confluence of the North and South Prongs is used recreationally for tubing and canoeing. The lower Alafia River also exhibits poor water quality with elevated nutrients, depressed DOs, and occasional algal blooms and fish kills. These problems appear to be caused by urban runoff, upstream nutrient loading and the tidal influx of Hillsborough Bay waters. Cargill (formerly Gardinier), a phosphate processing facility located at the mouth of the river, has had a history of environinental problems contributing to the degradation of the lower Alafia. Discharges from a gypsum stack have built up a layer of calcium fluoride at the mouth of the river and in the bay. These sediments do not support a healthy biological community. The company has also been responsible for some major acid spills into the river and Tampa Bay wetlands, the most recent in 1989. The Cargill Company is investing a large amount of effort and money to update and safeguard their processes. The estuarine deposits have been partially excavated, a new "state of the art" gypsum stack will replace the old one which will be permanently closed and sealed, and plans for on-site stormwater diking and treatment are being instituted. Other reaches in the basin have historically exhibited water quality problems. Tributaries such as Bell Creek and Turkey Creek are impounded and exhibit poor water quality because of low or intermittent flows and high nutrient and bacteria levels attributed to runoff from rangeland and residential development. Water from Buckhorn and Lithia Springs is very high in nitrates. Septic tanks, stormwater seepage via sinkholes and historic citrus farming have been implicated as the cause. Finally, it should be noted that radium levels in the Mafia River are higher than any other stream on the wcst coast of Florida. The radium source is presently unknown, but probably attributable to phosphate mining residues and discharges. 19 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100204 ALAFIA RIVER INDEX GOOD FAIR POOR SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 1970-1993 ----------- ----- ----- ----- MEDIAN VALUES FOR EAC14 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 BIOLOGICAL WATER WATERSHED WATERSHED DATA RECORD WATER DISSOLVED OXYGEN PH TROPHIC SPECIES QUALITY ID NAME ---------------------- CLARITY OXYGEN DMIAND ALKALINITY STATUS COLIFORM DIVERSITY CCND FLOW INDICES ----- --------------------------------- MAX BEG END DATA ---------------------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ----- ----- --------------- OOBS YR YR PERIOD TURB SD COLOR TSS DO DOSAT BOD COD TOC PH ALK NITRO PROS CHLA TOTAL FECL NAT ART BECK COND FLOW wol TSI � WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 19 MEDARD RESERVOIR 92 18 81 Historical 2.5 240 6.9 81 1.9 13 7.6 1.11 0.69 223 58 22 LAKE DRAIN 63 70 79 Historical 20.0 20 11.1 136 7.0 8 2.62 0.21 75 182 79 � WATER BODY TYPE: SPRING 10 LITHIA SPR:NGS 7 92 92 Current 3 4.0 47 7.9 3.15 0.08 449 28 74 �WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 1 SOUTH PRONG ALAFIA R 254 89 93 Current 6.2 0.8 50 3 7.5 84 1.0 10 7.4 1.44 0.88 2 675 200 340 29 42 4 FISHHAWK CREEK 16 76 77 Historical 1.5 . 48 2 7.3 81 0.9 9 7.4 0.57 0.53 2 2225 88 183 32 5 MIZELLS CREEK 9 92 93 Current 3.4 0.2 55 7 7.6 79 14 7.6 110 0.98 0.59 880 309 49 7 BELL CREEK 11 92 93 Current 9.5 0.6 140 9 6.0 69 20 6.7 28 1.45 0.53 193 182 61 8 North Prong Alafia R. 56 70 77 Historical 4.7 0.2 30 23 5.6 54 2.7 7 6.6 160 11.80 6.34 13 4800 150 1198 67 11 Alafia R AB HILLS. BAY 609 89 93 Current 4.2 1.2 31 29 5.7 62 1.3 7 7.5 . 1.24 1.14 10 350 115 18487 50 12 Alafia R AB TURKEY CK 8 92 93 Current 2.5 0.8 50 1 8.9 89 11 7.7 73 1.38 2.05 88 469 37 13 THIRTYMILE CREEK 8 92 93 Current 4.4 1.1 28 2 5.2 55 9 7.2 75 1.37 1.05 165 499 46 14 Alafia R AB FLINT HAWK 97 89 92 Current 2.3 . 50 4 7.3 80 11 7.5 63 1.67 2.75 2 328 112 433 105 41 15 North Prong Alafia R. 165 89 93 Current 6.2 0.6 38 4 7.3 84 0.9 9 7.5 83 1.52 4.54 1 700 250 545 44 44 is LTL ALAFIA BL MEDARD 95 70 80 Historical 3.0 . . 6.8 81 1.6 13 7.7 . 0.29 0.12 405 1 34 20 LTL ALAFIA As MEDARD 70 70 81 Historical 3.0 . 80 . 7.2 82 1.3 16 6.7 28 . 0.87 226 1 51 21 ENGLISH CREEK 8 92 93 Current 2.7 0.1 35 7 8.5 86 5 7.6 86 2.64 0.77 75'5 333 46 23 TURKEY CK AB LTL ALAFI 114 89 93 Current 7.0 0.4 52 2 6.2 71 1.1 15 7.3 62 2.30 0.80 1 3800 1475 357 55 24 FOLEY CREEK 6 92 93 Current 7.6 0.4 135 10 6.3 62 20 7.0 56 0.98 0.66 433 242 59 LEGEND: BOD-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN MG/L MAX #OBS-KAXIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TURB-TURBIDITY MG/L ALK-ALKA.LINITY MG/L CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL UG/L DOSAT-DO I SATURATION NAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TOC-TOTAL ORGA14IC CARBON MG/L WQI-WATER QUALITY INDEX ART-ARTiFiciAL SUBSTRATE DI COD-CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L END Yk-ENDING YEAR NITRO-TOTAL NITROGEN MG/L TOTAL-TOTAL COLIFORM MPN/100ML BEG YR-BEGINNING SAMPLING YEAR COLIDR-COLOR PCU FECL-FECAL COLIFORM MPN/100ML PH-PH STANDARD UNITS TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX COND-CONDUCTIVITY UMHOS FLOW-FLIOW CFS PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100204 ALAFIA 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 I STREAM I LAKE I PH I ALK I TURB & I COND IOXYGEN I DO ICOLIFORM I SIOL I CHLA I SECCHI I I------------------ I I TP I TP I I TSS I IDEMAND I I BACTI I DIV I I DISC I I V70I 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 IPH>8.8 IALK<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 IPH<5.2 I I TSS>18 I ICOD>102 I IFECAL>4701DINAT<1.5 I I I ----- -------------------------------------------- ITOC>27.51 I I BECK<5.5 I I I � WATER BODY TYPE. LAKE 19 MEDARD RESERVOIR I GOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 22 LAKE DRAIN I POOR Historical I x I I x 1 0 1 x I x I I 1 0 1 x I � WATER BODY TYPE: SPRING 10 LITHIA SPRINGS I POOR Current I x 1 0 1 1 0 0 �WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 1 SOUTH PRONG ALAFIA R I GOOD Current 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 4 FISHHAWK CREEK I GOOD Historical 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 . 1 5 MIZELLS CREEK I FAIR Current 1 0 t x 1 0 $ 0 $ 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x I x 1 7 BELL CREEK I POOR Current 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I 8 North Prong Alafia R. I POOR Historical I x I x I 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 x I 11 Alafia R AB HILLS. BAY I FAIR Current 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 12 Alafia R AB TURKEY CK I GOOD Current 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 a t 13 THIRTY141LE CREEK I FAIR Current 1 0 1 x I t 0 0 a t 0 t 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 14 Alafia R AB FLINT HAWK I GOOD Current 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 . 1 15 North Prong Alafia R. I GOOD Current 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I 18 LTL ALAFIA BL MEDARD I GOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 20 LTL ALAFIA AB MEDARD I FAIR Historical I . I x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 21 ENGLISH CREEK I FAIR Current I x I x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x I x 1 23 TURKEY CK AB LTL ALAPI I FAIR Current I x I x I 1 0 1 0 1, 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 x 1 24 POLEY CREEK I FAIR Current 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I 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-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX CURRENT-1989TO 1993 OXYGEN DEMAND-BOD,COD,TOC TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS BASED ON WATERBODY TYPE BIOL DIV-BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY DIART-ARTIFICIAI, SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY PH-PH TURB-TURBIDITY CHIA-CHLOROPHYLL DINAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TN-NITROGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS SURFACE WA-A QUA@:TY ASSESSMENT REPORT - USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 031'0024 IkLAPIA RiVER Tl@-_-V:@ S:SOL@RCES -CLEANUP TREND 1984 - 1993 TRENDS 10'.5-A-ZIS TREND ----------------------------------------------------- l-'-:!C-R0VING TREND 1W TI T T C Sl P Al T TI B Tj DD1 T Fl T F l<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY DATA IQUALITY RANK IOVER-10 or Sl N P H DI H Ll U Sl 001 001 C Cl E L I I------------- I ALL II I] L I KI R St D Cl St 0 01 M 0 1 1 WQI ITRENDI I A I I B I I Al L Ll P W I WATERSFED I MEETS OR I I I I I I I Tj I Il I ID NAMEE IUSE ? TSI I I I I I I I I I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ----- ------------------------ I------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- � WATER B=Y 7'!P3: LAKE 19 R:SEAVOIR IYES GOOD I . I . I . . . . I 22 LkK--- -_RAZN INO POORI I I I I I I I I I � WATER B!,:Y :Y?E: SPRING 10 Ll-*:A M7\0 INO POOR 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 . .1 + .1 .1 01 001 .1 0 0 1 �WATER BODY :Y?E: STREAM 1 S07.::H PRONG ALAFIA A IYES GOOD 1 0 1 0 1 0 + 0 01 0 .1 x 01 0 01 001 0 01 0 0 1 4 FISHF:WK CR:SK IYES GOOD I I I I i I I 5 MTZ--:,:.-- CREEK IPARTIAL FAIR[ I I . . . . I 7 BE:.: --RESK IND POORI I I . . . . I 8 Nort' -:;rg Allafia R. INO POORI I I I I I I I I I 11 Alafia , AB HILLS. BAY IPARTIAL FAIR[ + 1 0 1 + + 0 01 0 .1 0 @l 0 .1 001 0 01 0 12 ):AfLa R AB 7JRXEY CK IYES GOODI I I . . . . I 13 TF:R7YX:_'E CREEK IPARTIAL FAIR] I I . . . . I 14 AdafLa R AB @LINT HAW IYES GODDI 0 1 0 1 0 0 . .1 0 01 x 01 01 001 0 ml 0 0 1 15 North Prong Allafia R. IYES GOOD 1 0 1 0 1 + + 0 xl + .1 0 01 0 01 001 0 01 0 0 1 18 LT:, AL.A--:A BL MEDARD ;YES GOOD I I I I I I I I I 20 L::. A:.K-: A AB MEDARD IPARTIAL FAIRI I I I I I I I 1 1 21 ENG:.:---L' CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI . I . I . . . . I . .1 . .1 - .1 ..1 - .1 - . 1 23 TURKEY _-K AB LTL ALAFI IPARTIAL FAIRI + I + I . . . 01 0 .1 + .1 + .1 ++1 + +1 + 1 24 Po*----Y --REEK IPARTIAL FAIRI . I I . . . . I LEGEND: DOSAT-DO SATURATION TOOLI-TOTAL COLIFORM TURB-TUR13IDITY FCOLI-FECAL COLIFORM TEMP-TEMPERATURE TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX FOR LAKES AND ESTUARIES ALK-ALKAL:N::Y FLOW-FLOW TN-NITROGEN WQI-WATER QUIAITY INDEX FOR STREW AND SPRINGS BOD-BlocH:?,. oxyGLN DEMAND MEETS USE-MEETS DESIGNATED USE TOC-T.ORGANIC CARBON CHLA-CHLORop.*@n.:' PH-PH TP-PHOSPHORUS DO-DISSO_'VE-, @^XYG@ 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-ALAFIA RIVER HUC-03100204 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 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 2- 1669 BELL CREEK RESERVOIR GOOD 3* 1670 DOE BRANCH GOOD 4 1658 FISHRAWK CREEK GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 6* 1657 LITTLE FISHHAWK CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 7 1660 BELL CREEK POOR THREAT x X K x x x x x x x 8 1621E North Prong Alafia R. POOR THREAT 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 x x 9- 1649 MCCULLOUGH BRANCH THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 10 1621F LITHIA SPRINGS POOR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x K x x x x x x x x x x 11 1621A Alafia R AB HILLS. BAY FAIR THREAT 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 x x 12 1621C Alafia R AB TURKEY CK GOOD THREAT 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 x x 14 1621B Alafia R AB FLINT HAWK GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x K x x x x 15 1621D North Prong Alafia R. GOOD THREAT 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 x x 16* 1578A TURKEY CK AB ALAFIA R THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 17* 1635 BUCKHORN SPRING THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x le 1592 LTL ALAFIA BL MEDARD GOOD GOOD 19 1592A MEDARD RESERVOIR GOOD GOOD 20 1592B LTL ALAFIA AB MEDARD FAIR GOOD 21 1592C ENGLISH CREEK FAIR GOOD 23 1578B TURKEY CK AB LTL ALAFI FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x PEACE RIVER FORK ALLIGATOR CREEK ta A IGATOR CR LL Gaspafilla Islan LACOSTA ISLAND *8 -Matlacha Pass GULF OF MEXJCO EE R. SANIBEL IS D CHARLOTTE HARBOR BASIN WATER QUALITY 03100103 GOOD THREATENED AVERAGE WATER QUALITY FAIR 1984-1993 STORET DATA POOR WATERSHED ID NUMBERS LINK MAP TO TABLES INDICATES QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT UNKNOWN page 24 CHARLOTTE HARBOR BASIN BaSic Facts Drainage Area: 236 square miles Major Land Uses: basin mostly open water; adjacent drainage is urban and wetlands, sport fishing, marine nursery, urban development Population Density: moderate, concentrated in a few cities (Port Charlotte, Punta Gorda) Major Pollution Sources: urban runoff, reverse osmosis reject outfalls Best Water Quality Areas: Pine Island Sound Worst Water Quality Areas: Lower Pine Island Sound, Captiva. Island Water Quality Trends: stable quality in 3 watersheds OFW Waterbodies: Pine Island Sound State Aquatic Preserve Matlacha Pass State Aquatic Preserve Gasparilla Sound - Charlotte Harbor State Aquatic Preserve Cape Haze State Aquatic preserve SWIM Waterbodies: Charlotte/Placida Harbor Reference Reports: Charlotte Harbor Special Studies Report, USGS, 1984-1990 Florida Rivers Assessment, DEP/FREAC/NPS, 1989 Basin Water Quality Experts: Ford Walton, DEP (Punta Gorda), 813/639-4967 David Heil, DEP (Tallahassee), 904/488-5471 Rick Cantrell, DEP (Tallahassee), 904/488-0130 David Ceilley, Lee County Lab, 813/939-7908 Tom Fraser, Dexter Bender and Associates, 813/334-3680 Ben McPherson, USGS (Tampa) 813/228-2124 Gerold Morrison, SWFWMD (Brookesville) 813n96-7211 Ralph Montgomery, (Environmental Quality Lab - Port Charlotte) ---- ------------- - ---------- - ----------------------- --------- - -- --- - ------------------- - --- In LU him Fish kills occurred in Clam Bayou and Palm Ridge Lake during the summer of 1990. - - - ------------------------------- - --------- Ecological Characterization The Charlotte Harbor estuary is one of the largest bays in Florida, covering 119 square miles of Charlotte Harbor proper as well as Pine Island Sound (71 square miles), San Carlos Bay (23 square miles), and Matlacha Pass (23 square miles). The northern part of Charlotte Harbor receives fresh water from the Peace River and Myakka River. The eastern side of the bay also receives drainage from several small coastal creeks and canals. San Carlos Bay is an extension of the Caloosahatchee River estuary. 25 Charlotte Harbor proper is heavily influenced by flow from the blackwater, phosphorus-laden Peace River. Pine Island Sound and Matlacha. Pass have less fresh water inflow. Mangroves line the shorelines and create hundreds of small islands throughout the area. They also support more seagrass areas. San Carlos Bay's water is influenced by the Caloosahatchee River. The basin is a productive nursery area for marine life. Urban development in the basin is heavily concentrated in the north at Port Charlotte and near the mouth of the Peace River at Punta Gorda. There is also a localized urbanization in the south, at the mouth of the Caloosahatchee. However, more and more of the drainage area is being developed, mostly as massive communities. Most of the rest of the shoreline is mangrove forests. The barrier islands are moderately developed, primarily for tourism. The economy of the area is based on tourism, retirement communities and fisheries. Anthro Mgemc Impacts Water quality in this basin is generally good. The predon-driant pollution problems are associated with development: bacteria from accelerated urban runoff through canals and sediments from construction and reverse osmosis effluent discharges. Nutrient levels, particularly phosphorus, are elevated, and Secchi readings are somewhat low in areas. High phosphorus levels primarily originate from the Peace River Basin. Nutrient loading in San Carlos Bay may be the result of urban runoff in the Ft. Myers area and agricultural runoff in the Caloosahatchee River drainage. Upper Charlotte Harbor is probably affected to some degree by urbanization at the mouth of the Peace River. There have been reports of declining fisheries and shellfishing is periodically closed because of bacteria. The timing and possible quality of fresh water inflows into the north end of Matlacha Pass are affected by an extensive canal system in the largely undeveloped northern portion of Cape Coral. The most serious water quality problem in the basin is the Sanibel River located on Sanibel Island at the southern end of the Charlotte Harbor Basin. It has previously received domestic wastewater and runoff from the island's more developed areas. Leachate from local WWTPs has been controlled, but storinwater runoff remains a problem. The area has not been sampled recently, but the Nonpoint Source Assessment still indicates impairment of the water body. A technical advisory committee was. formed in the early 1980s to recommend necessary planning actions in this rapidly growing and developing basin area. The Southwest Florida Water Management District is currently developing a SWIM plan for Charlotte Harbor. 26 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100103 CHARLOTTE HARBOR SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 1970-1993 INDEX GOOD FAIR POOR MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED ----------- ----- ----- ----- CURRENT PERIOD OF RECORD (1989-1993) USED WHERE AVAILABLE WQI-RIVER 0-44 45-59-60-90 PERIOD PRIOR To 1989 IS EVALUATED AS HISTORICAL INFORMATION TSI-ESTUARY 0-49 50-59 60-100 ----- TSI-LAKE 0-59 60-69 70-100 1 WATERSHED BIOLOGICAL WATER 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 ---------------------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ----- ----- --------------- #OHS YR YR PERIOD TUBB 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 I GULF OFF CHARLOTTE HAR 373 90 90 Current 9.4 101 8.0 0.34 0.01 53175 24 3 San Carlos Bay 107 73 85 Historical 5.6 0.9 5 19 6.3 73 1.0 0.71 0.06 46175 55 4 5 8.1 4 5 Pine Island Sound LOWR 68 73 85 Historical 5.0 0.9 13 17 6.3 75 2.0 7 8.1 111 0.82 0.06 15 5 5 43525 59 5 Matlacha, Pass 126 73 85 Historical 2.1 1.1 23 14 6.8 83 1.0 8 7.9 117 0.87 0.08 6 6 5 34525 57 7 Pine Island Sound UPPR 3 89 69 current 4.7 1.2 5 . 7.5 89 8.3 0.90 0.07 1 40500 56 11 CHARLOTTE HARBOR LOWER 185 82 88 Historical 1.6 2.1 10 13 6.5 77 1.4 4 7.8 0.54 0.10 6 1 4.2 45150 41 14 CHARLOTTE HARBOR MID 5 89 89 Current 7.5 1.0 8 . 7.2 84 2.1 8.1 0.45 0.07 7 1 38850 48 23 CHARLOTTE HARBOR MID 4 93 93 Current 1.0 30 15 7.3 85 1.6 '1. 5 0.71 0.14 1 33200 49 32 CHARLOTTE HARBOR UPPER 9 92 93 Current 2.0 40 12 7.2 85 3.8 7.7 0.82 0.19 4 4 36175 49 WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 2 CAPTIVA ISLAND 237 71 77 Historical 5.0 0.7 100 5.1 59 3.5 190 53 7.9 233 4.74 0.62 89 141 4653 0 59 9 Gator Slough Canal 63 79 88 Historical 0.8 30 1 7.6 80 9 7.6 124 0.75 0.01 593 86 24 28 ALLIGATOR CREEK 6 89 90 Current 1.4 40 2.8 32 2.7 6.9 . 0.83 0.09 3 9 981 53 31 a NO. PRONG ALLIGATOR CR 11 90 92 Current 7.1 0.7 60 6 4.5 45 0.4 14 '7.4 124 0.75 0.03 226 414 45 35 N FORK ALLIGATOR CREEK 4 84 84 Historical 2.0 so 1.7 20 7.4 0.91 0.12 31 60 1100 48 LEGEND. BOD-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN MG/L MAX #OBS-MAXIM(JM NUMBER OF SAMPLES SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TURB-TURBIDITY MG/L ALK-ALKALINITY MG/L CNIA-CHLOROPHYLL UGIL 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 14PN/100ML BEG YR-BEGINNING SAMPLING YEAR OOLOR-CODOR PCU FECL-FECAL COLIFORM MPN/100ML PH-PH STANDARD UNITS TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX COND-CONDUCTIVITY UNHOS FLOW-FLOW CPS PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100103 CHARL40TTE HARBOR 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 I STREAM I LAKE I PH I ALK I TURE & I com 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 RACTI I DIV I I DISC I I W0I 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 ITP>.12 I PH>8.8 I ALK<20 ITURB>16.51COND>12751 BOD>3.3 I DD<4 ITOT>3700 IDIART<1.951 CHLA>40 I SD<. 7 1 ID NAME I TSI HISTORICAL I I I PH<5.2 I I TSS>18 I I COD>102 I IFEChL>4701DINAT<1.5 I ----- -------------------------------------------- I TOC>27.51 I BECK<5.5 I �WkTER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 1 GULF OFF CHARLOTTE MAR IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x a I 3 San Carlos Bay IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 4 Pine Island Sound LOWR IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 11 1 0 1 0 1 5 Matlacha Pass IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 7 Pine Island Sound UPPR IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 11 CHARLOTTE HARBOR LOWER IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 14 CHARLIDTTE HARBOR MID IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 23 CHARLOTTE HARBOR MID IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 m 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 32 CHARLOTTE HARBOR UPPER IGOOD Current 1 0 x 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 � WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 2 CAPTIVA ISLAND IFAIR Historical I x I x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 x 9 Gator Slough Canal IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 a 1 0 1 1 28 ALLIGATOR CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 31 NO. PRONG ALLIGATOR CR IFAIR Current 1 0 1 a I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 x 35 N FORK ALLIGATOR CREEK IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 x 1 0 1 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 1988 TOT-TOTAL COLIFORK BACTERIA WHICH INDEX USED, WQI OR TSI, IS BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX CEJRMT-1989 TO 1993 OXYGEN DEKAND-BOD,OOD,TOC TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS BASED ON WATERBODY TYPE BIOL DIV-BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY DIART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY PH-PH TURB-7URBIDITY CHIA-CHLOROPHYLL DINAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TN-NITROGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS 0c SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100103 CHARLOTTE HARBOR TRENDS-SOURCES-CLEAKUP : X'-DEGRADING TREND 1 1984 - 1993 TRENDS I 0'-STABLE TREND ----------------------------------------------------- '+'-IMPROVING TREND 1W TI T T C S1 P Al T TI B TI D DI TF1 T F 1<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY '.'-MISSING DATA [QUALITY RANK IOVER-IQ or S1 N P H DI H Ll U S1 0 01 0 01 CC1 E L I I------------- I ALL 11 11 L I KI A S1 D C1 S1 001 M 0 1 1 WQI ITRENDI I A I I B I I Al LLl P W I WATERSHED I MEETS OR I I I I I I I TI IIl I ID NAME IUSE ? TSI I I I I I I I I I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ----- ------------------------ I------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- � WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 1 GULF OFF CHARLOTTE HAR IYES GOODI 3 San Carlos Bay 1PARTIAL FAIRI 1 .1 .1 1 1 4 Pine Island Sound LOoOR 1PARTIAL FAIRI 1 .1 1 .1 1 5 Matlacha Pass 1PARTIAL FAIRI 1 .1 .1 1 .1 1 7 Pine Island Sound UPPR 1PARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I . .1 .1 1 .1 1 11 CHARLOTTE HARBOR LOWER IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 01 0 .1 0 01 0 .1 0 01 .1 0 1 14 CHARLOTTE HARBOR MID IYES GOODI . I . I . . I . .1 . .1 . .1 . .1 .1 . 1 23 CHARLOTTE HARBOR MID IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 0 a 0 01 0 .1 0 01 0 1 0 +1 01 0 1 32 CHARLOTTE HARBOR UPPER IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 01 x .1 0 01 x 1 0 01 X1 0 1 � WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 2 CAPTIVA ISLAND 1PARTIAL FAIRI I I I I I I I I I 9 Gator Slough Canal IYES GOODI I I . . . . I 28 ALLIGATOR CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I 31 NO. PRONG ALLIGATOR CR 1PARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I 35 N FORK ALLIGATOR CREEK 1PARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I LEGEND: DOSAT-DO SATURATION TOOLI-TOTAL COLIFORM TURB-TURBIDITY FOOLI-FECAL COLIFORM TEMP-TEMPERATURE TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX FOR LAKES AND ESTUARIES ALK-ALKALINITY FLOW-FLOW TN-NITROGEN WQI-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 NPs oukmmm SURVEY RESULTS AN "X" INDICATES A PROBLEM WITH POLLUTANT OR SOURCE THE ON MAPb INDICATES'NO STORif INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR THIS WATERSHED -SEE PAGE 11 FOR LEGEND FOR THIS TABLE- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CATNAMEmCHARDDTTE HARBOR HUC-03100103 ------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 t H D 0 L A H H S R S N N H Al B w w R t I T E E X I M B E E H A B H 0 0 8 P w A 0 0 1 E A I R 9 Y N E I F R R X L W 1 0 D S F R B S 3 N E R E 0 C C JX 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 k 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 2065 GULF OFF CHARLOTTE HAR GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2 2092D CAPTIVA ISLAND FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x 3 2065H San Carlos Say FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 4 2065G Pine Island Sound LOWR FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x k x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 5 2065F Matlacha Pass FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 6- 2092E PINE ISLAND THREAT x x x x x x 7 206SE Pine Island Sound UPPR FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 8- 2092C NORTH CAPtIVA ISLAND THREAT x x x x x x 9 2082C Gitor Slough Canal GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x 104 2082B Yucca Pen Crook THREAT x x x k )t x x x x x x 11 2065D CHARLOTTE HARBOR LOWER GOOD THREAT x x x x x i x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 12- 2092B GhSPARILLA ISLAND THREAT x x x x x x 13* 2093 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x 14 2065C CHARLOTTE HARBOR MID GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 15- 2094 BEAR BRANCH THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x 16* 2091 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x 17* 2092A DIRECT RUNOFF TO MY THREAT x x x x x x 18* 2090 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY THREAT x x x x x x 19* 2088 DIRECT RIJNOFF TO RAY THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x 20* 2089 BOGGESS HOLE OUTFLOW THREAT x x x x x x 21* 2082A PIRATE CANAL THREAT x x x x x x x x X x x 22- 2086 WINEGOURD CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x 23 2065B CHARLOTTE HARBOR MID GOOD THREAT 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 24* 208@ DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x 25- 2080 CATFISH CREEK BAYOU THREAT x x x x x x 26* 20B3 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x 27* 2081 ALLIGATOR CREEK THREAT x x K x x x x x x x 28 2074 ALLIGATOR CREEK FAIR THREAT 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 29- 2066 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 30* 2077 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x 31 2071 NO. PRONG ALLIGATOR 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 32 2065A CHARLOTTE HARBOR UPPER GOOD THREAT 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 33* 2073 MANGROVE POINT CANAL THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 34* 2062 NO. FORK ALLIGATOR CR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 35 2063 N FORK ALLIGATOR CREEK FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 36* 2064 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x R IL 70 nee River GULF OF MEXICO PITHLACHASCOTEE R,[X@E ANCLOTE RIVER TAMPABAY ewwalw 'X CANAL (SOUTH) ST JOE CREEK Boca Cieaa Bay WATER QUALITY CRYSTAL RIVER TO ST. PETE GOOD 03100207 THREATENED AVERAGE WATER QUALITY FAIR 1984-1993 STORET DATA POOR WATERSHED ID NUMBERS LINK MAP TO TABLES UNKNOWN INDICATES QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT page 31 %*F paae 311 CRYSTAL RIVER TO ST. PETERSBURG BEACH BASIN - ----- - - ------- --- - --- - ------- - ------- - -- - - Basic Facts Drainage Area: 1,261 square miles Major Land Uses: wetlands, urban, forest Population Density: moderate, highly concentrated in southern basin (St. Petersburg, Clearwater, New Port Richey) Major Pollution Sources: urban drainage Best Water Quality Areas: springs, upper portion of basin Worst Water Quality Areas: Cross Bayou Canal, Lake Seminole Water Quality Trends: stable quality at 8 sites OFW Waterbodies: Crystal River and Kings Bay SWIN4 Waterbodies: Crystal River/Kings Bay Reference Reports: Copper and Other Contaminants in King's Bay and Crystal River Sediments: Implications for Impact on the West Indian Manatee, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1991 Crystal River/Kings Bay SWIM Plan, SWFWMD, 1989 Anclote River Water Quality Study, TBRPC/DEP, 1986 Florida Rivers Assessment, DEP/FREAC/NPS, 1989 Florida Nonpoint Source Assessment, DEP (Tallahassee), 1988 Homosassa River Water Quality Study; Phase 2; Final Report Florida Land Design and Engineering, Inc., 1989 Resource Evaluation of the Proposal Chassahowitzka Water Management Land Acquisition, SWITWIVID, 1989 Pithlachascotee River Water Quality Assessment, SV;FWMD, 1991 An Evaluation of Factors Contributing to the Growth of Lyngbya spp. in Kings Bay/Crystal River, Florida, SWFWMD, 1990. A Diagnostic Feasibility Study of the Weeki Wachee River, SWFWMD, 1994 Basin Water Quality Experts: Gary Maidhof, Citrus County, 904n46-4223 Sid Flannery, Craig Dye, Ken Romie, SWFWNID, 904/796-7211 Don Moores, Pinellas County, 813/462-4761 ---------------------- - ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the New � Citrus County has submitted petitions to designate the Chassahowitzka and Homosassa/Halls Rivers as Outstanding Florida Waters. � Rodgers Park on the Weeki Wachee River has been closed since summer 1989 because of high coliforin bacteria counts. The cause of the high count is unknown, but under study by SWFWMD. * Boca Ciega Bay as part of Tampa Bay is included in the National Estuary Program. � Pinellas County adopted a seagrass protection ordinance. It includes closing parts of lower Boca Ciega Bay to motorboat traffic and provides signs in other areas. The SWFWMD recently completed a detailed report on water quality in the Weeki Wachee River (see Reference Reports above). 32 ----- - - -------------- - ---- - ----- - - ---- Ecological Characterization This coastal basin stretches from Crystal River on the north to Tampa Bay on the south and consists of many short meandering streams in the northern portion of the basin. Most of these have tidal characteristics, and four, the Weeki Wachee, Chassahowitzka, Homosassa and Crystal Rivers, have headwaters which are major Florida springs. They empty into the large sawgrass and Juncus dominated estuary that lines this entire 40 mile stretch of the coast. The Department of Natural Resources recently commissioned a study of the main spring of the Homosassa, River located at the Homosassa Springs Wildlife Park and preliminary results indicate the spring production has fallen below first order magnitude status. The waterbodies in this basin are typically clear, high transparency waters which are major recreational and economic attractions. For example, Crystal River is one of the south!s most popular diving sites and a wintertime manatee refuge. Crystal River and Kings Bay are designated as Outstanding Florida Waters. There are two streams in the central portion of the basin, the Pithlachascotee and Anclote Rivers, each with a length of over twenty miles. Both have their origin in the same swampy area and are blackwater rivers. They are affected by urban growth especially in the lower coastal segments. The southernmost reaches of the basin includes Boca Ciega Bay, St. Joseph Sound, and several St. Petersburg area feeder creeks and canals. This area is heavily urbanized. Anthrovogenic Lmppc-ts The spring-fed rivers in the northern basin generally have very good water quality. Crystal River has relatively high nutrient input and because of its high transparency it is subject to dense aquatic weed growths in the Kings Bay area. ffistorical sources of nutrient input are the Crystal River WWTP discharge, spring discharge, septic tanks and stormwater runoff. The City of Crystal River has completed construction of a new inland spray field and has eliminated the surface discharge from their wastewater treatment facilities. In addition the Homosassa River has a history of bacterial problems of unkn own source,possibly residential canals and septic tanks. Also, the Weeki Wachee has some bacteria problems. Rodgers Park on the river has been closed since summer 1989 because of high coliform bacteria counts. The source of the bacteria is unknown. The lower Pithlachascotee and Anclote have also had some bacteria problems, presumably from septic tank drainage and/or urban runoff. There have been some swimming bans in the area. The worst water quality in the basin is found in the highly developed southern portion. Pinellas County is almost entirely urbanized; the largest cities are Clearwater and St. Petersburg. The barrier islands and beaches are also urban. All of the feeder creeks and most of the lakes in the area have pollution problems with elevated coliform and nutrient concentrations and depressed DO values. The Nonpoint Assessment reports moderate impairment with low DO, excessive algal and weed growth, high bacteria counts and swimming closures in these urban lakes and canals. The Tampa District sampled the Cross Bayou Canal (and Joe Creek, a major tributary) 3 times in 1975 and discontinued their program. Pinellas County initiated a sampling program in August 1990, which includes this waterbody. The WWTP sources previously discharging to these waterbodies have been removed. Pinellas County's South Cross Bayou WWTP (33 MGD capacity) is under consent order to discontinue deep well injection of their wastewater by April 1999. They have applied for a permit to shift all of their effluent (AWT) disposal to a surface water discharge (Joe's Creek) and a reuse system. Bear Creek which also receives urban drainage, has 33 poor water quality. A portion of Long Bayou was impounded in the 1960s to form Lake Seminole. The Lake has almost no circulation and receives urban drainage. Consequently, it has a nearly perpetual algal bloom and poor water quality. Pinellas County and the SWFWMD have been engaged in an intensive study of the Lake for the past few years. The County is beginning to develop a watershed management plan for the Lake's basin. A DEP intensive study has been conducted in St. Joseph Sound. It indicated elevated chlorophyll values in the estuary near Clearwater and poor water quality in some of the feeder creeks. The ongoing SWIM study of Crystal River/Kings Bay has generated numerous reports and data concerning current water quality and impacts in the area. Of final note is the ongoing public acquisition of land in this area. The former Lykes Ranch near the Chassahowitzka and the adjoining Walker wad have been acquired by the SWFWMD under the Save Our Rivers Program. Under the CARL and Preservation 2000 programs, the Homosassa Reserve, Pappas property, and additions to St. Martin's Marsh Aquatic Preserve are planned or being acquired. 34 A;- USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100207 CRYSTAL.RIVER TO ST. PETE INDEX GOOD FAIR POOR SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 1970-1993 ----------- ----- ----- ----- MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED WQI-RMR 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 BIOLOGICAL WATER WATERSHED YATERSHED DATA RECORD WATER DISSOLVED OXYGEN 'PH TROPHIC SPECIES QUALITY ID NAME ---------------------- CLARITY OXYGEN DEMAND ALKALINITY STATUS COLIFORM DIVERSITY OCIND 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 � WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 12 Boca Ciega Day 8 92 92 Current 5.2 1.0 10 32 6.0 71 4 7.8 119 0.56 0.08 6 5 47729 49 15 Boca Ciega Day 53 75 75 Historical 7.1 . 17 6.2 78 1.6 7.7 2S 0.81 0.16 5 50 50 45600 45 18 Boca ciega Bay 9 92 92 Current 6.0 0.7 40 23 4.2 49 9 7.3 124 0.80 0.12 10 80 30040 58 19 Bonn Creek 61 75 04 Historical 8.0 21 7.0 77 2.0 34 14 7.5 1.07 0.17 39 106E3 750 8575 1 57 22 CROSS CANAL (SOUTH) 10 75 75 Historical 9.7 23 3.2 39 8.0 7.7 7.33 2.40 88 40000 900 10800 88 27 DIRECT RUNOFF TO GULF 6 89 89 Current 7.8 1.3 .8 69 6.0 66 7.6 1.04 0.07 7 13 16 52200 52 64 WEEKIWATCHEE RIVER 221 70 85 Historical 1.1 1.9 9 A 7.0 79 8.1 130 0.57 0.05 1 27602 143 35 73 CRYSTAL RIVER 223 70 65 Historical 3.0 1,8 6 6 6.9 79 0.8 2 7.9 104 0.34 0.04 4 3195 36 � WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 23 LAKE SEMINOLE 245 90 92 Current 12.6 30 21 6.0 76 13 9.6 89 2.00 0.09 53 350 93 601 70 42 LAKE DAN 75 85 85 Historical 50 9.2 91 1.6 13 8.2 0.70 0.02 316 37 47 LAKE THOMAS 64 80 80 Historical 5.0 1.3 . 9.1 66 0.67 0.02 104 44 50 MOON LAKE 45 70 80 Historical 14.3 2.4 24 8.0 92 6.7 8 0.62 0.02 3 81 34 58 HUNTER LAKE 14 92 93 Current 2.0 1.6 19 2 7.9 86 10 7.6 28 0.84 0.02 3 11 118 38 59 LAKE IOIA 64 80 90 Historical 3,5 10 8.1 27 0.50 0,01 4 134 26 �WATER BODY TYPE: SPRING 2 CEDAR COVE SPRING 7 89 90 Current 3.9 44 7.8 81, 0.03 293 51 3 HUNTERS BAY SPRING 5 89 89 Current 5.7 64 7.9 72 0.03 177 37 4 AMERICAN LEGION SPRG 7 89 10 Current .6.3 71 7.9 78 0.06 330 41 5 CRYSTAL SPRING 5 89 89 Current 7.9 90 0.65 374 32 6 IDIOTS DELIGHT SPRING 7 89 90 Current 4.1 47 1. 9 91 0.04 282 50 7 TARPON SPRING 6 89 89 Current 7*8 110 0.04 1368 23 8 CRESCENT DRIVE SPRING 5 89 89 Current 3*8 4* 3 7.7 124 0.02 3660 45 36 HEALTH SPRING 6 89 92 Current 3 0.2 17 7.3 198 9.31 0.22 89 1 2463 30 57 MAGNOLIA SPRING 3 88 88 Historical 1.0 11 7.8 104 . 0.02 375 53 62 WEEKIWATCHEE SPRING 9 89 92 Current 3 2.4 27 1 7.5 . 0.46 0.02 288 161 43 72 HOMOSASSA SPRING 1@6 70 88 Historical 1.0 5 6.0 67 0.3 6 2 7.7 107 0.27 0.03 13000 1629 85 27 � WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM I CRYSTAL RIVER 34 89 91 Current 6.2 68 8.1 66 0.03 403 32 9 Homosas3a River 34 92 93 Current 2.2 1.4 25 5 7.2 81 3 7.7 117 0.49 0.01 10 29 6314 19 10 Cha3sahawitzka River 15 92 93 Current 1.3 1.2 10 3 7.9 91 1 7.4 138 0.46 0.01 1 265 4354 21 14 BEAR CREEK 29 74 80 Historical 6.0 22 26 6.0 68 2.5 38 11 6.3 66 1.22 0.11 19000 5700 271 26 56 17 ST JOE CREEK 99 89 91 Current 10 6.3 72 2.6 26 . 7.3 80 0.88 0.10 238 13 51 28 STEVENSON CREEK 16 70 71 Historical 9.9 121 11 576 3 26 33 CURLEW CREEK 16 70 71 Historical 7.0 86 76 2B8 3 64 37 KLOSTERMAN BAYOU RUN 40 75 82 Historical 9.8 80 5.9 70 18 6.5 75 4.29 0.39 669 3 854 0 59 41 HOLLIN CREEK 32 89 92 Current 3.1 35 7 6.6 553 2 55 LEGEND: BOD-BIOCNFMICAL 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 14QI-WATER QUALITY INDEX ART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DI COD-CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L END YR-ENDING YEAR NITRO-TOTAL NITROGEN M3/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 CFS PHOSrTOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L ,.Q M MON M M m,M M M w MIM M USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100207 CRYSTAL RIVER TO ST. PETE INDEX GOOD FAIR POOR -------- -- ----- ----- ----- SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 1970-1993 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 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 ---------------------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- ----------- ---- ---- ------- #OBS YR YR PERIOD TURB SD COLOR TSS Dc) DOSAT BOD COD TOC PH ALK NITRO PHOS CHLA TOTAL FECL NAT ART BECK COND FLCW wQI TST 43 SOUTH BRANCH 23 89 93 Current 2.3 0.3 225 2 3.3 37 29 5.7 7 1.57 0.05 364 102 1 75 44 DUCK SLOUGH 2 71 71 Historical 4.0 60 7.7 47 0.63 0.03 1405 0 23 46 ANCLOTE RIVER 29 89 92 Current 198 4.1 43 13 1.0 0.79 0.08 388 11 53 48 PITHLACHASCOTEE RIVER 63 89 92 Current 186 5.1 56 19 6.6 0.90 0.04 147 5 50 53 BEAR CREEK 100 71 85 Historical 38 5.4 61 1.1 19 6.2 . 0.10 645 177 264 3 48 56 JUMPING GULLY 61 70 86 Historical 1.8 95 6.3 72 1.3 22 6.5 10 0.82 0.02 63 4 48 63 PECKS SINK OVERFLOW 60 74 77 Historical 6.8 77 2.0 16 118 0 43 66 WEEKIWATCHEE RIVER 152 73 88 Historical 1.2 2.4 6 2 6.0 67 2 0 7.8 137 0.38 0.04 2 280 22 '701 32 LEGEND: BOD-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MGIL DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN MG/L MAX #OBS-MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SA14PLES SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TURB-TURBIDITY MG/L ALK-ALKALINITY MG/L CHLA-CHLIDROPHYLL 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 MPN/100ML BEG YR-BEGINNING SAMPLING YEAR COLIDR-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 suRFAC-- WATER QUALITY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100207 CRYSTAL RIVER TO ST. PETE MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED SCREENED 'x'-E-XCz_-_-DS SCRMING CRITERIA SCREENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA SCREENING CRITERIA '.'-M:SSTNC; DATA I RANK DATA RECORDI TN I STREAM I LAKE I PH I ALK I TURB I COND I OXYGEN I DO 1COLIFORM I BIOL I CHLA I SECCHI I I------------------ I I IF 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 WATERSFED I OR OR I TN>2.0 f TP>.46 I TP>.12 I PK>S.g I ALK<20 ITURB>16.5(COND>12751 BOD>3.3 I DO<4 ITOT>3700 (DIART<1.951 CHLA>40 -1 SD<. 7 1 ID NVMS 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 TOC>27.51 I I BECK<5.5 I � WATER BODY :YPE: ESTUARY 12 Boca Ciega Bay IGOOD 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 15 Boca Ciega Bay IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 f x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 . 1 18 Boca Ciega Bay 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 x I 19 Bonn C:eek IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 22 CROSS CANAL (SOUTH) IPOOR Historical I x I I x 1 0 1 1 x I x I x x I x I I x I 27 DIRECT J:rUNOFF TO GULF IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 x x 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 64 WEEKIWA-CEEE RIVER IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 73 CRYSTAL RIVER IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 � WATER BODY -YPE; LAKE 23 :AKE SEMINOLE IPOOR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I 42 LAKE Dkl; IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 47 LAKE 71HOM.AS IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 50 MOON LAKE IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 58 H`UNTER LAKE IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 59 LAKE 1O:.A IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 �WATER BODY -.Y?F,: SPRING 2 CEDAR COVE SPRING IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I 3 h7INTERS BAY SPRING IGOOD Current I 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 4 AMERICAN LEGION SPRG IGOOD Current I 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 5 CRYSTAL SPRING IGOOD Current I 1 0 1 1 a 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 6 IDIOTS DELIGHT SPRING IFAIR Current I 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 7 TARPON SPRING IGOOD Current I 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I 8 CRESCE-14" DRIVE SPRING IFAIR Current I 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I m 36 HEALTH SPRING IGOOD Current I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 57 vJkG,;O-'!A SPRING IFAIR Historical ( . f 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 x I I 1 1 62 WEEEKIWATCHEE SPRING IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 x I I 1 1 72 HOMOSASSA SPRING IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 0 1 x I � WATER BODY 7YPE: STREAM 1 CRYSTAIm RIVER IGOOD Current I 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 9 Ho-mosassa River IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 10 Chassahawitzka River iGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 14 BEAR CR:E_K IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 a 1 0 1 x I 1 0 a I x I I I . 1 17 ST jO-_ CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 28 Slz-@`SNSON CREEK IGOOD Historical I I . j I I I I 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 33 C'jnEW CREEK IUNKN Historical I I . I I I I I I x 0 1 1 1 1 37 KLOSTER!-AN BAYOU RUN IFAIR Historical I x t 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I 1 0 1 41 HOTTIN CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 x I LEGEND: COND-CONDUCTIVITY FECAL-FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA TP-PHOSPHORUS WQI OR TSI-WATER QUALITY INDEX RATING ALK-ALKALINTTY 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 CHLk-CHL,0ROPHY'__ DINAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TN-NITROGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS m m m m m m m xm me m, m m SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100207 CRYSTAL RIVER TO ST. PETE MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED SCREENED 'x'-EXCEEDS SCREENING CRITERIA SCREENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA '0'-WITHIN SCREENING CRITERIA '.*-MISSING DATA I RANK DATA RECORI)f TN I STREAM I LAKE I PH I ALK I TURB & I COND IOXYGEN I DO ICOLIFORM I BIOL I CHIA I SECCHI I ------------------ TP I TP I I I TSS I IDEMAND I I BACTI I DIV I I DISC I W01 CURRENT WATERSHED OR OR TN>2.0 TP>.46 TP>.12 PH>8.8 ! ALK<20 @TURB>16.5:00ND>1275: BOD>3.3 ! DO<4 @TOT>3700 @DIART<1.95@ CHLA>40 Sl)<.7 ID NAME I TSI HISTORICAL I I IPH<5.2 I I TSS>18 I ICOD>102 I IFECAL>4701DINAT<1.5 I I I ----- ---------- --------------------------------- I I I I I I ITOC>27.51 I IBECK<5.5 I 43 SOUTH BRANCH IUNKN Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 x x 0 x 44 DUCK SLOUGH IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 46 ANCLOTE RIVER IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 46 PITHLACHASCOTEE RIVER IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 53 BEAR CREEK IFAIR Historical I . 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 56 JUMPING GULLY IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 63 PECKS SINK OVERFLOW IGOOD Historical I . I . I I I I I 1 0 1 0 1 66 WEEKIWATCHEE RIVER IGOOD Historical 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 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-BECKIS BIOTIC INDEX CURRENT-1989 TO 1993 OXYGEN DEMAND-BOD,COD,T0C TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS BASED ON WATERBODY TYPE BIOL DIV-BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY DIART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY PH-PH TURB-TURBIDITY CHLA-CHLIOROPHYLL DINAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TN-NITROGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS w 00 SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100207 CRYSTAL RIVER TO ST. PETE TRENDS-SOURCES-CLEANUP 'x'-DEGRADING TREND 1984 - 1993 TRENDS I '0'-STABLE TREND ----------------------------------------------------- '+'-IMPROVING TREND I IV TI T T C SI P Al T TI B TI D DI T FI T P I<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY '.'-MISSING DATA IQUALITY RANK IOVER-IQ or SI N P H DI H LI U SI 0 01 0 01 C Cl E L I I------------- I ALL II 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 LI 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------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- � WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 12 Boca Ciega Bay IYES GOOD I I I . . . . I 15 Boca Ciega Bay IYES GOODI I I I I I I I 1 1 18 Boca Ciega Say IPARTIAL FAIR[ 19 Bonn Crook IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I 22 CROSS CANAL (SOUTH) INO POOR I I I I I I I 27 DIRECT RUNOFF TO GULF IPARTIAL PAIRI I I . . . . I 64 WEEKIWATCHEE RIVER IYES GOODI I I . . . . I 73 CRYSTAL RIVER IYES GOODI I I . . . . I � WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 23 LAKE SEMINOLE INO POOR[ I I . . . . I 42 LAKE DAN IYES GOOD I I I . . . . I 47 LAKE THOMAS IYES GOOD I I I I I I I I 1 1 50 MOON LAKE IYES GOODI I I I I I I I 1 1 58 HUNTER LAKE IYES GOODI I I . . . . I . .1 . .1 . .1 . .1 . .1 . . 1 59 LAKE IOLA IYES GOODI I I I I I I I I I �WATER BODY TYPE: SPRING 2 CEDAR COVE SPRING IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I 3 HUNTERS BAY SPRING IYES GOOD I I t . . . . I 4 AMERICAN LEGION SPRG [YES GOODI I I . . . . I 5 CRYSTAL SPRING IYES GOOD I I I . . . .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 1 6 IDIOTS DELIGHT SPRING IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 1 7 TARPON SPRING [YES GOOD I I I . . . . 8 CRESCENT DRIVE SPRING IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . 36 HEALTH SPRING IYES GOOD 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 .1 .1 + .1 .1 x 01 0 1 57 MAGNOLIA SPRING IPARTIAL FAIRI . I . I . . I . .1 .1 - .1 . .1 .1 . 1 62 WEEKIWATCHEE SPRING IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 .1 . 1 01 a 01 .1 0 + 1 72 HOMOSASSA SPRING IYES GOODI . I . 1 .1 . .1 .1 .1 . .1 .1 1 � WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 1 CRYSTAL RIVER IYES GOODI 0 1 x 1 0 .1 0 .1 .1 .1 0 xI .1 0 1 9 Hamosas3a. River IYES GOODI . I . I . I . .1 .1 .1 . .1 .1 1 10 Chassahawitzka River IYES GOODI . I . I . . . . I 14 BEAR CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI I I I I I I I 1 1 17 ST JOE CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 + 1 0 0 . .1 a 01 01 0 .1 0 01 .1 0 + 1 28 STEVENSON CREEK IYES GOOD I I I I I I I I 1 1 33 CURLEW CREEK INO UNKN I I I I I I I I 1 1 37 KLOSTERMAN BAYOU RUN ]PARTIAL FAIRI I I 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-NITROGEN WQI-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 mm SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT uSGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100207 CRYSTAL RIVER TO ST. PETE TRENDS-SOURCES-CLEANUP :X'-DEGRADING TREND 1984 - 1993 TRENDS O'-STABLE TREND ----------------------------------------------------- '+'-IMPROVING TREND I jw T1 T T C Sl P Al T T1 B TI DD1 T Fl T F I<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY '.'-MISSING DATA IQUALITY RANK IOVER-10 or Sl N P H D1 H Ll U Sl 0 01 001 C Cl E L I I------------- I ALL II if L I KI R Sl 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 If I ID NAME IUSE ? TSI I I I I I I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ----- ------------------------ I------------- I I I I I I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 41 HOLLIN CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 . . . . 1 0 .1 .1 Of 001 .1 0 x 1 43 SOUTH BRANCH INO UNKNI 0 1 0 1 . . . . 1 0 .1 01 001 .1 0 x 1 44 DUCK SLOUGH IYES GOODI I I I I I I 1 1 46 ANCLOTE RIVER IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 .1 x .1 .1 01 001 .1 0 0 1 48 PITHLACHASOOTEE RIVER IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 x- 1 0 + .1 x .1 .1 01 0Of .1 0 0 1 53 BEAR CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . I . .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 1 56 JUMPING GULLY I PART IAL FAIRI I I . . . . I . .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 1 63 PECKS SINK OVERFLOW IYES GOODI I I I I I I I 1 1 66 WEEKIWATCHEE RIVER IYES GOODI I 1 .1 .1 .1 1 LEGEND: DOSAT-DO SATURATION TCOLI-TOTAL COLIFORM 7URB-TURBIDITY FCOLI-FECAL cOLIFORM TEM-TE11PERATURE TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX POP. LAKES AND ESTUARIES ALK-ALKALINITY FLOW-FLOW TN-NITROGEN WQI-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 NPS QUALITATIVESURVEY RESULTS AN "X" INDICATES A PROBLEM WITH POLLUTANT OR SOURCE THE ON MAPID INDICATES NO STORET INFORMATidN AVAILABLE FOR THIS WATERSHED -SEE PAGE 1'1 FOR LEGEND FOR THIS TABLE- ------------------- ---------- ------------ ------------- ----------- ----- C;CTNAME-CRYSTAl RIVER TO ST. PETE HUCi-03100207 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ N B S P 0 S 0 F T F 0 U A E 8 T A H T T I U I T M T C D b 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 I E M I R B Y N E I F A R X L W 1 0 D S P R B 3 N E A 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 14 t N I I H 1 B T P A A 0 A 0 L A E 1 6 C I-S Y N T A R U C H D D N $ S T A T L D E S N Y H L W t L L L D T R L X H M D P G Z L D R N M T I 1341A CRYSTAL RIVER GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2 1341B CEDAR COVE SPR _ING FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 3 1341C HUNTERS BAY SPRING GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x K x x x x x x '4 1311D AMERICAN LEGION spRr. GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x .5 1341E CRYSTAL SPRING GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 6 1341F IDIOTS DELIGHT SPRING FAIR THREAT x x x x x x I x x x x x x x x x x 7 134*G TARPON SPRING GOOD THREAT x x k x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 8 1341H CRESCENT DRIVE SPRING FAIR THREAT x x x x x k x x x x x x x x x x x 10 1348 Cha'asahwitzka River GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 1 .14 1392B NEFF LAKE THREAT x x x x x x x x x 12 1694A Boa& Ciega Bay G06D THREAT x x x x x x x 13* 1716 CLAM BAYOU DRAIN FAIR x x x x x x x x X x x x x x x x x x x x x x 14 1701 BEAR CREEK FAIR FAIR x x k x x x X x x x x _x x x x x 15 1694B Boca Ciega Bity G60D THREAT x x x x x 16* 1694C Boca Ciega Bay THREAT x x x x x 17 1668A ST JOB 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 x *18 1694D Boce Ciega Bay FAIR THREAT x x X. x x 19 166@B Borm 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 20* 16Q PINELLAS PARK DITCH FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 211 1650 'WALS-INGHAM RESERVOIR FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 22 1641 CROSS CANAL (SOUTH) 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 x x 23 f6le LAKE SEMINOLE 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 24* 1643 CHURCH CREEK FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x 25* 1633 MCKAY CREEK FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 26* 1614 BELLRAIR GOLFCLUB RUN THREAT x x x X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 27 1528 DIRECT RUNOFF TO GULF 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 28 1567 STEVENSON CREEK 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 291 1550 JERRY BRANCH THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 30* 1562 DIRECT RUNOFF TO GULF THREAT x x K x x x x x x x x x x x x 31* 1556 CEDAR CREEK FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 32- 1554 DIRECT RUNOFF TO GULF THREAT x x x x x x x Ix x x x x x x x x x 33 1538 CURLEW CREEK POOR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 34* 1535 DIRECT RUNOFF TO GULF THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 35+ 1527 SUTHERLAND BAYOU FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 36 1512 HEALTH SPRING GOOD FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x 31 1508 KLOSTERMAN BAYOU RUN FAIR FAIR x x x X. K x K x x x x x x K X. x x x x x 38* 1440A SPRING BAYOU THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 39* 1479 DIRECT RUNOFF TO GULF THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x K x x x x x x 40* 1481 SALT LAKE THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 41 1475 HOLLIN CREEK FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 42 1475A LAKE DAN GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 43 1456 SOUTH BRANCH POOR THREAT x x x x x x x x x 44 1461 DUCK SLOUGH GOOD THREAT x x x x x x 45* 1450 DIRECT RUNOFF TO GULF THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x 46 1440 ANCLOTE RIVER FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 47 11456A LAKE THOMAS GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x 48 1409 PITHLACHASCOTEE RIVER FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 49* 1441 CROSS CYPRESS BRANCH THREAT x x x x x x x x x 50 1409A MOON LAKE GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x K x x x x x x x x x x x .k. ow mm No @m @m =Man 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=CRYSTAL RIVER TO ST. PETE HUC-03100207 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (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 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 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 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 I x x x 51* 1432 DOUBLE HAMMOCK CREEK THREAT x x x x 52- 1434 FIVE MILE CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x 53 1420 BEAR CREEK FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x 54* 1423 GOWERS CORNER SLOUGH THREAT x x x x x x x 55* 1407 BUCKHORN CREEK THREAT x x 56 1401 JUMPING GULLY FAIR THREAT x x 57 1400 MAGNOLIA SPRING FAIR THREAT x x x x 58 1391 HUNTER LAKE GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x 59 1392A LAKE IOLA GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x 60* 1392 CREWS LAKE OUTLET THREAT x x x x x 61- 1389 JENKINS SPRING THREAT x x x 62 1382B WEEKIWATCHEE SPRING GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x 63 1387 PECKS SINK OVERFLOW GOOD THREAT x x x x 64 1382 WEEKIWATCHEE RIVER GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x 65* 1380 INTERNALLY DRAINED THREAT x x x x 66 1382A WEEKIWATCHEE RIVER GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x 67* 1384 PECKS SINK THREAT x x x x x x x 68* 1373 DIRECT RUNOFF TO GULF THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x 69* 1361 Weekiwachee River THREAT x x x x x x 70* 1348B Blind Creek THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x 71* 1348C Crawford Creek THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x 73 1341 CRYSTAL RIVER GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x zvhyrhlils RSH 14ATCHERY DRAJN tn-, -'a CREB( Lake "m BRANCH HLLSBOROt)Gti SAY HILLSBOROUGH RIVER BASIN WATER QUALITY 03100205 GOOD AVERAGE WATER QUALITY THREATENEC 1984-1993 STORET DATA FAIR WATERSHED ID NUMBERS LINK MAP TO TABLES POOR INDICATES QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT UNKNOWN page 43 HILLSBOROUGH RIVER BASIN -- --- - ---------- - ---------- - ---- - ------ - --------- ------ Basic Fac Drainage Area: 650 square miles Major Land Uses: agriculture, rangeland, urban development Population Density: moderate, except in southern basin (Tampa, Plant City, Zephyrhills) Major Pollution Sources: several WWTPs and industrial sources Best Water Quality Areas: middle Hillsborough River, Fish Hatchery Drain Worst Water Quality Areas: Lake Thonotosassa, Itchepachasassa Creek Water Quality Trends: stable quality at 8 sites, Lake Thonotosassa, degrading, Baker Creek and Blackwater Creek improving OFW Waterbodies: Hillsborough River State Park SWIM Waterbodies: Lake Thonotosassa. Reference Reports: Florida Rivers Assessment, DEP/FREAC/NPS, 1989 Florida Nonpoint Source Assessment, DEP (Tallahassee), 1988 Lake Thonotosassa SWIM Plan, SWFWMD Basin Water Quality Experts: Sid Flannery, SWFWMD, 904n96-7211 Peter Clark, TBRPC 813/577-5151 Doug Farrell, DEP, (Tampa), 8 13/744-6 100 Roger Stewart, Hillsborough County EPC, 813/272-5960 Ken Romie, SWFWMD, (Brookesville), 813/796-7211 ------------ - ----------- - --------------------- - --------------- - --------- ----------- - ------------------ - -------------------- - - --- ---------- - ---- To III& New � Tampa has applied to the SWFWMD to increase the consumptive use of the river. A major study of the lower river (estuary) will accompany the permit review. � Health advisories recommending limited consumption of largemouth bass due to mercury content have been issued for the Hillsborough River drainage system. � A large fish kill occurred on the Hillsborough River between Sligh and Osborne Avenues in Tampa, June, 1990. Approximately 10,000 sardines were killed. * The City of Plant City is under consent order to go to zero discharge by 1997. ------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- Ecological Characterization The Hillsborough River originates in the Green Swamp near the origin of the Withlacoochee (South) River. The two rivers actually have a swamp connection called the Overflow, which is important to their hydrologic cycles. Flowing southwesterly, the river channel becomes defined and flow is supplemented by 44 the discharge from Crystal Springs to form a swift, clear stream. Aside from the wetlands, land use in this upper basin includes rangeland, orchards, and some urban drainage from the City of Zephyrhills and its airport. Below Crystal Springs, a major drainage, Blackwater Creek, joins the river before it enters the Hillsborough River State Park. Within the park is a 150 yard stretch of shoals and additional inflow of relatively good quality streams. The upper Blackwater Creek drainage also has urban, citrus and rangeland runoff. Past the park, several tributaries enter from the'northern, less-developed portion of the basin. Also, the Pemberton-Baker Creek/Lake Thonotosassa drainage enters from the south. This drainage also has urban, citrus and livestock utilization. Further downstream, just before entering Tampa, is a flood control structure which can divert flow through the Tampa Bypass Canal to Tampa Bay. The next feature of the river is a 4 mile long reservoir from which Tampa draws about 75% of its drinking water. From the dam to the bay, about 10 miles, the river flows through the heart of urban Tampa, and the channel is highly modified with seawalls, riprap and bridges. It receives freshwater inflow (at about 20 MGD) from Sulfur Springs, but is otherwise brackish. Little remains of native vegetation along this stretch of the river. Apthro enic ImpActs 99& - This basin is difficult to assess in that professional opinions vary and there is limited monitoring data in STORET for such a highly utilized area. In general, dissolved oxygen in the Hillsborough River is low except where the river flows off the central highlands to the coastal lowlands. Most of the tributaries are sluggish, blackwater streams which are commonly low in DO. In addition to being located in a phosphate rich area, inputs to the river of both phosphorus and nitrogen are generally further increased due to both point and nonpoint sources. The upper Hillsborough River, near Zephyrhills and Crystal Springs, is apparently undergoing rapid urban development and construction. The Nonpoint Source Assessment rates it as severely impaired with high sedimentation and nutrients and exhibiting algal and weed problems, declining fisheries and fish kills. Water quality parameters indicate fair conditions for the REACH. An improvement to water quality is Crystal Spring's contribution of about 58 cfs of high quality ground water, particularly in the dry season. Other northern tributaries, upstream of the park, include Big Ditch, which has historically had poor ratings due to mining and rangeland runoff, but has not been assessed recently. The Blackwater Creek basin has several pollution problems, especially in the upper basin. Itchepackasassa. Creek (a tributary of Blackwater Creek) has historically had high nutrient, bacteria and toxics levels, as well as low DO concentrations and several fish kills. The source of the problem may have been discharges from two citrus processing companies and runoff from a pesticide packing and shipping company. The latter company has undergone significant cleanup and drainage improvements. There are several other small dischargers to the creek as well as ninoff from rangeland and dairy operations. DEP's Point Source Evaluation Section conducted an intensive survey of the Creek during September, 199 1. Blackwatcr Creek also suffers from range and agricultural runoff. Despite these problems, the upgrades at the pesticide company and at other industrial dischargers have led to optimistic reports of water quality in this basin. The lower Blackwatcr Creek drainage has more vegetation and less intense land use and thus has a cleansing effect on the creek. 45 Both the Nonpoint Source Assessment and water chemistry data indicate improved conditions in the river in its middle segments, especially in Hillsborough River State Park. These segments retain much of the natural bank vegetation; there is input of some relatively good water quality tributaries; and flow is more rapid which increases DO and habitat diversity. Nonetheless, high coliform counts prevent swimming in the river at Hillsborough River State Park. Lake Thonotosassa and its tributaries (Baker Creek and Pemberton Creek) receive excessive nutrient loads averaging 0.7 - 1.9 mg/I phosphorus in streams entering the lake. The loading results in algae blooms, fish kills and cutrophic conditions in the lake. There were also high bacterial counts in the creeks. Dischargers into this system appear to account for much of the pollution. The Plant City WWTP, which also receives industrial wastes, contributes significant loading of phosphorus (over 40,000 lb. a year), but its discharge is not directly to the creek or lake. Plant City will cease discharging to the Lake Thonotosassa watershed by 1997. Waters leaving eutrophic Lake Thonotosassa. flow to the Hillsborough River through Flint Creek. Because of the lake outflow, waters in this creek carry high phytoplankton loads which are conspicuous at the confluence with the blackwater Hillsborough River. Nonpoint sources include urban and rangeland runoff. Lake Thonotosassa is a priority SWIM waterbody. The southern basin tributaries are mostly rated as good with few pollution sources. However, the lower Cypress Creek, which Toughly parallels Interstate Highway 275, appears to be more severely impaired by urban construction activities. The upper Cypress Creek basin is undergoing some residential land development and has low DO and high nutrients typical in the basin. The lower section of Hillsborough River, up to the reservoir, although affected by the upstream pollution sources, has improved water quality. At the reservoir, however, nutrient loads from upstream Hillsborough River, some residential drainage, and recreational use have caused severe aquatic weed problems and some algae bloom problems. These problems are of particular concern as the reservoir is a drinking water source of Tampa. Below the dam, the river is tidal and brackish. It receives a large sediment load with metals and other typical runoff pollutants from Tampa. Its banks are lined with seawalls, buildings, and stormwater outfalls. Portions of the river bed are under investigation to determine if they can be restored. 46 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100205 HILLSBOROUGH RIVER INDEX GOOD FAIR POOR SURFACE WATER QUAJITY DA-.A --OR 1970-1993 ----------- ----- ----- ----- MEDIAN VALUES FOR EAC@` WA:EERSHED 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 BIOLOGICAL IATER 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 COWD FLOW WQI TSI WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 8 LAX-- ir@NTIER 102 81 85 Historical 11.0 0.6 42 9.7 106 8.0 45 1.51 0.23 46 235 70 17 Lake 7*=otosassa 336 89 93 Current 14.3 0.5 51 19 8.4 92 6.0 9.1 1.87 0.68 67 113 75 412 76 19 LAKS ?ADG-.,T 2 92 92 Current 13 5.9 75 7.3 0.82 0.03 199 48 46 LAX PASADENA 3 80 80 Historical 1.2 60 6.4 6 0.84 0.03 9 94 49 WATER BODY TYPE: SPRING ic SU_'[email protected] SPRINGS 691 90 92 Current 0.7 7.2 0.90 0.06 150 40 2030 19 WATER BODY TYPE: S-RZXM I CYPRESS CREEK 176 89 93 Current 3.5 0.8 180 2.6 26 1.2 34 6.9 1.64 0.07 1 700 250 301 7 73 2 HILLSBOROUGH RIVER 75 89 93 Current 4.1 1.1 56 3 4.6 51 4 7.4 125 1.90 0.10 0 254 374 27 45 3 SEFFNER CANAL 24 77 80 Historical 1.5 0.2 4 7.3 . 3.22 0.05 1 1 337 23 4 SPARJ@_-%N BRANCH 8 92 93 Current 8.2 0.6 175 8 5.1 54 25 6.2 21 1.22 0.76 295 166 65 6 MILL CREEK 99 90 93 Current 5.5 0.2 12 2 6.0 68 1.5 8 7.4 166 1.07 0.28 2 9500 4875 664 54 7 HILLSBOROUGH RIVER 591 89 93 Current 4.0 1.4 40 2 4.0 45 1.4 8 7.2 1.01 0.28 7 550 200 378 33 54 1.1 567 60 Baker Creek 106 89 93 Current 5.5 0.6 42 4.7 54 7.3 1.54 0.66 2 1800 750 12 ?E)@SERTCN CREEK 21 89 92 Current 133 7.5 83 8 7.9 1.25 0.73 600 7 37 16 EAST CANAL 9 73 73 Historical 1.8 20 2.0 7.5 180 1.14 . 16500 325 72 18 COW HOUSES CREEK 10 92 93 Current 8.6 0.8 120 13 5.4 52 18 6.7 76 1.08 0.40 0 . 1087 281 60 19 CHANNEZED STREAK 25 70 76 Historical 5 4.3 51 2.6 28 7.7 Ill 2.85 11000 0 69 20 FLINT CREEK 149 89 93 Current 16.0 0.5 51 5.5 65 3.4 14 8.0 2.64 0.77 39 1150 500 417 12 66 21 HOLLOMAINS BRANCH 27 76 77 Historical 5.5 0.2 78 20 8.9 97 2.8 13 7.0 0.74 0.41 8 14050 1100 177 56 22 HILLSBOROUGH RIVER 25 92 93 Current 4.9 0.8 90 2 5.4 63 14 7.1 104 1.40 0.26 0 . 373 318 89 55 24 ITCHE?ACKASASSA. CREEK 151 70 83 Historical 15 6.5 75 4.7 30 . 7.6 122 2.75 . . 34000 700 303 4 45 25 TWO HOLE BRANCH 30 76 77 Historical 9.0 0.3 105 24 6.5 65 4.2 16 7.1 0.47 0.50 7 15350 175 239 61 26 ITCiEPACKASASSA 37 76 77 Historical 5.5 0.3 57 13 7.0 83 4.6 15 7.7 1.26 2.31 11 21100 613 717 61 27 HILLSBOROUGH RIVER 2 78 78 Historical 3 1.47 . 640 30 36 31 HILLSBOROUGH RIVE-R 189 89 93 Current 2.5 1.3 23 6.5 72 1.0 3 7.6 1.73 0.20 1 650 200 363 82 37 32 BLACC1,VATER CREEK 253 89 93 Current 8.0 0.6 128 1 6.3 70 1.9 20 7.4 64 1.24 0.57 8 360 160 337 19 56 35 BIG D-;@[ 17 92 93 Current 6.3 0.5 210 3 6.0 68 19 7.2 101 1.41 0.85 0 . 156 303 5? 37 TROUT CREEK 63 89 93 Current 4.0 0.7 106 3.9 42 1.4 7.2 0.95 0.43 2 800 300 350 7 56 40 FISH HATCHERY 92 70 87 Historical 9.4 98 1.1 12 7.2 271 2 25 42 NEW R:V--.l 9 92 93 Current 11.3 0.4 220 5 4.1 44 31 7.0 24 1.54 0.44 525 166 70 LEGEND: BOD-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN MG/L MAX OOBS-MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SA14PLES SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TURB-TURBIDITY MG/L ALK-ALKALINITY MG/L H:-A-CHLOROPHYLL UG/L DOSAT-DO I SATURATION NAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TOC-TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON MG/L WQI-WATER QUALITY INDEX, ART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRA:-_ D': COD-CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L END YR-ENDING YEAR NITRO-TOTAL NITROGEN MG/L TOTAL-TOTAL COLIFORM MPN/I00ML BEG YR-BEGINNING SAMPL7NG Y:AR 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 CFS PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100205 HILLSBOROUGH RIVER MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED SCREENED 'x'-EXCEEDS SCREENING CRITERIA SCREENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA '0'-WITHIN SCREENING CRITERIA '-MISSING DATA I SECCHI I IRANK DATA RECORDI IN ISTREAM I LAKE I PH I ALK I TURB & I COND I OXYGEN I DO ICOLIFORM I BIOL I CHIA ------------------ I I TP I TP I I TSS I I DEMAND I I BACTI I DIV I I DISC I wQI CURRENT 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 IALK<20 ITURB>16.51COND>12751 BOD>3.3 I DO<4 ITOT>3700 IDIART<1.951 CHLA>40 I SD<.7 I ID NAME ITSI HISTORICAL i I I I PH<5.2 I I TSS>18 I I COD>102 I IFECAL>4701DINAT<1.5 I I TOC>27.51 I BECK<5.5 I � WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 0 1 x x 1 8 LAKE HUNTER IPOOR Historical 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x x 1 17 Lake Thonotosassa IPOOR Current 1 0 1 1 x I x x 0 x 0 1 . 1 39 LAKE PADGETT IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 a 0 1 0 0 1 46 LAK PASADENA IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 a x � WATER BODY TYPE: SPRING I 10 SULPHUR SPRINGS IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x �WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 0 1 x x 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 CYPRESS CREEK IPOOR Current 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 HILLSBOROUGH RIVER IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 SEFFNER CANAL IGOOD Historical I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 4 SPARKMAN BRANCH IPOOR Current 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 6 MILL CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 7 HILLSBOROUGH RIVER IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 11 Baker Creek IPOOR Current 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 12 PEMBERTON CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 16 EAST CANAL ITJNKN Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 x I x 18 COW HOUSE CREEK IPOOR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 19 CHANNELZED STREAM IPOOR Historical I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x 20 FLINT CREEK IPOOR Current I x I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 21 HOLLOMANS BRANCH IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 22 HILLSBOROUGH RIVER IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 24 ITCHEPACKASASSA CREEK IFAIR Historical I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 x 25 TWO HOLE BRANCH IPOOR Historical 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 x 26 ITCHEPACKASASSA CREEK IPOOR Historical 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 x 27 HILLSBOROUGH RIVER IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 31 HILLSBOROUGH RIVER IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 32 BLACKWATER CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 35 BIG DITCH IFAIR Current 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 37 TROUT CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I 40 FISH HATCHERY DRAIN I'GOOD Historical I . I . 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 42 NEW RIVER I POOR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 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 1988 TOT-TOTAL COLIFORM 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-BIOLDGICAL DIVERSITY DIART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY PH-PH TURB-TURBIDITY CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL DINAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TN-NITROGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS 0C SURFACE WATER QUALITY.ASSESSMENT REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100205 HILLSBOROUG]f RIVER @AE-NDS'-SOUiCTS-'CLEANUP 'k,.@DEGRA'MING TREND I i993 TRENDS F '0'-@ST@BiE TREND t ------- ------ ---------------------- '-'-:9MOVING TREND I lw fl T T@ C Sl P Al T @l W T1 D D1 T F1 t F I<--- PLEASE fkEAD THESE COLUMNS VERfICALLY 1 SS ING DKTi IQUALITY RANK IOViR-10 6r S1. N H D1 H Ll U* Sl 0 01 0 01 C Cl R L I I---------- 7--*l ALL II il L I KI R Sl D Cl Sl 0 61 it o I 1 001 ITREND) I k I I B I I Al L Ll P W I WiTERSHED I MEETS OR: I I I I I I I T1 I Il 1; 1D NA.@- IUSE ?' TSI I I I I I I I I t I D9GR.AhAfION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ------------------------ ------------- ---------------------- -------- ------------------------------------------------ WATER B^,:)Y,TYPE: LAKE 8 LAKE 1 HUNTER No POORI . I . I . . . . I i-7 4ke. -honotqsa'ssa INO POORI x I )f 1 0 0 0 xi0 .1 x xl x .1 x xi 0 01 0 1 39 PADGETT IYES GOODI . I . I . . . . I . .1 - .1 . .1 . .1 .. .1 . 1 46 :X< PASADENA [YES GOODI I I I I I I I I I @&-.E:k BODY TYPE: SPRING IYES GOODI 0 1 + I . . . . 1 0 .1 0 1 .0 S'_':.PH"UR SPRINGS WA7-R BODY TYPE: STREAM I -,PRESS CREEK INO POORI 0 1 0 1 x 0 0 oi0 .1 0 t 0 W 0 0 W 0 0 2 F:.'-SBOROUGH, RIVER IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 o I o x . 1 6 1 . I . X1 o ol I o o I 3 CANAL !YES GOODI I I I I I i I 1 1 4 S?AR:e--AN BRANCH (NO POORI I I . . . . I 6 M:-'- CREEK IPARTIAL FiIRI I I . . . . I 7 u:_*'_SBOROUGH RIVER IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 010 x .1 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 1 Bake- Creek INO POORI + 1 0 1 4; 0 0 010 0 .1 + .1 0 01 0 01 0 1 12 PEX3_--ATON CREEK IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 + 0 . .1+ .1 . 01 0 01 .1 0 1 UNKNI I I I I I 1 1 .6 -_AS7 ,ANAL INO I I .e COW ROUSE CREEK No POORI . I . I . . . . I 14 STREAM INO POORI I I I I I I I 1 1 20 FL:\: CREEK INO POOR) 0 1 x 1 0 0 0 010 .1 + .1 + +1 x X1 0 01 0 0 1 2- 'HOLLO-M-WS BRANCH IPARTIAL FAIRI I I I I I I I 1 1 22 F--:,LSBOROUGH RIVER IPARTIAL FAIR] . I . I . . . . I . .1 . .1 . .1 . .( . .1 . . 1 24 T-CHT_?ACKASASSA. CREEK PARTIAL FAIRI I I I I I I I 1 1 21 -WO HOLE BRANCH INO POOR[ f I I I I I I 1 1 26 --C'-'---PkCKASASSA CREEK INO POORI I I I I I I 1 1 27 H::.'-SBOROUGH RIVER IYES GOODI I I I I I I I I I 3. H::.*-SBOROUGH RIVER IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 0 + 0 010 .I x .1 0 01 0 01 0 X1 0 0 1 32 BIACKWATER. CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI + 1 0 1 + + 0 010 .1 0 .1 0 xi 0 01 0 01 0 0 1 35 B:G :):-,,,H IPARTIAL FAIRI . I . I . . . . I . .1 . .1 . .1 . .1 . .1 . . 1 37 TROU: CREEK IPARTIAL FAIR@ 0 1 a 1 0 0 0 .10 1 0 1 0 .1 0 01 0 01 0 t 40 HATCHERY DRAIN IYES GOODI I . I . . . . I 42 NEW R:VER INO POORI I . I . . . . I LEGEND: DOSAT-DO SATURATION TCOLI-TOTAL COLIFORM Tupa-TURRIBITY FCOLI-FECAL COLIFORM TEMP-TEMPERATURE TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX FOR LAKES AND ESTUARIES ALK-ALKALIN:TY FDOW-FLOW TN-NITROGEN WQI-WATER QULAITY INDEX FOR STREAMS AND SPRINGS BOD-B70CFE-M. OXYGEN DEMAND MEETS USE-MEETS DESIGNATED USE TOC-T.ORGANIC CARBON CHLA-@;LOROPHILL PH-PH TP-PHOSPHORUS DO-:)jSSo7_vr_D OXYGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS mm@mm mm M@mmm NPS QUALITATIVE SURVEY RESULTS AN "X" INDICATES A PROBLE14 WITH POLLUTANT OR SOURCE THE * ON MAPID INDICATES SO STORET INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR THIS WATERSHED -SEE PAGE 11 FOR LEGEND FOR THIS TABLE- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CATNAME-HILLSBOROUGH RIVER RUC-03100205 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 I 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 a I E M I R 9 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 B W I S I S i 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 F. 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 1402 CYPRESS CREEK POOR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2 1443E HILLSBOROUG14 RIVER FAIR FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x K x x x x x x x x x x x x x 3 1541 SEFFNER CANAL 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 4 1561 SPARKMAN BRANCH ?OOR FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 5- 1565 MOORE LAKE DRAIN FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 6 1542A MILL CREEK 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 7 1443A HILLSBOROUGH RIVER FAIR FAI R x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x K K x x x x 9- 1553 TWIN LAKE 013TLET FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 10 1555 SULPHUR SPRINGS GOOD THREAT x x 11 1522C Baker Creek POOR FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 12 1542 PEMBERTON CREEK 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 13* 1544 BAKER CREEK TRIBUTARY FAIR x x x x x x x x x K x x x x x x x x x 14* 1523 CURIOSITY CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x 15* 1533 CAMPBELL BRANCH FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 16 1518 EAST CANAL POOR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 17 1522B Lake Thonotosassa POOR FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x le 1534 COW HOUSE CREEK 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 20 1522A FLINT CREEK POOR FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 22 1443B HILLSBOROUGH RIVER FAIR FAIR x x x x x x x x K x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 23* 1499 THIRTEEN MILE CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x 27 1443C HILLSBOROUGH 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 28* 1451 LAKE HANNA OUTLET THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x 29* 1451A LAKE STEMPER THREAT x x x x x K x x x x x x 30- 1487 SHERRYS BROOK THREAT x x x x x x x 31 1443D HILLSBOROUGH 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 32 1482 BLACKWATER CREEK FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 33* 1451B KEENE LAKE THREAT x x x K X K x x x x x x 34* 1402A DEANE LAKE THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 35 1469 BIG DITCH FAIR GOOD 36* 1451C LAKE KELL THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x 37 1455 TROUT CREEK FAIR THREAT x x 38* 14 BASSET BRANCH POOR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 39 14 LAKE PADGETT GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x 41* INDIAN CREEK THREAT x x x x x 42 1442 NEW RIVER POOR POOR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 43* 1446 SOUTHSIDE BRANCH POOR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 44* 1438 BAYOU LAKE OUTLET THREAT x 45* 1437 DRAIN THREAT x k Fork L. MwWbo R. TAMPA @TEF 'i 7n@ 21. lmr. LITTLE MANATEE RIVER BASIN 03100203 WATER QUALITY GOOD AVERAGE WATER QUALITY THREATENED 1984-1993 STORET DATA FAIR WATERSHED ID NUMBERS LINK MAP TO TABLES POOR INDICATES QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT UNKNOWN page 51 LITTLE MANATEE RIVER BASIN ------------------------ - - ---- - ------ - -------- - ------------- - ----- Basic Drainage Area: 222 square n-dles Major Land Uses: agriculture, rangeland, urban, power generation, aquaculture Population Density: low (Ruskin) Major Pollution Sources: rangeland and agricultural runoff Best Water Quality Areas: Dug Creek, North Fork Little Manatee river Worst Water Quality Areas: Ruskin Inlet Water Quality Trends: stable water quality at 2 reaches, improving in Little Manatee, degrading at North Fork Little Manatee OFW Waterbodies: Little Manatee River SWIM Watcrbodics: none Reference Reports: Florida Rivers Assessment, DEP/FREAC/NPS, 1989 Florida Nonpoint Source Assessment, DEP (Tallahassee), 1988 Basis II Symposium Proceedings, T`BRPC, 1991, 813/577-5151 Basin Water Quality Experts: Peter Clark, TBRPC 813/577-5151 Sid Flannery, SWFWMD, 904n96-7211 Doug Farrcll, 8 13n44-6100 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --- - ------------------------------------------------------ - -------- In lb& Nms * IMC Fertilizer has proposed an 18,290 acre expansion of its phosphate mining operation in southeastern Hillsborough County, which may affect the North Prong of the Little Manatee River. * A major area of Hillsborough County north of the Little Manatee River was rezoned from agriculture to residential several years ago. ------------- ------------------------------------------------------- Ecological Characterization The Little Manatee River Basin is a small (222 square miles) basin located between the Alafia and Manatee River Basins discharging into middle Tampa Bay on its eastern shore. Among the principal creeks and rivers flowing into Tampa Bay, it is considered to be in the best condition. The Little Manatee River is formed by the confluence of the North and South Forks. Both are fairly natural with no large commercial or residential developments near them. The banks of the Little Manatee retain. natural vegetation throughout most of the river course, but intensive agricultural land use is occurring close to the river channel in areas. River flow fluctuates widely so that at low flow there are steep banks, and at high flow, the water will almost reach the canopy of overhanging trees. However, average flow of 170 ds was measured at Highway 301, about 15 miles upstream of the river mouth. The river channel in both prongs 52 and the mainstream is narrow and sharply meandering until it reaches the tidal and estuarine and portion near the Interstate Highway 75 crossing. Land use in the basin is predominantly agriculture and rangeland. There is one urban center, Ruskin, near the river mouth at Tampa Bay. However, with the recent completion of the 1-75 interstate highway, population is expected to increase by as much as 40% in as little as two years. thrORg&enic Im --pacts The Little Manatee River has historically had good water quality and aesthetic and recreational value. The main river channel (excluding the South Fork and upstream portions of the North Fork) was declared an Outstanding Florida Water. There are no major water quality problems in this basin; however, the reaches in this basin have elevated bacteria and nutrient levels. These problems are likely due to runoff from rangeland (bacteria and nutrients) and agricultural areas (pesticides and nutrients). Strearnflow and water quality data from six gaged sub-basins monitored by the SWFWMD indicate that substantial amounts of excess crop irrigation water enters the river along sections of the North Fork. Nutrient enrichment and flow supplementation have increased significantly enough to be considered threats to the continued quality of this river. Water is pumped from the upper river into a 4000 acre off-strewn reservoir which stores cooling water for a major power plant. Florida Power and Light has two point source discharges into the South Fork of the Little Manatee River consisting of seepage from Lake Parrish (their cooling reservoir), with mixing zones for iron and pH in the river. In the lower river, the Ruskin area is still serviced by septic tanks and package plants, and there are numerous tropical fish farms in the watershed at present. Water quality data does not indicate any serious problems in this area. The Southwest Florida Water Management District is studying the river and a report is pending. The lower river and nearby bays at its mouth are some of the last areas in Tampa Bay where mangrove forests and seagrass beds are still abundant. The Hillsborough County Endangered Land Program is trying to buy islands in this area. 53 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100203 LITTLE MANATEE RIVER INDEX GOOD FFAIR POO., ----------- ----- ----- ----- SURFACE WA-,--.tL 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-UO ----- TSI-LAKE 0-59 60-69 70-100 PERIOD PRIOR TO 1989 IS EVALUATED AS HISTORICAL INFORMATION BIOLOGICAL ;A.ER WATERSHED WATERSHED DATA RECORD WATER DISSOLVED OXYGEN PH TROPHIC SPECIES QUALITY ID 14AME ---------------------- CLARITY OXYGEN DEMAND ALKALINITY STATUS COLIFORM DIVERSITY COND F'-CW 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 -.,Q: TSI WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 2 SO FK LITTLE MANATEE R 24 89 92 Current 80 4.8 54 1.1 10 6.5 0.68 0.47 189 49 422 5 UNNAMED SLOUGH 338 73 87 Historical 2.6 80 7.1 '78 1.3 7.0 2 5 17 LITTLE MANATEE RIVER 313 89 93 Current 4.7 0. 9 49 3 6.2 72 1.3 7.0 1.11 0.36 3 705 225 9137 :58 47 19 N. Fo.-k L. Manatee R. 267 89 93 Current 4.5 0.6 63 3 6.9 77 0.9 11 6.8 1.07 0.5-7 1 1650 400 275 6 43 24 DUG CREEK 56 81 85 Historical 7.5 83 7.0 437 - -7 27 CYPRESS CREEK 18 89 91 Current 90 5 4.8 57 1.1 13 6.7 1.12 0.07 847 149 430 7 49 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 CHIA-CHLOROPHYLL UG/L DOSAT-DO I SATURATION NAT-NA7URAL 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 YA-BEGINNING SAMPLING YEAR OOLOR-COLOR PCU FECL-FECAL COLIFORM MPN/100ML PH-PH STANDARD UNITS TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX COND-CONDUCTIVITY UMHOS FLCOW-FLOW CFS PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L 4- SURFACE WA-ER @*_*A:.ITY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100203 LITTLE MANATEE RIVER MEDIAN VAL-_- -0R. EACH WATERSHED SCREENED SCREENING CRITERIA SCREENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA '0'-W:7F:N SCREENING CRITERIA '-X: - --:N@, DATA I I I I I 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 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 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 N)Lm- 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 BECK<5.5 I I WA--R B^,::Y -Yz-: STREAM 2 SO F-K MANATEE R. IFAIR Current 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 5 TTNNA.X--: 5-0,:GH IGOOD Historical I . I . I 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 17 XANA7EE RIVER IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 19 N. Manatee R. IGOOD Current 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 24 DUGG IGOOD Historical I . I . I 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 27 CYPRE" IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 LEGEND: COND-CONDUCTIVITY FECAL-FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA TP-PHOSPHORUS WQI OR TSI-WATER QUALITY INDEX RATING ALK-ALKkL*.N:-Y DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN HISTORICAL-1970 TO 1988 TOT-TOTAL COLIFORM BACTERIA WHICH INDEX USED, V40I OR TSI, IS BECK-BECK'S B:^_T.:C INDEX CURRENT-1989 TO 1993 OXYGEN DEMAND-BOD,COD,TOC TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS BASED ON WATERBODY TYPE BIOL DIV-B:3-@OG:CAL DIVERSITY DIART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY PH-PH TURB-TURBIDITY CHLA-CHLOP,O?"-'.'-'- 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: 03100203 LITTLE MANATEE RIVER TRENDS-SOURCES-CLEANUP 'X'-DEGRADING TREND 1 1984 - 1993 TRENDS '0'-STABLE TREND I----------------------------------------------------- '+'-IMPROVING TREND I 1W TI T T C Sl P Al I TI B TI D DI T Fl T F l<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY '.'=MISSING DATA lQUALITY 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 IT ii L I KI R Sl 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 Tj I I] I ID NAME IUSE ? TSI I I I I I I I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ------------------------ I------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 2 SO FK LITTLE MANATEE R IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 x 1 0 0 . .1 0 .1 .1 0 01 0 01 .1 0 0 1 5 UNNAMED SLOUGH IYES GOODI . I . I . . . . I . .1 .1 - .1 . .1 .1 . - 1 17 LITTLE MANATEE RIVER IPARTIAL FAIRI + 1 0 1 0 0 + 01 x .1 0 +1 + .1 0 01 0 01 0 . 1 19 N. Fork L. Manatee R. IYES GOODI x 1 0 1 0 x 0 01 0 .1 x 01 0 01 0 01 0 X1 0 0 1 24 DUG CREEK IYES GOODI . I . I . . . .1 . .1 .1 - .1 . .1 .1 . - 1 27 CYPRESS CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 . . . . 1 0 .1 .1 . .1 x 01 .1 0 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 FLIOW-FLOW TN-NITROGEN WQI-WATER QUIAITY INDEX FOR STREAMS AND SPRINGS BOD-BIOCHEM. OXYGEN DEMAND MEETS USE-MEETS DESIGNATED USE TOC-T.ORGANIC CARBON CHIA-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-LITTLE MANATEE RIVER HUC-03100203 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- N B S P 0 0 F T F 0 U A E E 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 E E X I K 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 1) E W I S I S 1 T 0 P N I N I I H I E 7 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 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* 1832 KEEN BRANCH THREAT x x 2 1790 SO FK LITTLE MANATEE R FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x 3- 1809 BAKER BRANCH THREAT x x x x x x x 4. le00 LONG BRANCH THREAT x x x x x x x x x x 5 1793 ',NNAMED SLOUGH GOOD THREAT x x x x 6- 1806 MOODY BRANCH THREAT x x x 7. 1792 UNNAMED DRAINAGE DITCH THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x 0. 1790 CURIOSITY CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 9* 1785 MINED AREA FAIR x x x x .0* 1782 UNNAMED STREAM THREAT x x x 11. 1770 UNNAMED DRAIN GOOD x x . . 1783 HOWARD PRAIRIE BRANCH GOOD 12 13* 1780 WILDCAT CREEK THREAT x x x x x x 14. 1764 BOLSTER BAYOU GOOD x x 15* 1760 ALDERMANN CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x 16- 1771 SUN CITY SLOUGH THREAT x x x x x x 17 1742A LITTLE MANATEE RIVER FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X X x x X 18* 1779 HAYNES BAYOU THREAT x x x x x x 19 GOOD THREAT X X K x x x x x x x x x 1742B N. Fork L. Manatee R. K X X x x x x K x 20* 1762 HOWARD PRAIRIE BRANCH THREAT x x 21, 1754 LAKE WIMAUMA DRAIN THREAT x x x x 22* 1755 GULLY BRANCH THREAT x x x x x 23* 1760 MILL BAYOU THREAT x x x x x x 24 1749 DUG CREEK GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x 25- 1753 MINED AREA FAIR x x x x x x 26* 1747 RUSKIN INLET MARSH BR FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 27 1739 CYPRESS CREEK FAIR THREAT x x x x x x K x x x x x x x x 28- 1732 PIERCE BRANCH THREAT x x x x 29* 1724 CARLTON BRANCH THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x GAM GILLY CREEK MANATEE RIVER Wares C Manatee River BRADEN RIVER AB WARD LAKE COOPER CREEK WATER QUALITY MANATEE RIVER BASIN GOOD 03100202 THREATENED AVERAGE WATER QUALITY FAIR 1984-1993 STORET DATA POOR WATERSHED ID NUMBERS LINK MAP TO TABLES INDICATES QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT UNKNOWN page 58 MANATEE RIVER BASIN ----- - ---- - --------------- ------ - ---------- - -------- Basic Facts Drainage Area: 375 square miles Major Land Uses: rangeland, orchards, urban development, two WWTP Population Density: moderate (Bradenton, Palmetto) Major Pollution Sources: agricultural, citrus processing Best Water Quality Areas: upper Manatee River Worst Water Quality Areas: Gilly Creek Water Quality Trends: stable quality at 4 sites OFW Waterbodies: Lake Manatee State Recreation Area SWIM Waterbodies: none Reference Reports: Braden River Water Quality Study, TBRPCIDEP, 1986 Lake Manatee General Information, Manatee County Public Works Manatee River Wasteload Allocation Document, DEP, 1985 Florida Rivers Assessment, DEP/FREAC/NPS, 1989 Basin Water Quality Experts: Peter Clark, TBRPC, 813/577-5151 Doug Farrell, DEP (Tampa), 813n44-6100 Bruce DeGrove, DEP (rallahassee), 904/488-0780 Mike Heyl, Camp, Dresser, and McGee, 813/351-7100 ---------- - ---- - ---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- - -------------- - -- ---- In the Nm * Permits for withdrawal of drinking water from Lake Manatee Reservoir are being reviewed and are still pending. * Efforts are underway to purchase land for preservation along the Manat River. Other similarly located areas are being converted from agriculture to residential use. *Draft reports on the freshwater inflow and salinity characteristics of the lower Manatee river are nearly completed. These reports will be used to assess future water supply demands from the Manatee River system. The first report has been produced by Camp Dresser and McKee for Manatee County as part of their SWFWMD water use permit, while the second report is being produced by Dames and Moore for the Tampa Bay National Estuary program. ------ - --- - --- --------------- - - ------------- - -- Ecological Characterization The headwaters of the Manatee River originate in the northeastern comer of Manatee County. The river flows approximately 33 miles southwesterly to Tampa Bay and drains 375 square miles. The river is impounded a, Lake Manatee to provide the drinking water supply for Manatee County. Downstream, west of Fort Homer, the Manatee River forms a wide, tidally influenced estuary. Principal tributaries of the 59 Manatee include Gamble Creek and the Braden River, which is also impounded to provide drinking water for the City of Bradenton. The Manatee River has several distinct habitat types. The upstream portion is a blackwater steam meandering through a canopied corridor. Rangeland and agriculture are the predominate land use in this part of the basin. Lake Manatee provides a lacustrine habitat near the middle of the basin. Citrus orchards are common here. Downstream of the lake, the river is again a meandering stream and is a recognized canoe trail. Finally, the mouth of the river is a mangrove lined estuary which has been extensively urbanized by the towns of Bradenton, Palmetto and Ellenton. Anthropogenic Impacts Generally, this basin has good water quality. The major problem in the fresh water portion of the basin is increased nutrient levels in the Manatee River Reservoir. There are no point sources in the area to account for these values, but the lake receives excessive nonpoint source nutrient loading from orange groves and rangeland. Some phosphate mining operations occur near the North and East Forks. The high nutrient levels in the reservoir promote algae and weed growth. The lake has nearly year-round algal bloom problems which are treated with frequent applications of copper sulfate (though a reduction in amount has taken place in recent years). Lake data collected by the Manatee County Public Works Department (PWD) indicated nutrient values in the "poor" TSI range, but chlorophyll levels were held artificially low because of the copper treatments. Consequently, copper levels were relatively high (above state criteria for surface waters and potable water supplies) both within and downstream of the lake. PWD is acting to improve the conditions in the lake by: 1. developing a pilot project to determine the effectiveness of requiring best management practices (BMP) of agricultural operations; 2. instigating aeration projects in Gilley Creek and Boggy Creek; and 3. starting a watershed land acquisition project. EPA will also be investigating BMPs in this drainage. Gamble Creek has not been sampled recently, but has historically had nutrient and DO problemsfrom agriculture and construction runoff, A major fish kill was reported in the summer of 1989. During the rainy season of the year, nutrient and organic nitrogen loading from runoff cause periods of high chlorophyll and low DO values in the estuarine areas downstream of the reservoirs. Although STORET data arc limited, an intensive survey of the lower Manatee and Braden Rivers for a wastcload allocation survey showed that these areas had fair water quality predominantly because of DO problems. The point source loading in the estuary should have decreased with the recent upgrading of the Bradenton WWTP which was required by special legislation which makes advanced treatment mandatory for discharges going to Tampa Bay. However, Manatee County consumes most or all of the dry season flow coming into the lake, thus decreasing flushing downstream and leading to a more saline estuary. Currently, the major source of pollution to the estuary appears to be runoff from upstream agricultural sources (and Lake Manatee) and urban runoff from Bradenton. The Braden River Reservoir has high nutrient and bacteria problems. Potential sources of these problems are rangeland runoff and septic tank leachate. Upstream of the impoundment, the river has good water quality. Tropicana has constructed a new wastewater treatment system to improve the quality of their effluent. The City of Palmetto is reviewing the potential of either going to total reuse with their wastewater, or hooking up to. Manatee County's wastewater system. 60 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100202 MANATEE RIVER INDEX GOOD SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 1910-1993 ----------- ----- ----- ----- MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED KI-RIVER 0-44 45-59-60-PC CURRENT PERIOD OF RECORD (1989-1993) USED WHERE AVAILABLE TSI-ESTUARY 0-49 50-59 60 ---- ----- PERIOD PRIOR TO 1989 IS EVALUATED AS HISTORICAL INFORMATION TSI-LAKE 0-59 60-69 '70--C' BIOLOGICAL WATER WATERSHED WATERSHED DATA RECORD WATER DISSOLVED OXYGEN PH TROPHIC SPECIES QUALITY ID NAME ---------------------- CLARITY OXYGEN DEMAND ALKALINITY STATUS COLIFORM DIVERSITY COND FLOW :,.,DTCES ----- --------------------------------- 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 wl I _SI � WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 24 MANATEE RIVER BL DAM 4081 71 79 Historical 4.5 0.9 28 4.6 56 1.9 25 8.0 0.91 0.48 451 135 1.9 29750 59 �WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 1 MACASPHALT INC LAKE 2 82 82 Historical 10 8.1 0.61 0.02 120 44 37 3 37 6 WARD LAKE 4 89 89 Current 7.7 87 1.0 11 8.1 0.97 0.30 700 56 �WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 4 BRADEN RIVER AB WARD L 399 70 87 Historical 9.0 51 7 5.2 65 1.9 50 16 7.0 70 0.92 0.22 820 78 260 0 5 GAP CREEK 626 70 87 Historical 7.2 4200 800 10 BRADEN R NR ELLWOOD PK 422 70 87 Historical 6.7 85 7 4 540 150 800 11 WILLIAMS CREEK 410 70 87 Historical 7:1 4700 920 :9 12 BRADEN R NR GS CAMP 398 70 87 Historical 5.0 80 3.0 36 3.0 7.4 495 170 16000 ;6 15 Manatee River 17 89 92 Current 130 7.4 78 1.3 13 7.0 0.15 0.68 193 10 36 16 POLEY BRANCH 154 70 76 Historical 8.5 35 6.4 67 3.9 6.7 26 1.30 1010 230 45500 63 11 MILL CREEK 320 '72 87 Historical 7.2 . 3725 909 19 WARES CREEK 1380 70 87 Historical 2.9 40 5:6 63 2*1 7.3 366 0.44 1600 920 821 76 22 GATES CREEK 118 72 76 Historical 7.2 . 1260 540 26 Manatee River 10 89 89 Current 1.1 60 0 7.9 88 6.4 . 0.33 0.68 1 103 84 155 :3 30 GILLY CREEK 456 70 87 Historical 2.6 100 7 3.6 41 2.0 45 18 6.5 15 2.35 0.25 1000 125 157 61 31 UNNAMED DRAIN 118 72 76 Historical 7.2 . 11650 920 zq 33 GAMBLE CREEK 7 92 93 Current 6.2 0.3 95 5 7.2 80 13 7.2 68 1.44 0.46 0 538 409 z6 LEGEND: BOD-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN MG/L MAX #OBS-MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES SD-SECC14I 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-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX COND-CONDUCTIVITY UMHOS FLOW-FLOW CFS PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L SURFACE WATER QUAL@:Y :)A:A.SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100202 MANATEE RIVER MEDIAN VALUES FOR --AT:-.' WATERSHED SCREENED lx'-EXCEFDS SCR:--N':;G CRITERIA SCR13ENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA 101-WITHIN SCR-_-_N:.1;G' 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 TURB & I COND I OXYGEN I DO ICOLIFORM I BIOL I CHLA ISECCHI I I------------------ I I TP I TP I I I TSS I I DEMAND I I RACTI I DIV I I DISC I I W01 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>S.g IALK<20 ITURB>16.5]COND>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 JFEChL>4701DINAT-Cl.5 I -------------------------------------------- I I TOC>27.51 I I BECK<5.5 I � WATER BODY TYPE: -_S:UA3,Y 24 MANATEE RIVER B_ DAM IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 �WATER BODY TY?E: 1 MhCAS?*-UkLT 7N'@' !AKS IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 6 WARD :AKE IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 '0 1 1 �WATER BODY TYPE: S:R:AM 4 BRADEN RIVER AB WJVC L IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 5 GAP CREEK IUNKN Historical I I I 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 x I I 10 BRADEN R NR ?K IFAIR Historical I I I 1 0 1 1 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 1 11 WILLIAMS CREEK IUNKN Historical I I I 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 x I I 12 BRADEN' R NA G5 C:AM? IFAIR Historical I I I 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 15 Manatee Rive: IGOOD Current 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 16 POLEY B@LANCH IPOOR Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 1 17 MILL CREEK IUNKN Historical I I . I 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 x I I 19 WARES ',REEK IPOOR Historical I 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I I 22 GATES CREEK IUNKN Historical I I . I 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 x I I 26 Manatee R_,ve: IGOOD Current 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 30 GILLY CREEK IPOOR Historical I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 31 UNNAMED DRA:N IUNKN Historical I . I . I 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 x I I 33 GAMBLE CREEK 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 I LEGEND: COND-OONDUCTIVITY FECAL-FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA TP-PHOSPHORUS VJQI OR TSI-WATER QUALITY INDEX RATING ALK-ALKALIV:TY DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN HISTORICAL-1970 TO 1988 TOT-TOTAL COLIFORM BACTERIA WHICH INDEX USED, WQI OR TSI, IS BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC :N:)T-X CURRENT-1989 TO 1993 OXYGEN DEMAND-BOD,COD,TOC TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS BASED ON WATERBODY TYPE BIOL DIV-BIOLOGICAL :):VE.-,STTY DIART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY PH-PH TURB-TURBIDITY CHLA-CHL40ROPHYLL DINAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TN-NITROGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS m m = m m = = m = = = M = = = M m m m SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100202 MANATEE RIVER TRENDS-SOURCES-CLEANUP 'x'=DEGRADING TREND 1984 - 1993 TRENDS '0'-STABLE TREND ----------------------------------------------------- *+'-IMPROVING TREND I 1W T1 T I C Sl P At T TI B T1 D DI T Fl T F l<--- 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 II it I I KI R Sl D Cl sl 0 01 M 0 1 1 WQI ITRENDI I A I I B I I At L Ll P W I WATERSHED I 14EETS OR I I I I I I I T1 I It 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 24 MANATEE RIVER BL DAM IPARTIAL FAIRI I I I I I I I I I �WATER BODY TYPE, LAKE I MACASPHALT INC LAKE IYES GOODI I I I I I I I 1 1 6 WARD LAKE IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 .1 .1 0 01 0 01 .1 0 1 �WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 4 BRADEN RIVER AB WARD L IPARTIAL FAIRI 1 .1 1 .1 .1 .1 1 5 GAP CREEK INO UNKNI 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 1 10 BRADEN R NR ELLWOOD PK IPARTIAL FAIRI 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 11 WILLIAMS CREEK INO UNKNI 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 12 BRADEN R NR GS CAMP IPARTIAL FAIRI 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 1 1 15 Manatee River IYES GOOD 1 0 1 0 1 0 a .1 0 .1 .1 0 0( 0 01 .1 0 a 1 16 FOLEY BRANCH INO POORI I I I 1 1 17 MILL CREEK INO UNKNI .1 . .1 . .1 .1 1 19 WARES CREEK INO POORI .1 .1 . .1 .1 1 22 GATES CREEK INO UNKNI I I I 1 1 26 Manatee River IYES GOOD 1 0 0 1 1 x .1 0 .1 .1 0 01 0 01 0 1 30 GILLY CREEK INO POORI . I . I . . . . I . .1 . .1 .1 . .1 - .1 . 1 31 UNNAMED DRAIN INO UNKNI I I I I I I I 1 1 33 GAMBLE CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 + I . . . . 1 0 .1 .1 .1 .1 01 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 QUIAITY 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 PROBLE14 WITH POLLUTANT OR SOURCE THE - ON MAPID INDICATES NO STORET INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR THIS WATERSHED -SEE PAGE 11 FOR LEGEND FOR THIS TABLE- -------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- CATNAME-MANATEE RIVER MJC-03100202 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- N B S P 0 S 0 F T F 0 U A S E T A H T T I U I T M T C D S H D 0 L A H H S A 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 P 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 B L I) R N M T '1930 MACASPHALT INC LAKE GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2* 1929 UNNAMED STREAM POOR x x x x x x x x x x x x 3- 1923 RATTLESNAKE SLOUGH THREAT x x K K x x x 4 1.914 BRADEN RIVER AB WARD L FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 5 1899 GAP CREEK POOR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x 6 1914A WARD LAKE GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 7- 1913 UNNAMED STREAM THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 8* 1895 FISHER BRANCH THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 9. 1909 WOLF SLOUGH FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 10 1816B BRADEN R NR ELLWOOD PK FAIR THREAT x x x x x X. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 12 .1876A BRADEN R NR GS CAMP FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 13* 1892 CORBIT BRANCH THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 14* 1881 SUGERHOUSE CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x 15 1807C Manatee River GOOD THREAT 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 26 1999 FOLEY BRANCH POOR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 17 1872 MILL CREEK POOR THREAT x x x x X. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 18- 1876 BRADEN RIVER BL WARD L THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 15 1848C WARES CREEK POOR FAIR x x x x K x x x x x x x x x x x x K x x x x x x x x x 20- 1807B Lake Manatee Reservoir THREAT 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 21* 1875 CYPRESS STRAND THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 22 1874 GATES CREEK POOR THREAT x x x x x K x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 23* 1864 UNNAMED STREAM FAIR x x x x x 24 1848A MANATEE RIVER BL DAM 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 x x 25* 1865 UNNAMED STREAM THREAT x x x x x x x x x K 26 1801A Manatee River GOOD THREAT 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 27- 184eB MANATEE RIVER BL DAM 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 x 28* 1853 UNNAMED STREAM FAIR x x x x x x x 29* 1855 UNNAMED STREAM FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x 30 1840 GILLY CREEK POOR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 31 1850 U14NAMED DRAIN POOR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 32* 1843 GAMBLE SINK OVERFLOW FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x 33 1819 GAMBLE CREEK FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x K x x K x x x K K x x x x K x 34* 18 0'7:) Manatee R. north fork THREAT 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 35* 1810 GAMBLE CREEK SINK FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x WINGATE CREEK O@%PN CREEK GLEBt. SLOUGH CANAL Upper Lake Myak -46" ';;, Lower Lake MyaK-,- 4 In Myakka River Tr MYAKKA CHARLOM HAROM WATER QUALITY MYAKKA RIVER BASIN GOOD 03100102 THREATENED AVERAGE WATER QUALITY FAIR 1984-1993 STORET DATA POOR WATERSHED ID NUMBERS LINK MAP TO TABLES INDICATES QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT UNKNOWN page 65 MYAKKA RIVER BASIN --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Basic Facts Drainage Area: 540 square miles Major Land Uses: rangeland, agriculture, mining Population Density: low (West Port Charlotte, North Port) Major Pollution Sources: mining operations, rangeland runoff Best Water Quality Areas: upper Myakka River Worst Water Quality Areas: Owen Creek Wingate Creek Water Quality Trends: stable quality at 10 sites OFW Waterbodies: Lower Myakka River Myakka River State Park Myakka Florida Wild and Scenic River Segment SWIM Waterbodies: none Reference Reports: Sarasota County Ambient Water Quality Report, Sarasota County, 1988 Myakka and Peace Rivers, BAS, DEP, (Punta Gorda), 1984 Florida Rivers Assessment, DEPNREAC/NPS, 1989 Florida Nonpoint Source Assessment, DEP (Tallahassee), 1988 Basin Water Quality Experts: Ernest Estevez, Mote Marine Lab, Sarasota, 813/388-4441 Kathi Hammett, USGS (Tampa), 813/228-2124 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In thp, N&Ws A proposal by Sarasota County to divert water from the Myakka River for a potable supply and replace the volume with treated WWTP discharge is being discouraged by DEP because of the OFW status of the Myakka. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ecological Characterization The Myakka Basin is located in a transitional area between temperate and subtropical habitats. The upper basin is in a flat, marshy area with a smallffinging cypress floodplain. This upper portion of the basin is very sparsely populated or developed. It is used mostly for pasture land and some citrus groves. The blackwater river then enters two successive impoundments, upper and lower Lakes Myakka. The latter is only partially impounded. This portion of the basin is also sparsely populated and is mostly included in the 45 square mile Myakka River State Park. It is interesting to note that the river receives some ground water flow from a 150 foot deep sinkhole at the base of lower Lake Myakka. Below the park, the river winds its very crooked course through undeveloped marsh and swamp prairies until it begins to widen into the estuarine portion of the river. This area receives flow from the river's two main tributaries, Deer 66 Prairie Creek and Big Slough Canal. The North Port and Port Charlotte development he just east of the Myakka estuary. Because the Myakka Basin is relatively undeveloped, and because it contains so many habitats (marsh, swamp, prairie, flatwoods, hammocks and estuary), many species of endangered wildlife have been found there. It is also a popular recreation area. Much of the river has been designated as a State Wild and Scenic River and as an Outstanding Florida Water. The headwaters of the Myakka River arise from marshes in Hardee County in southwestern Florida. The river traverses approximately 54 miles, draining roughly 540 square miles prior to discharging to Charlotte Harbor. The average flow of the Myakka River is estimated at 600 cfs near its mouth at Charlotte Harbor. Agthropggenic LMPNU- This basin generally has very good water quality and supports both productive freshwater and estuarine habitats. The river originates from swamp drainage and is very sluggish, often with zero net flow during the dry spring seasons. DO values are typically low. Tidal influence on flows and salinity can extend approximately 20 miles upstream. Part of the upper basin drains phosphate rich areas which, combined with agricultural and rangeland runoff, causes the river to have elevated nutrient levels. Upper Lake Myakka is eutrophic: with dense hydrilla and hyacinth growth and depressed dissolved oxygen concentrations. The lake provides habitat and feeding areas for abundant wildlife. In the lower basin, Deer Prairie Creek and Big Slough Canal both drain rangeland. The latter has been channelized in its upper reaches to enhance this drainage. In its lower reaches, it traverses some urbanized areas and receives drainage from residential canals. Big Slough shows elevated colfform and nutrient levels presumably due to pasture and urban development area runoff. There is relatively little development along the estuary which maintains much of its pristine, mangrove vegetated shoreline. The estuary is threatened by encroaching growth from developments to the east. 67 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100102 MYAKKA RIVER INDEX GOOD TA:-, POOR SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 1970-1993 -- -------- ----- ----- ----- MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED VIOI-RIVER 0-44 45_@9_6^_90 CURRENT PERIOD OF RECORD (1989-1993) USED WHERE AVAILABLE TSI-ESTUARY 0-49 50-@9 611-100 ----- PERIOD PRIOR TO 1989 IS EVALUATED AS HISTORICAL INFORMATION TSI-LAKE 0-5; 61-69 70-100 i BIOLOGICAL WAIER WATERSHED WATERSHED DATA RECORD WATER DISSOLVED OXYGEN PH TROPHIC SPECIES QUALITY ID NAME ---------------------- CLARITY OXYGEN DEMAND ALKALINITY STATUS COLIFORM DIVERSITY CONZ-1 7_11w 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 C@05-_ WQI TSI � WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY I MYAKKA RIVER 24 90 92 Current 2.9 0.9 60 12 6.5 73 2.2 12 7.5 91 1.00 0.16 11 2 25'-27 55 6 MYAKKA RIVER 9 92 93 Current 4.1 0.9 80 8 6.3 75 14 7.8 86 0.95 0.20 3 5 24401 47 8 MYAKKA RIVER 12 85 85 Historical 1.9 0.9 38 11 5.4 66 10 1.20 0.30 30350 61 11 UNNAMED CREEK 5 89 89 Current 2.8 40 6.0 73 7.7 0.78 0.14 200 50 20100 51 � WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 47 Upper Lake Myakka 10 77 80 Historical 2.1 1.1 184 0.6 7 23 7.5 37 1.19 0.41 8 1.1 3 91 57 � WATER BODY TYPE: SPRING 16 WARM MINERAL SPRING 11 72 85 Historical 1.0 6 1.0 13 3 7.4 132 0.45 0.02 22 1 26625 9 20 � WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 7 SAM KNIGHT CREEK 5 91 91 Current 2.1 60 4.9 53 2.0 7.3 1.13 0.12 5 44 19501, 46 24 DEER PRAIRIE SLOUGH 14 89 92 Current 140 5.8 68 1.7 13 6.6 1.36 0.08 260 23 260 6 47 32 Myakka River 75 89 93 Current 1.6 1.3 100 3 6.1 70 1.6 7.0 36 1.16 0.27 4 255 80 299 -46 AS 39 BIG SLOUGH CANAL 24 89 92 Current 3.0 . 75 . 5.8 66 1.3 16 6.8 . 1.18 0.32 5 729 158 697 9 51 40 DEER PRAIRIE CREEK 14 89 93 Current 10.4 0.5 140 4 7.0 74 1.4 22 5.8 157 1.20 0.42 120 200 258 :4 57 44 MYAKKA RIVER 11 89 92 Current 1.1 . 105 . 4.1 52 16 7.0 . 0.96 0.29 500 5 324 '54 61 46 MUD LAKE SLOUGH 17 90 93 Current 14.5 0.5 200 13 5.5 61 1.5 21 6.6 107 1.42 0.44 510 219 24: 3 60 52 HOWARD CREEK 9 89 91 Current 3.0 . 60 . 6.4 70 7.1 . 0.88 0.66 900 200 644 7 39 54 MYAKKA RIVER (UPPER) 35 89 9S Current 2.1 1.1 105 1 6.3 65 0.8 20 6.8 38 0.78 0.22 400 266 323 86 43 60 OWEN CREEK 4 93 93 Current 20.7 0.2 95 9 3.5 39 11 6.0 37 1.68 0.34 35000 763 71 68 LONG CREEK 9 92 93 Current 1.9 1.0 so 2 6.8 69 11 6.8 15 1.04 0.06 340 322 38 69 WINGATE CREEK 11 92 93 Current 9.2 0.8 113 16 3.4 38 20 6.7 43 1.36 0.35 69 2;0 63 73 WINGATE CREEK 7 76 76 Historical 80 15 1.3 87 34 7.3 58 1.3@ 0.40 27 3 69 74 JOHNSON CREEK 35 76 76 Historical 40 5 4.0 49 2.3 86 24 6.0 8 1.39 0. 07 -01 23 60 LEGEND: BOD-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN MG/L MAX #OBS-MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TURB-TUPB:D:-Y MG/_ ALK-ALKALINITY MG/L CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL UG/L DOSAT-DO I SATURATION NAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TOC-TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON MG/L WQI-WATER Q'_'AL:7Y 2NDEX 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 FLOW-FLOW CFS PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L 00 SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS-HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100102 MYAKKA RIVER MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED SCREENED Is'-EXCEEDS SCREENING CRITERIA SCREENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA 10'-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 iOOLIFORM I BIOL I CHIA I SECCHI I I------------------ I I TP I IF 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 I TN>2.0 ITP>.46 ITP>.12 I PH>8.8 I ALK<20 IT'URB>16.5(COND>12751 BOD>3.3 I DO<4 ITOT>3700 IDIART<1.951 CHLA>40 I SD<. 7 1 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 TOC>27.51 I BECK<5.5 I � WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 1 MYAKKA RIVER IFAIR Current 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 6 MYAKKA RIVER IGOOD Current 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 8 MYAKKA RIVER IPOOR Historical 0 1 1 x I I 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 f t I 1 0 1 11 UNNAMED CREEK IFAIR Current 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 1 � WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 47 Upper Lake Myakka IGOOD Historical 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I I x 1 0 1 a I � WATER BODY TYPE: SPRING 16 WARM MINERAL SPRING IGOOD Historical 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I a x 1 0 1 1 � WATER BODY TYPE: S7REAM 7 SAM KNIGHT CREEK IFAIR Current 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 24 DEER PRAIRIE SLOUGH IFAIR Current 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 32 Myakka River IFAIR Current 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 39 BIG SLOUGH CANAL fFAI R Current 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 . 1 40 DEER PRAIRIE CREEK IFAIR Current 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 f I x 1 44 MYAKKA RIVER IUNKN Current 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 . I 46 KID LAKE SLOUGH IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I 52 HOWARD CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 x I I a I 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 . 1 54 KYAKKA RIVER (UPPER) IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 a 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 60 OWEN CREEK IPOOR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 x I x I x 1 68 LONG CREEK IGOOD Current 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 69 WINGATE CREEK IPOOR Current 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 f 73 WINGATE CREEK IUNKN Historical 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I I I I 1 1 74 JOHNSON CREEK IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 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 1988 TOT-TOTAL COLIFORM BACTERIA WHICH INDEX USED, WQI OR TSI, IS BECX-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX CURRENT-1989 TO 1993 OXYGEN DWIVD-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-NITROGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100102 MYAXKA RIVER TRENDS-SOURCES-CLEANUP 'x'-DEGRADING TREND 1 1984 -,1993 TRENDS '0'=STABLE TREND I----------------------------------------------------- '+'-IMPROVING TREND I 1W T1 T T C Sl P Al T TI B TI D DIT FI T F I<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY '.'=MISSING DATA IQUALITY RANK IOVER-IQ or SI N P H DI H Ll U Sl 0 01 0 01C ClE L I I------------- I ALL 11 11 L I KI R Sl D Cl St0 01 M 0 1 I WQI ITRENDI I A I I B I I AlL LlP W I WATERSHED I MEETS OR I I I I I I I TII Il I ID NA14E IUSE ? TSI I I I I I I I I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ----- ------------------------ I------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- � WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY I MYAKKA RIVER )PARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 .1 0 .1 .1 0 01 0 1 6 MYAKKA RIVER IYES GOOD I 8 KYAKKK RIVER IND PCORI 11 UNNAMED CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 .1 0 .1 1 0 010 010 1 � WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 47 Upper Lake Myelk, IYES GOOD I I I I I I I I I I � WATER BODY TYPE: SPRING 16 WARM MINERAL SPRING IYES GOOD I � WATER BODY TYPE, STREAM 7 SAM KNIGHT CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I 24 DEER PRAIRIE SLOUGH IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 . .I + .1 .1 0 01 0 010 010 0 1 32 Myakka River IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 x 1 0 0 0 1 x 1 0 .1 0 .1 0 010 xI0 . 1 39 BIG SLOUGH CANAL IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 x 1 0 0 1 0 .1 0 .1 0 01 0 010 010 0 1 40 DEER PRAIRIE CREEK IPARTIAL FAIR[ 0 1 0 1 0 x 1 0 .1 . .1 0 01 0 010 010 0 1 44 KYAKKA RIVER IND UNKN 1 0 1 x 1 0 + 1 0 .1 0 .1 . 01 0 01x 010 0 1 46 )fUD LAKE SLOUGH IND FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 .1 0 1 . 0 0@ 0 010 +10 0 1 52 HOWARD CREEK IYES GOOD 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 .1 0 010 X10 1 54 MYAKKA RIVER (UPPER) IYES GOOD 1 0 1 0 1 + + .1 0 .1 0 .1 .1 0 010 X10 ( 60 OWEN CREEK IND POORI I I . . I . .1 .1 .1 .1 .1- 1 68 LONG CREEK IYES GOOD I I I . . . . I . .1 .1 .1 .1 .1- 1 .69 WINGATE CREEK IND POORI I I I . .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 73 WINGATE CREEK IND UNW I I I I I I I I I 74 JOHNSON CREEK IND FAIRI I I I I I I I I I LEGEND: DOSAT-DO SATURATION TCOLI-TOTAL COLIFORM TURB-TURBIDITY FCOLI-FECAL COLIFORM TEMP-TEMPERA.TURE TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX FOR LAKES AND ESTUARIES ALX-ALKALINITY FLOW-FLOW TN-NITROGEN WQI-WATER QULAITY INDEX FOR STREAMS AND SPRINGS BOD-BIOCHEM. OXYGEN DEMAND MEETS USE-MEETS DESIGNATED USE TOC-T.ORGANIC CARBON CHIA-CHLOROPHYLL PH-PH TP-PHOSPHORUS DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 0 NPS QUALITATIVE SURVEY RESULTS AN "X" INDICATES A PROBLEM WITH POLLUTANT OR SOURCE THE ON MID INDICATES NO STORET INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR THIS WATERSHED -SEE PAGE 11 FOR LEGEND FOR THIS TABLE- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CATNAME-MYAKKA RIVER HUC-03100102 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 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 X 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 1991A MYAKKA RIVER FAIR THREAT 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 2* 2053 TRAILER PARK CANAL THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x X K X X x x x x x x x x 3* 2055 TIPPECANOE BAY THREAT x x x x X. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 4* 2048C Flopbuck Crook THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X. 56 2048B Huckaby Creek THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 6 1991B MYAKKA RIVER GOOD THREAT 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 2048A SAM KNIGHT CREEK FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 8 1991C MYAKXA RIVER POOR THREAT 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 9: 2045 ROCK CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 10 2043 UNNAMED CANAL THREAT x x x x x x x x x x 11 2038 UNNAMED CREEK FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 12* 2034 UNNAI-20 CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 13* 2032 UNNAMED DITCH SYSTEM THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 14* 2037 UNNAMED CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x K x x x x x x x x 15* 2036 UNNAMED CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 16 2026 WARM MINERAL SPRING GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 17* 2031 UNNAMED CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 18* 2010 UNNAMED DITCH SYSTEM THREAT 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 19* 2027 UNNAMED CANAL SYSTEM THREAT x x x x x x x x x K x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 20- 2025 UNNAMED CANAL SYSTEM THREAT 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 21- 2023 UNNAMED CANAL SYSTEM THREAT X X X X X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x A 22- 2029 UNNAMED CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 23* 2006 UNNAMED CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 24 2014 DEER PRAIRIE SLOUGH 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 25* 2024 UNNAMED DITCH 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 26* 2022 UNNAMED CREEK THREAT 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 27* 2011 UNNAMED CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x 28* 2019 UNNA24ED CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x 29* 2013 UNNAMED DITCH SYSTEM 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 30- 2012 UNNAMED DITCH SYSTEM 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 31- 2007 UNNAMED CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x 32 1991D Myakka River FAIR THREAT 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 33* 2005 UNNAMED DITCH GOOD 34* 1998 UNNAMED CREEK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x 35* 2000 UNNAMED CANAL SYSTEM THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 36* 2004 UNN DITCH THREAT x x x x x x x x x x 37* 1989 UNNAMED DITCH SYSTEM THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 38* 1999 UNN DRAIN THREAT x x x x x x x x x x 39 1976 BIG SLOUGH CANAL FAIR THREAT 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 40 1978 DEER PRAIRIE CREEK FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 41* 1990 SHINEY T9,iN SLOUGH THREAT x x x x x x x x x x 42* 1981A Lower Lake Myakka THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 43* 1908 FISH CAMP DRAIN THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 44 1981B MYAKKA RIVER POOR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 45* 1973 MOSSY ISLAND SLOUGH THREAT x x *x x x x x x 46 1958 MUD LAKE SLOUGH POOR GOOD 47 1981C Upper Lake Myakka GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 48* 1967 BUD SLOUGH GOOD 49* 1972 Myakka River THREAT x x x x x x x x 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@MYAKKA RIVER HUC-03100102 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (continued) N B S P 0 S 0 F T F 0 U A E E I A H I 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 5 L U C H 0 D D N 5 S T A I L D E S N Y H L T W L L L L D T R. L H H M D p G 7- 1 D R N M T 50- 1970 SARDIS BRANCH GOOD 51* 1955 WILDCAT SLOUGH GOOD 52 1940 HOWARD CREEK 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 _53* 1960 UNN DITCH GOOD 54 1877A MYAKKA RIVER (UPPER) GOOD THREAT X X X X X K X X X x x x x x x x x X X X X X X 55* 1949 UNNAMED CREEK THREAT 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* 1952 SAND BRANCH THREAT x x 57* 1942 TATUM SAWGRASS SLOUGH THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 58* 1943 INDIAN 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 59* 1946 UNN DRAIN THREAT x x 60 1933 OWEN CREEK POOR THREAT x x 61* 1935 MAPLE CREEK THREAT x x 62* 1927 OGLEBAY CREEK THREAT x x 63* 1877B Myakka River (upper) THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x K X X K x X X X X X X X 64* 1920 OWEN BRANCH THREAT x x 65* 1918 UNNAMED DITCH THREAT x x 66* 1922 BOGGY CREEK THREAT x x x x K x x x 67* 1919 SAND SLOUGH THREAT x x 68 1917 L014G CREEK GOOD THREAT x x 69 1869B WINGATE CREEK POOR THREAT x x 70* 1909 COICER CREEK THREAT x x 71* 1902 TAYLOR CREEK THREAT x x 72* 1894 YOUNG CREEK THREAT x x 73 1869C WINGATE CREEK POOR THREAT x x 74 1882 JOHNSON CREEK POOR THREAT x x 75* 1869A Johnson Creek THREAT x x 76* 1867 UNNAMED CREEK THREAT x x t_j Branch Lake Hancoc PEACE RIVER .')WLEGS CREEK CHARLIE CREEK HORSECREE PEACE R WATER QUALITY PEACE RIVER 13ASIN GOOD 03100101 THREATENED AVERAGE WATER QUALITY FAIR 1984-1993 STORET DATA POOR WATERSHED ID NUMBERS LINK MAP TO TABLES INDICATES QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT UNKNOWN page 73 PEACE RIVER BASIN ---------------- - ---- - -------------------------------------- - Basic F Drainage Area: 2,300 square miles Major Land Uses: agriculture, mining, rangeland Population Density: moderate (Winter Haven, Bartow, Lakeland, Port Charlotte) Major Pollution Sources: mining and fertilizer production, agriculture, WWTP, rangeland Best Water Quality Areas: Peace River tributaries in the southern portion of the basin Worst Water Quality Areas: Lake Hancock and tributaries, Lake Effie, Banana Lake, Upper Peace River Water Quality Trends: stable quality at 8 sites, improvement in several reaches of Upper Peace River and Banana Lake, degradation in Horse Creek OFW Waterbodies: Highlands Hammock State Park Payne Creek State Historic Site SWIM Waterbodies: Banana Lake Winter Haven Chain of Lakes Reference Reports: 1990 Lake Water Quality Report, Polk County, Florida, Polk County Water Resources Division, 1990 Myakka and Peace River BAS, DEP (Punta Gorda), 1984 Polk County Lakes Water Quality Report, Polk County, 1988 Myrtle Slough BAS, DEP (Punta Gorda), 1986 Florida Rivers Assessment, DEP/FREACINPS, 1989 Basin Water Quality Experts: Jeff Spence, Russell Forrest, Michele Medani, Polk County, 813/533-2151 Ford Walton, DEP (Punta Gorda), 813/639-4967 Doug Farrell, DEP (Tampa), 813n44-6100 Steve Palmer, DEP (Tallahassee), 904/488-0780 Kathi Hammett, USGS, 813/228-2124 Tom Fraser, Dexter Bender and Associates, 813/334-3680 Gerold Morrison, SWFWMD (Brooksville), 813n96-7211 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the New Consolidated Minerals, Inc. has proposed a 17,000 acre mining and processing complex in DeSoto County that would straddle Horse Creek, one of the last remaining good quality tributaries to the Peace River. Banana Lake restoration plans - SWIM hired a contractor to dredge 74 muck from the lake, another contractor sued and obtained an injunction. It is still pending. * Implementation of the Polk County Surface Water Protection Code. This code has some of the most stringent setbacks for septic tanks and structures Constructed adjacent to lakes and rivers in the state. * U.S. Agri-Chemicals will face a penalty for a spill of 175 irtillion gallons of recycled mine water into the Peace River and its tributaries. * Mobil Mining and Minerals discharged improperly treated mine water from their Ft. Meade Mine on three separate occasions (Feb. and July 1992, and July 1993). They were fined $13,773.63 for the 1992 incident, and $4,150.04 for the 1993 incident. The Peace River has been identified for additional water supply de%,elopment at a facility located 19 miles above the river mouth. The expansion of the water treatment plant and the extension of a regional supply pipeline to Sarasota County is called the Peace River Option. Water storage will rely on an offstream reservoir and aquifer-storage-recovery facilities. Regulatory review (including hydrologic and environmental) of the Peace River Option will occur in the summ er of 1994. Ecological Characterization The Peace River originates in the Green Swamp and some of the numerous partially connected lakes of central Polk County. It coalesces into a defined stream near Bartow and flows generally southwest for approximately 105 miles, entering Charlotte Harbor. The drainage area encompasses over 2,300 square miles. Numerous lakes and large areas of poorly drained swamps in the headwaters of the Peace River act as important recharge areas for the Floridan Aquifer. The mean flow of the Peace River is 900 cfs, recorded at Arcadia 36 miles upstream from the river mouth. The Peace River is a blackwater stream. The river corridor itself has little development and is mostly lined by cypress and hardwood floodplain. It is a popular canoe trail from Ft. Meade to Arcadia. Primary tributaries of the Peace River include Peace Creek, Saddle Creek, Charlie Creek, Horse Creek, and Shell Creek. Major urban areas in the upper basin include Lakeland, Winter Haven and Bartow. At the river's mouth are Port Charlotte and Punta Gorda. Land use in the upper portion of the Peace River Basin is predominantly agricultural. An additional large percentage of barren land (about 251/o) reflects the extensive phosphate mining activities that have been prevalent in the upper basin and the headwaters of many of its tributaries. In the lower portion of the Peace River Basin, land use consists primarily of agriculture and rangeland. Citrus groves are prevalent in the middle river reaches. Pollution sources in the Peace River Basin include domestic wastewater discharges, industrial discharges from phosphate mining activities, chemical and citrus processing plants, and surface runoff from urban, agricultural, rangeland and barren (mined) areas. Anthrovogenic I!ppacts This basin has four major classes of pollution sources that affect different areas along the river and its tributaries. In the northern portion of the basin both domestic and industrial point sources and urban stormwater severely impact water quality. Another portion of the upper basin has been affected by phosphate mining. Most of the major tributaries throughout the basin have agricultural and rangeland runoff to a greater or Icsser degree. 75 The worst water quality problems originate in the upper portion of the basin. Lake Parker, Banana Lake, and Lake Hancock and their tributaries (Stahl Canal, Banana Lake Canal, and Lake Lena Run) have some of the poorest water quality in the State with elevated nutrients, periodic low DO, high pH, high bacteria counts and severely depressed biological indicators. Lake Parker is also affected by thermal discharge from a power plant which raises its ambient temperature several degrees above other nearby lakes. Banana Lake has long been considered one of the most polluted lakes in the State. In August, 1990, Polk County began the dredging of almost 1,000,000 cubic yards of sediment from the lake bottom. A tributary, the Stahl Canal, historically received effluent from a Lakeland WWTP. That facility is now discharging to a former phosphate mine converted to an artificial wetland. That wetland drains to the Alafia River. Since the point sources were removed from the system, Banana Lake has shown some recovery (lower chlorophyll values), though nutrients are still elevated. Total phosphorus values greater than 0.80 mg/I were recorded in 1990. Lake Hancock, with extremely poor water quality, is fed by three polluted streams or canals. One of these, Lake Lena Run, had one of the worst water quality index values in the State in 1983. During two sampling events in the spring of 1981, only three species of macroinvcrtebrates were found, which generated a diversity index of less than 0.25. Most of its flow is made up of effluent from three citrus processing companies, a chemical plant, a distillery, the Auburndale WWTP, and runoff from rangeland, a sprayfield, and a dump site for citrus waste. The City of Auburndale only has an emergency discharge to Lake Lena Run. All of their cffluent is reused on citrus groves. DEP has performed several intensive surveys and wasteload allocations of this area over the last ten years. The models have indicated that the flow from the dischargers would actually be beneficial to the stream and receiving lake if the nutrients were removed; therefore, more strict loading limitations have been set. The second problem drainage to the Lake Hancock is from the Banana-Hancock Canal. Finally, upper Saddle Creek, the third Lake Hancock tribuwy, is degraded primarily by urban stormwater runoff. Problems caused in Lake Hancock, as a consequence of the poor water quality in its tributaries and agricultural runoff and phosphate strip mining directly adjacent to the lake, include year-round algal blooms and frequent fish kills. Historically, discharges from Lake Hancock during the rainy season severely affected water quality downstream and caused massive die-offs of river fauna. Recently, the discharges have been timed better and the die-offs have not reoccurred. A lake restoration plan (involving mining the lake) was investigated by a Legislatively-appointed committee, but found to be not economicafly practical. A more recent lake restoration plan put forth by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission involved dewatering the lake for a time. It was vetoed due to concerns over Bald Eagle nesting, and strong opposition from commercial (tilapia) fisherman. Between Lakes Hancock and Hamilton, there are several other small loosely connected lakes, streams, and the City of Winter Haven. The lakes receive various combinations of industrial effluent, domestic discharge and urban runoff. Polk County received federal grants to clean up some of the pollution problems in several of these lakes. A 1985 2050) report prepared by Polk County indicates that corrective actions, especially the removal of domestic dischargers, have resulted in marked improvements in the Trophic State Index (TSI). Additionally, the Winter Haven Chain-of-Lakes has been adopted as a SWIM priority. Most lakes, however, continued to be in the eutrophic range of TS1 values. Lake Hamilton was no, included in his study, but presumably is typical of the region's problem lakes. Peace Creek, located in the upper portion of the basin, periodically receives slugs of pollution from some of the upstream lakes (particularly Lake Effie), indirect discharge from the Winter Haven WWTP, and rangeland runoff. it appears from intensive survey sampling and a DEP district study that water quality in lower Peace Creek is often quite good but because of periodic pollution events is rated as fair. The City of Lake Wales 76 working towards a goal of 100% effluent reuse. discharges to the Peace Creek Drainage Canal, however, the City (with Departmental encouragement) is The Peace River in the vicinity of Bartow, Fort Meade, and Zolfo Springs is degraded by several phosphate mining and fertilizer industries. Strip mining of phosphate rock occurs (or has occurred) within the drainage of the river and most of its tributaries (Bowlegs Creek, Whidden Creek, Little Charlie Creek and Troublesome Creek) in this stretch. Although waters flowing through phosphate strata have higher background concentrations of phosphorus, these mining operations contribute far greater nutrient loading than natural background loads. Furthermore, mining disrupts the flow regime of the smaIl creeks and severely limits habitat for biota. The Peace River relies upon these tributaries for biological recruitment. In addition to the mining operations, this area has many citrus groves so pesticides may cause further threats to aquatic life. The mine in Bowlegs Creek is closing and some of their reclamation area may be given to Ft. Meade to use for final wetland treatment of their WWTP discharge. The City of Bowling Green also discharges to the Peace River just upstream of it's confluence with Payne Creek. The effluent travels to the river via a small tributary that flows through the Payne Creek State Historic Site (a state park and OFW). Bowling Green is currently under a consent order to remove it's discharge from the park and go to reuse or a land application method of disposal. South of Troublesome Creek there are few point sources, except for the City of Arcadia WWTP which has a faulty collection system. The nonpoint sources shift from mining operations to agricultural and rangeland runoff. Because of this less intensive land use and with the confluence of Horse Creek (a relatively undisturbed tributary system) the Peace River exhibits relatively good water quality. The only exception as it enters Charlotte Harbor is high phosphorous content. The Prairie Creek and Shell Creek drainage is threatened by increased urban development occurring in the area. Near its confluence with the Peace River, Shell Creek has been impounded for drinking water; however, withdrawals are relatively small (about 5 cfs). The estuarine portion of the river is affected by the development of Port Charlotte and Punta Gorda. Construction and urban runoff add sediment and nutrients to the estuary. The Punta Gorda WWTP has converted from surface water discharge to spray irrigation. The spray fields, however, are underdrained and flow to Myrtle Slough. The plant has been directed to convert to advanced treatment. A five year study by FGFWFC found that the upper and lower ends of the Peace River have fishery problems, but the middle section is fairly clean with plentifid fish. In the upper section of the river the composition of fish populations, largely gar and tilapia, reflects the environmental impacts of drainage from Lake Hancock and the Peace Creek Drainage Canal. By the time the river reaches Wauchula, better quality water inputs from tributaries change the makeup of fish populations. In the middle section of the river largemouth bass, bluegill and sunfish can be found in addition to tilapia and gar. Diversity decreases near the river mouth at Punta Gorda on the Gulf of Mexico. Charlotte Harbor, and its watershed including the Peace river, has been de signated as a SWIM waterbody. Diagnostic studies of the strearnflow and watcr quality characteristics of the Peace River are now being done as part of the SWIM plan. An important topic has been the causes of declining flows in the upper Peace River. 77 I I Technical workshops sponsored by SWFWMD this coming year will focus on management strategies for i-. the upper Peace River. I i I I I I I I I I I I 1. I I i i 77 11 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100101 PEACE RIVER INDEX GOOD FAIR POOR SURFACE WATER Q*A:.:-.Y DATA FOR 1970-1993 ----------- ----- ----- ----- MEDIAN VALUESS -03, EACH WATERSHED WQI-RIVER 0-14 45-59-60-90 CURRENT PER:0:; OF RECORD (1989-1993) USED WHERE AVAILABLE TSI-ESTUARY 0-49 50-59 60-100 ----- PERIOD PRIOR 7_0 :909 'S 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 WQI TSI � WATER BODY -Y@-_: _--S:'_'AAY 6 PUNTA GO.-CA :5:,--S 2 CA 241 76 76 Historical 0 7 12 0:60 0.367 406 7 PUNTA GO.R--A :S'---S CA 1298 74 76 Historical 2.0 1:3 20 6."85 68 2'.4 13 7:7 0 25 0. 9 68 12 3584'5 4 8 PEACE R ' R ES77ARY 20 89 93 Current 2.0 1.5 35 13 5.5 66 2.7 5 7.6 0.77 0.18 12 8 37850 51 12 ALLIGA70--, BAY 2 92 92 Current 3.5 100 5 5.2 64 3.1 7.2 1.58 0.35 9 22 24730 57 13 PEACE R M:-- -_S7_TARY 22 89 93 Current 3.0 55 12 6.0 71 2.3 7.3 1.03 0.29 16 120 18 25000 57 15 SHELL C R --- T-K 48 89 93 Current 3.4 0.8 89 6 6.3 73 1.8 7.3 156 1.14 0.08 1 320 103 918 55 19 PEACE R ":---:L 42 92 93 Current 4.8 0.7 171 5 5.3 62 1.0 23 7.1 58 1.58 0.67 5 270 68 2417 59 25 PEACE R A:- 7"OR70V SR 6 90 90 Current 1.8 2.0 45 6.6 73 0.7 7.2 1.50 0.96 1 59 479 41 29 PEACE R A-z HORSE CK 8 89 90 Current 3.3 . 145 6.9 83 1.3 7.0 1.84 1.11 4 227 354 47 34 PEACE R * :.^S:@:A CK 93 B9 92 Current 2.5 0.6 130 6.0 65 1.4 20 7.1 62 1.85 1.09 3 133 64 404 633 68 � WATER BODY 7Y@--: :.KKE 1 LAKE 49 77 84 Historical 3.0 2.0 7.2 85 1.7 22 7.4 . 0.45 0.05 2 190 31 67 Lake Buff= 37 80 81 Historical 3.5 0.7 32 7.1 91 5.3 1 0.41 0.05 3 112 43 76 LAKE EFFF.- OUTLET 56 70 73 Historical 33.3 0.3 41 2.2 38 7.5 157 4.94 1.63 173 459 91 82 Lake Han'cozk 120 73 83 Historical 40.0 0.3 5D 49 10.2 121 6.7 28 9.1 78 4.40 0.75 90 1:2 0 278 85 86 Banana '-ake 58 89 93 Current 36.0 0.3 . . 10.6 109 8.8 52 3.13 0.77 96 200 87 87 LAKE W-,K7-_--,S-_-7 27 76 84 Historical 2.5 1.0 18 8.5 101 3.2 38 13 8.4 72 1.18 0.05 15 21 7 390 57 Be LAKE ELO:SE 45 73 84 Historical 6.1 0.7 45 8.7 101 6.8 61 26 9.2 83 2.08 0.34 24 361 67 89 EAGLE LK<-- 48 80 80 Historical . 0.8 17 8.0 30 0.85 0.02 22 230 56 92 LAKE LULU ^_-_":LE7 37 73 84 Historical 17.5 0.4 70 8.5 99 12.3 183 42 9.2 77 4.21 1.19 46 9 2 339 80 93 LAKE SH:?? 28 76 84 Historical 17.0 0.4 48 9.5 110 12.1 79 24 9.5 62 3.25 0.12 32 21 2 270 77 95 LAKE MAY 13 76 84 Historical 19.5 0.4 50 9.2 113 10.0 78 25 8.5 2.22 0.10 56 226 76 96 LAKE OT:5 67 76 76 Historical 1.0 10 7.2 83 1.1 16 3 8.2 0.46 0.02 . 43 4 240 39 97 CRYSTAL '-k-- 10 92 93 Current 12.3 6.6 80 7.3 79 1.04 0.33 22 175 58 100 LAKE M11RO-1 17 76 84 Historical 6.5 0.5 29 7.3 92 5.2 50 17 8.2 . 1.64 0.06 26 39 9 259 70 101 LAKE CAINN"CN 39 76 84 Historical 6.8 0.6 55 8.5 99 5.5 46 18 8.6 41 2.20 0.08 24 is 2 208 71 105 LAKE HOWA;,:, 2 92 92 Current is 7.0 85 7.2 1.66 0.04 239 52 106 LAKE IDYI.W-:-' 12 76 84 Historical 8.8 0.9 32 8.0 94 3. 0 36 12 7.4 0.91 0.08 31 43 43 188 61 108 LAKE JESS:T- 26 73 84 Historical 6.0 0.7 . 7.6 91 3.5 28 8 8.1 42 0.96 0.09 26 194 61 109 LAKE PA;&z_ R 103 80 81 Historical 2.0 0.6 26 9.1 67 1.68 0.07 27 254 69 110 LAKE LM;A 62 78 79 Historical 33.0 0.4 8.1 96 7.5 37 2.41 0.07 57 194 75 ill LAKE ECHO 10 81 81 Historical 1.0 1.7 0.64 0.01 160 34 113 LAKE LJ C ERN E 55 86 88 Historical . 2.2 8.1 89 5 6.7 5 0.55 0.01 182 30 115 LAKE HENRY 51 80 80 Historical 1.3 0.4 240 8.5 96 37 7.0 1.55 0.13 170 78 116 LAKE AR:A,.,A. 71 76 80 Historical . 1.0 8 9.4 118 4.3 8 8.3 34 1.03 0.05 25 1.8 212 55 117 LAKE TENORO, 19 92 93 Current 17.0 0.9 8.7 107 6.6 44 1.43 0.34 31 113 65 118 LAKE A _1 FR Z D 83 81 81 Historical 2.0 0.7 10.2 94 1.97 0.02 300 54 120 LAKE GIBSON Ill 70 81 Historical 14.6 0.8 65 8.0 84 6.7 13 1.00 0.29 11 121 58 121 LAKE AR-_77.A 140 80 81 Historical 1.1 2.8 12 9.0 93 6.5 4 0.49 0.02 5 223 34 LEGEND: BOD-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN MG/L MAX #OBS-MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES SD-SECCHI DISC METERS 7URB-7URBIDITY MG/L ALK-ALKALINITY MG/: CHIA-CHIOROPHYLL UG/L DOSAT-DO % SATURATION NAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TOC-TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON MG/L WQI-WATER QUALITY INDEX ART-ARTIFICIAL S:TBS7RA7E 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 B107:C :N!)EX COND-CONDUCTIVITY UMHOS FLOW-FLOW CFS PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L -1 m- ow mw NJ* (m, USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100101 PEACE RIVER INDEX GOOD F-A!R ?,C-, SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 1970-1993 ----------- ----- ----- ----- MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED KI-RIVER 0-44 45-59-6-;: CURRENT PERIOD OF RECORD (1989-1993) USED WHERE AVAILABLE TSI-ESTUARY 0-49 50-59 PERIOD PRIOR TO 1989 IS EVALUATED AS HISTORICAL INFORMATION TSI-LAKE 0-59 60-69 7-C' I I BIOLOGICAL WATER WATERSHED WATERSHED DATA RECORD WATER DISSOLVED OXYGEN PH TROPHIC SPECIES QUALITY ID NAME ---------------------- CLARITY OXYGEN DEMAND ALKALINITY STATUS COLIFORM DIVERSITY CON" -_cw 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 F_4DW wQ 1 TSI WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 2 BEAR BRANCH 9 92 93 Current 7.3 0.2 35 7 5.0 55 14 6.9 76 1.31 7.15 1000 698@ 60 4 SADDLE CK AB LK HANCOC 14 92 92 Current 6.5 0.7 110 8 4.7 54 20 7.1 85 1.69 0.3B 378 266 67 5 MYRTLE SLOUGH 16 89 90 Current 4.0 1.1 80 5.2 59 2.1 7.1 1.25 0.17 26 583 2590 59 16 MYRTLE SLOUGH 3 92 92 Current 4.5 100 5.S 61 1.1 7.1 1.52 0.09 5 263 595 51 17 LITTLE ALLIGATOR CREEK 6 91 91 Current 4.0 40 5.9 75 3.1 7.9 1.32 0.17 9 16 22000 46 24 PRAIRIE CREEK 21 89 92 Current 4.6 0.8 110 6.1 68 1.3 7.5 1.38 0.11 2 42 680 z4 44 27 HAWTHORNE CREEK 8 92 93 Current 3.7 0.8 80 4 8.7 91 17 7.6 116 1.69 0.13 1230 909 52 28 MYRTLE SLOUGH 3 92 92 Current 5.0 185 5.1 55 2.7 7.5 . 1.67 0.23 3 433 570 67 31 COW SLOUGH 37 72 74 Historical 4.0 110 0.8 14 7.1 82 0.52 0.03 640 -4 27 32 JOSHUA CK AB PEACE R 26 90 93 Current 2.3 0.4 100 2 5.1 60 0.8 20 7.3 66 1.94 0.17 0 151 6io 32 47 35 HORSE CK AB PEACE R 74 89 93 Current 2.6 0.4 160 5 6.7 76 1.8 18 6.9 34 1.84 0.45 1 343 140 234 48 37 BUZZARD ROOST BRANCH 2 72 72 Historical 6.0 200 6.4 75 3.0 7.0 2.35 63 38 BRANDY BRANCH 7 72 72 Historical 5.5 5.5 61 1.0 6.0 2.28 2. 52 39 C WILL OUTFALL AT CONV 11 92 93 Current 2.5 28 6.6 . 1.00 49 90 40 LIMESTONE CREEK 8 92 93 Current 2.6 0.3 130 2 8.9 89 23 7.2 70 1.04 0.28 375 264 49 41 PEACE R AD CHARLIE CK 15 92 93 Current 7.8 1.0 130 9 6.7 77 19 7.2 62 2.09 1.09 74 323 57 42 CHARLIE CK AB PEACE R 9 90 92 Current 2.9 0.4 208 6.6 80 0.9 6.5 1.73 0.55 55 363 52 44 43 PEACE R AB OAK CK 4 82 83 Historical 5.4 88 15 6.6 74 1.5 16 7.0 2.30 2.33 328 954 57 44 OAK CREEK 4 82 83 Historical 5.2 149 24 7.2 80 2.0 30 7.2 1.75 0.69 320 57 45 LITTLE CHARLIE BOWLEGS 165 72 83 Historical 480 3.8 44 1.4 36 4.8 86 6 '74 46 ALLIGATOR BRANCH 8 92 93 Current 3.7 0.4 145 3 6.1 60 30 6.9 49 1.52 0.71 1186 362 60 41 CHARLIE CK AB OAK CK 6 84 84 Historical 1.9 320 . 3.7 45 6.7 1.53 0.36 0 251 142 60 48 HICKORY CREEK 4 82 83 Historical 1.7 131 8 7.9 86 1.2 18 6.6 1.06 0.56 183 20 39 49 PEACE R AB TROUBLESOME 23 89 92 Current 38 7.4 91 8 7.3 1. 7, 1.27 446 169 46 50 BRUSHY CREEK A 90 90 Current 2.1 100 5.6 61 1.4 6.8 0.94 0.30 53 300 41 51 TROUBLESOME CREEK 10 76 83 Historical 3.2 1.0 90 16 8.1 79 1.1 18 6.7 34 4.95 0.71 25 265 50 52 THOMPSON BRANCH 21 92 93 Current 4.7 0.4 86 4 7.5 84 14 7.1 48 4.92 0.46 768 327 54 53 HORSE CK AB BUSHY CK 11 90 92 Current 1.8 155 10 7.2 80 1.0 6.9 0.90 0.36 213 170 '2 42 54 HOG BRANCH 25 71 '71 Historical 3.9 41 29 52 81 55 PEACE R AB LTL CHARLIE 22 92 93 Current 8.9 0.8 123 10 6.5 78 19 7.2 63 1.90 1.14 54 353 56 56 LITTLE CHARLIE CREEK 17 92 93 Current 3.6 0.6 143 4 7.2 79 20 7.0 58 2.52 0.46 326 355 54 57 PAYNE CREEK 4 92 92 Current 70 . 7.6 92 7.8 . 2.02 0.51 375 4z 48 58 PAYNE CREEK 8 93 93 Current 3.3 0.6 100 2 7.3 79 18 7.1 53 3.00 0.78 1,28 312 49 59 PEACE R AB PAYNE CK 46 89 93 Current 3'80.6 130 2 6.7 73 25 6.7 39 1.87 0.59 1 55 133 259 55 60 PAYNE CREEK 8 92 93 Current 3.5 1.0 30 6 7.1 78 11 7.4 90 1.78 0.47 298 3'? 4 48 61 BOWLEGS CREEK 56 74 83 Historical 4.5 0.4 90 2 7.2 73 1.0 19 7.0 61 1.66 0.60 0 300 41 62 MINED AREA 31 89 89 Current 0.8 . 80 2 7.1 . 1.02 0.36 314 21 63 WHIDDEN CREEK 145 70 83 Historical 6.8 0.6 21 11 4.5 52 2.0 24 8 7.2 73 2.62 8.71 11 520 9 72 64 PEACE R AB WHIDDEN CK 15 92 93 Current 3.9 0.9 30 4 6.1 70 9 7.2 88 0.68 2.30 . 133 576 42 LEGEND: BOD-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN MG/L MAX 0OBS-MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TURB-TURBIDITY ALK-ALKALINITY MGIL CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL UG/L DOSAT-DO i SATURATION NAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TOC-TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON MG/L WQI-WATER QUAL:-.Y :,DBX 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 CFS PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100101 PEACE RIVER INDEX GOOD FAIR POOR SURFACE WA7-_-A QUALITY DATA FOR 1970-1993 ----------- ----- ----- ----- MEDIAN VA:@U-_-S 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 ?R:Ok TO 1999 IS EVALUATED AS HISTORICAL INFOP14ATION TSI-LAKE 0-59 60-69 70-100 1 1 BIOLOGICAL WATER WATERSHED WATERSHED DATA RECORD WATER DISSOLVED OXYGEN PH TROPHIC SPECIES QUALITY ID NAMEE ---------------------- 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 WQI TSI 65 STv< 31,XNCH 8 92 93 Current 2.4 0.2 55 1 6.7 70 8 7.0 44 1.39 0.23 255 213 40 68 PEACE R AB BOWLEGS CK 77 89 92 Current 10.4 0.6 120 15 5.2 58 13 7.3 64 1.72 1.23 250 540 24 65 74 BEAR BRANCH 26 74 74 Historical 4 7.8 82 2.0 27 . 6.0 38 1.48 37 77 SA="_T_ CREEK 23 89 92 Current 22.5 0.6 1'75 33 7.2 87 25 8.0 58 4.21 0.41 215 2*93 57 58 90 LAKE -LU RUN 6 71 73 Historical 9.0 111 3.2 28 237 0 50 94 BAN@N@ :AKE CANAL 7 92 92 Current 25.4 0.3 85 32 4.7 54 14 7.7 64 2.27 0.91 37 475 Ise 75 98 LAKEE LENA RUN 82 70 83 Historical 9.7 0.3 210 23 1.1 20 18.0 48 35 7.2 139 4.99 0.43 37 600 21E4 298 46 85 99 PEACE CREEK DR CANAL 8 92 93 Current 9.7 0.3 230 10 4.6 51 34 6.3 29 2.12 0.22 525 271 73 104 SAD-"_T_ CREEK 23 73 83 Historical 6.5 96 15 4.1 45 1.7 19 7.0 1.27 0.48 215 153 66 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-ALKA_11\':T.Y 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-ARTIF'C:AL SUBSTRATE DI COD-CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L END YR-ENDING YEAR NITRO-TOTAL NITROGEN MG/L TOTAL-TOTAL COLIFORM MPN/100ML BEG YR-BEG:N.N:NG SAMPLING YEAR COLOR-COLOR PCU FECL-FECAL COLIFORM MPN/100ML PH-PH STANDARD UNITS TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX BECK-BECK'S B:OTIC INDEX COND-CONDUCTIVITY UMHOS FLOW-FLOW CPS PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L so an few w m mm mmm@ @mwmmwmam mom SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100101 PEACE RIVER MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED SCREENED 'x'=EXCEEDS SCREENING CRITERIA I SCREENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA '0'=WITHIN SCREENING CRITERIA '-'-MISSING DATA I RANK DATA RECORDI IN 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------------------ f 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 IALK<20 ITURB>16.51COND>12751 BOD>3.3 I DO<4 ITOT>3700 IDIART<1.951 CHLA>40 I SD<.7 1 ID NAME i TSI HISTORICAL I I I PH<5.2 I I TSS>18 I I COD>102 I IFECAL>4701DINAT<1.5 I I I ----- -------------------------------------------- I I TOC>27.51 IBECK<5.5 I I i � WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 6 PUNTA GORDA ISLES 2 CA IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 x I I I a 1 0 1 1 I PUNTA GORDA ISLES CA IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 8 PEACE R LOWER ESTUARY IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 12 ALLIGATOR BAY IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 _x 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 13 PEACE R MID ESTUARY IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 15 SHELL CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 19 PEACE R UPPER ESTUARY IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 -.0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 25 PEACE R AB THORTON BR IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 29 PEACE R AB HORSE CK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 . 1 34 PEACE R AB JOSHUA cK IPOOR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x i � WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 1 LAKE HARTRIDGE IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 67 Lake Buffum IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 76 LAKE EFFIE OUTLET IPOOR Historical I x i x 1 0 k 0 t x x k I x i x 1 82 Lake Hancock IPOOR Historical I x I x I x 1 0 1 x I I x 1 0 1 x I x I x 1 86 Banana Lake IPOOR Current I x I I x 1 0 1 0 1 x I I 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 87 LAKE WINTERSET IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 88 LAKE ELOISE IFAIR Historical I x I I x I x 1 0 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 89 EAGLE LAKE IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 92 LAKE LULU OUTLET IPOOR Historical I x I x I x 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 93 LAKE SHIPP IPOOR Historical I x I 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 x x 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 95 LAKE MAY IPOOR Historical I x I 1 0 1 0 1 1 x x 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 96 LAKE OTIS IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 97 CRYSTAL LAKE iGOOD Current 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 100 LAKE MIRROR IPOOR Historical 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I 101 LAKE CANNON IPOOR Historical I x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I 105 LAKE HOWARD IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 . i 106 LAKE IDYLWILD IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 t 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 108 LAKE JESSIE IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 109 LAKE PARKER IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I 110 LAKE LENA IPOOR Historical I x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 x I x i 111 LAKE ECHO IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 i 113 LAKE LUCERNE IGOOD Historical I a I 1 0 1 0 1 x I I 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 115 LAKE HENRY IPOOR Historical 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 1 x i 116 LAKE ARIANNA IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 a I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 117 LAKE TENOROC IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 118 LAKE ALFRED IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 a I 1 0 1 120 LAKE GIBSON IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 121 LAKE ARETTA IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 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 1988 TOT-TOTAL COLIFORM 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-BIOLOGIM DIVERSITY DIART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY PH-PH TURB-TURBIDITY CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL DINAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TN-NITROGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS 00 SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100101 PEACE RIVER MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED SCREENED 'x'---XCEEDS SCREENING CRITERIA SCREENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA '0'-WITHIN SCREENING CRITERIA I '-M:SSING DATA I I I I I I I I 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 CHLA I SECCHI I I------------------ I I TP I TP I I I TEE I I DEMAND I I BACTI I DIV I I DISC I I viol 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 IALK<20 ITURB>16.51COND>12751 BOD>3.3 I DO<4 ITOT>3700 IDIART<1.951 CHLA>40 i SD<. 7 1 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 I BECK<5.5 I I WATER BODY TYPE: STREXM 2 BEAR BRANCH IPOOR Current 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x I x 4 SA:)D'-E'CK AB LK HANCOC IPOOR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 5 @`YRTLE SLOUGH IFAIR Current 1 0 1 6 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 16 MYRTLE SLOUGH IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 17 'LITTLE ALLIGATOR CREEK !FAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 a 1 0 1 1 0 1 24 PRAZ'RIE CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 27 HAWTHORNE CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 28 MYRTLE SLOUGH IPOOR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 31 COW SLOUGH IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 32 JOSH7-_TA CK AB PEACE R IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 35 HORSE CK AB PEACE A IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 37 BUZZARD ROOST BR.ANCH IPOOR Historical I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 38 BRANDY BRANCH IFAIR Historical I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 39 C WILL OUTFALL AT CONV IPOOR Current I . I x I 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 x I I 40 LIMESTONE CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 41 PEACE R AB CHARLIE CK IFAIR Current I x I x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 42 CHARLIE CK AB PEACE R IGOOD Current 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 x 1 43 PEACE R AB OAK CK IFAIR Historical I x I x I 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 44 OAK CREEK IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 1 x I I x 1 0 1 1 1 1 45 LITTLE CHARLIE BOWLEGS IUNKN Historical I . I . I I x I I I I x I x I I I I 46 ALLIGATOR BRANCH IPOOR Current 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 a 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 x I I I x 1 17 CHARLIE CK AB OAK CK IPOOR Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 48 HICKORY CREEK IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 49 PEACE R AB TROUBLESOME IFAIR Current 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 50 BRUSHY CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 51 TROUBLESOME CREEK IFAIR Historical I x I x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 52 THOMPSON BRANCH IFAIR Current I x 1 0 1 1 a 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x I I x 1 53 HORSE CK AB BUSHY CCK !GOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 - 1 54 HOG BRANCH IUNKN Historical I . I . I I I I I I x I x I I I . 1 55 PEACE R AB LTL CHARTE 1FAIR Current 1 0 1 x I I a 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 56 LITTLE CHARLIE CREEK IFAIR Current I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 57 PAYNE CREEK IFAIR Current I x I x I 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 . I 58 PA@NE CREEK IFAIR Current I x I x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 59 PEACE R AB PAYNE CK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 60 PAYNE CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 61 BOWLEGS CREEK IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 62 MINED AREA IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 63 WHIDDEN CREEK IPOOR Historical I x I x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 64 PEACE R AB WHIDDEN CK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 LEGEND: COND-CONDUCTIVITY FECAL-FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA TP-PHOSPHORUS WQI OR TSI-WATER QUALITY INDEX RATING ALK-ALKA-,INITY DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN HISTORICAL-1970 TO 1988 TOT-TOTAL COLIFORM BACTERIA WHICH INDEX USED, WQI OR TSI, IS BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX CLJRRENT-1989 TO 1993 OXYGEN DEMAND-BOD,COD,TOC TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS BASED ON WATERBODY TYPE BIOL DIV-BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY DIART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DIV13RSITY PH-PH TURB-TURBIDITY CHIA- CHLOROPHYLL DINAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TN-NITROGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS 0C SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100101 PEACE RIVER MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED SCREENED IXI.EXCEEDS SCREENING CRITERIA SCREENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA 0'-WITHIN SCREENING CRITERIA '.'=MISSING DATA I RANK DATA RECORDI TN I STREW I LAKE PH ALK TTJRB COND OXYGE14 I DO I COLIFORM I BIOL t CHL& ISECCH: I------------------ I I TP I TP I I I TSS I DEMAND I I BACTI I DIV I I D:SC 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 I TP>.12 I PH>8.8 IALK<20 ITURB>16.51COND>12751 BOD>3.3 I DO<4 ITOT>3700 IDIART<1.951 CHLA>40 I S@<._, 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 ----- -------------------------------------------- t t 1 IOC>2'1.51 1 1 BECK<5.5 I i 65 SINK BRANCH IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 x 68 PEACE R AB BOWLEGS CK IPOOR Current 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 x 74 BEAR BRANCH IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 a I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 11 SADDLE CREEK IFAIR Current t x 1 0 1 1 0 1 D I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 x 90 LAKE LULU RUN IFAIR Historical I . I . I I I I 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 94 BANANA LAKE CANAL IPOOR Current I x I x I 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 x 98 LAKE LENA RUN IPOOR Historical I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x I I x I x I x I 1 0 1 x 99 PEACE CREEK DR CANAL IPOOR Current I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 x I I I x 104 SADDLE CREEK IPOOR Historical 1 0 1 x i 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 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 1988 TOT-TOTAL COLIFORM BACTERIA WHICH INDEX USED, MI OR TSI, IS BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX CEJRRENT-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 0C SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT -- USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 0300101 PEACE-RIVER'_ TRENDS-SOURCES-CL-z,AN`UP 'x'-DEGRADING TREND 1 1984 - 1993 TRENDS '0'-STABLE TREND I----------------------------------------------------- '+*-IMPROVING TREND I 1W T1 T T C Sl P Al T T1 B T1 D D1 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 11 11 L I KI R Sl D Cl Sl 0 01 M 0 1 I 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 Tl I I[ I ID NAME IUSE ? TSI I I I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ----- ------------------------ I------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- � WATER BODY TYPE: ES%'ARY 6 PUNTA GORDA ISLES 22 CA iYES GOODI I I I I I I I 1 1 7 PUNTA GORDA ISLES CA IYES GOODI I I I I I I I 1 1 8 PEACE R LOWER EST'-'ARY IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 01 0 .1 0 01 0 .1 0 01 01 0 1 12 ALLIGATOR BAY IPARTIAL FAIR] . I . I . . . . I . .1 . .1 . .1 . .1 .1 . 1 13 PEACE R MID ESTI-AAY IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 01 0 .1 x 01 0 .1 0 01 0 X1 0 1 15 SHELL CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 x 0 .1 0 .1 x .1 0 .1 0 +1 0 X1 x 1 19 PEACE R UPPER EST-ARY IPARTIAL FAIRI . I . I . . I . .1 . .1 - .1 - .1 . .1 . 1 25 PEACE R AB THORTON BR IYES GOOD I I I . . . . 29 PEACE R AB HORSE CCK IYES GOOD I I I . . . . 34 PEACE R AB JOSHIJA CK IND POOR I + 1 0 1 + + . .1 0 01 0 .1 01 x X1 0 01 0 x I � WATER BODY TYPE: Lkl(E 1 LAKE HARTRIDGE IYES GOODI I . I . . . . I 67 Lake Buffum IYES GOODI I I I I I I I I I 76 LAKE EFFIE OUTLET IND POORI I I I I I I I 1 1 82 Lake Hancock IND POORI I I I I I I I 1 1 86 Banana Lake IND POORI + I + I + 0 0 01 x .1 + .1 .1 x ml .1 + I 87 LAKE WINTERSET IYES GOODI I I . . . . I 88 LAKE ELOISE IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . 89 EAGLE LAKE IYES GOODI I I I I I 92 LAKE LULU OUTLET IND POCRI I I . . . . I 93 LAKE SHIPP INO POORI I I . . . . I 95 LAKE KAY INO POORI I I . . . . I 96 LAKE OTIS IYES GOOD I I I I 97 CRYSTAL LAKE IYES GOODI I I . . . . I 100 LAKE MIRROR INO POORI I I . . . . I 101 LAKE CANNON ]NO POORI I I . . . . I 105 LAKE HOWARD IYES GOODI I I . . . . I 106 LAKE IDYLWILD IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I 108 LAKE JESSIE IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I 109 LAKE PARKER IPARTIAL FAIRI I I I I I I I I I 110 LAKE LENA IND POORI I I I I I I I I I 111 LAKE ECHO IYES GOODI I I I I I I I 1 1 113 LAKE LUCERNE IYES GOOD I I I . . . . I . .1 . .1 . .1 . .1 .1 . . 1 115 LAKE HENRY INO POOP. I I I I I I I I 1 1 116 LAKE ARIANNA IYES GOODI I I I I I I I 1 1 117 LAKE TENOROC I PART I AL FAIRI . I . I . . I . .1 . .1 . .1 . .1 . .1 . . 1 118 LAKE ALFRED IYES GOODI I I I I I I I I I 120 LAKE GIBSON IYES GOODI I I I I I I' I I I LEGEND: DOSAT-DO SATURATION TCOLI-TOTAL COLIFORM TURB-TURBIDITY FCOLI-FECAL COLIFORM TEMP-TEMPERATURS TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX FOR LAKES AND ESTUARIES ALK-ALKA.LINITY FLOW-FLOW TN-NITROGEN WQI-WATER QULAITY INDEX FOR STREAKS AND SPRINGS BOD-BIOCHEM. OXYGEN D:Mk;D 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 4- ow timm m m am, No No an W ow m so Lm M. so am SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100101 PEACE RIVER TRENDS-SOURCES-CLEANUP 'X'-DEGRADING TREND 1984 - 1993 TRENDS 101-STABLE TREND ----------------------------------------------------- '+'-IMPROVING TREND I 1W TI T T C Sl P Al T TI B TI D D1TF1 T F l<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY '.'-MISSING DATA ]QUALITY RANK IOVER-JQ or Sl N P H DI H Ll U Sl 0 01 0 01CCl E L I I------------- I ALL [I ii L I Ki R Sl D Cl si001 M 0 1 1 WQI ITRENDI I A I t B I I A]LLl P W I WATERSHED I MEETS OR I I I I I I I T1IIl I ID NAME IUSE 7 TSI I t I I I I I I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ----- ------------------------ I------------- I I I I I I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 121 LAKE ARETTA IYES GOODI I I I I I WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 2 BEAR BRANCH [NO POORI I I . . . . I 4 SADDLE CK AB LK HANCOc INO POORI I I . . . . I 5 MYRTLE SLOUGH IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 . .1 0 .1 a .1 0 .1 0 01 .1 0 1 16 MYRTLE SLOUGH @PARTIAL FAIRt I I . . . . I 17 LITTLE ALLIGATOR CREEK ]PARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I 24 PRAIRIE CREEK IYES CvOOD 1 0 1 0 1 0 + . .1 0 .1 .1 .1 0 01 .1 0 0 1 27 HAWTHORNE CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I 28 MYRTLE SLOUGH INO POORI I 1 .1 31 COW SLOUGH ]YES 1500D I I I I I I 32 JOSHUA CK AB PEACE R IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 + .1 0 .1 .1 .1 0 01 1 0 1 35 HORSE CK AB PEACE R IPARTIAL FAIRI x I x I x + 0 .1 0 .1 x .1 0 01 0 01x01 0 0 1 37 BUZZARD ROOST BRANCH INO POORI I I I I I I I 1 1 38 BRANDY BRANCH IPARTIAL FAIRI I I I I I I I 1 1 39 C WILL OUTFALL AT CONV INO POORI I I . . . . I 40 LIMESTONE CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I 41 PEACE R AB CHARLIE cK IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I 42 CHARLIE CK AB PEACE R IYES GOOD I I I . . . . I 43 PEACE R AB OAK CK IPARTIAL FAIRJ I I I I I 44 OAK CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI I I I I I 45 LITTLE CHARLIE BOWLEGS No UNKNI I I I I I I I 1 1 46 ALLIGATOR BRANCH INO POORI I I . . . . I 47 CHARLIE CK AB OAK CK INO POORI I I . . . . I 48 HICKORY CREEK IYES GOODI I I I I I I I 1 1 49 PEACE R AB TROUBLESOME IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 + .1 0 .1 .1 01 0 01 .1 0 0 1 50 BRUSHY CREEK IYES GOOD] I I . . . . I . .1 .1 .1 . .1 .1 - . I 51 TROUBLESOME CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI I I I I I I I 1 1 52 THOMPSON BRANCH [PARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I 53 HORSE CK AB BUSHY CK IYES GOOD I I I . . . . I 54 ROG BRANCH INO UNKNI I I I i I I 1 1 55 PEACE R AB LTL CHARLIE [PARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . 1 .1 .1 . .1 .1 - . 1 56 LITTLE CHARLIE CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . 1 .1 .1 1 57 PAYNE CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I 58 PAYNE CREEK JPAXTIAL FAIRI i I . . . . I 59 PEACE R AB PAYNE CK IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 + . .1 0 .1 0 .1 .1 0 01 01 0 1 60 PAYNE CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I . .1 . .1 .1 . .1 .1 . 1 61 BOWLEGS CREEK IYES GOODI I I I I I I I 1 1 62 MINED AREA )YES GOODI I I . . . . I . .1 . .1 .1 . .1 . 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-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 SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100101 PEACE RIVER TRENDS-SOURCES-CLEANUP 'x'-DEGRADING TREND 1984 - 1993 TRENDS '0'-S7ABLE TREND ----------------------------------------------------- 1+1-IM?ROVING TREND I 1W TI T T C S1 P Al T TI B T1 D DI T P1 T F 1<--- PLEASE REM THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY '.'-YISSING DATA IQUALITY RANK IOVER-IQ or S1 N P H DIH Ll U S1 0 01 0 01 C C1 E L I I------------- I ALL II ii L I KI R. S1 D C1 S1 001 M 0 1 1 WQI ITRENDI I A I IB I I Al L Ll P W I WATERSFEED I MEETS OR I I I I I I I Tj 1 11 1 ID NAME IUSE ? TSI I I I I I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ----- ------------------------ I------------- I I I I I I----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 63 WRTI)DEN CREEK INO POOR I I I 1 1 64 PEACE R AB WHIDDEN CK IYES GOOD I I I . . . . .1 1 65 SINK BRANCH IYES GOOD I I I . - - .1 .1 1 60 PEACE R. AB BOWLEGS CK INO POORI + 1 0 1 + + .10 .1 .1 01 0 01 .1 0 0 1 74 BEAR BRANCH IYES GOOD I I I I I I I I 1 1 77 SADDLE CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRi + 1 0 1 + + .1x .1 .1 01 0 01 .1 0 0 1 90 LMIME LULU RUN IPARTIAL FAIRI I I I I I I I 1 1 94 BAN)QNA LAKE CANAL INO POORI I I . . . . 1 .1 98 LAKE LENA RUN INO POOR I I I I I 99 PEACE CREEK DR CANAL INO POOR I I I . . . . 1 .1 104 SADDLE CREEK INO POORI I I 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-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 0c owl "am ow ms fm m "* @ mw 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-PEACE RIVER HUC-03100101 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- N B 5 P 0 S 0 F T F 0 U A E E T A H T I 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 I I T E E X I M B E E H A a 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 y I 1 0 P N 1 14 1 1 K I E I 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 1 15211 LAKE HARTRIDGE GOOD FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x K x 2 1539A BEAR BRANCH POOR FAIR x x x x x x K x x 3- 1590A LAKE RUBY THREAT x x x x x x x 4 1623N SADDLE CK AB LK HANCOC POOR THREAT 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 x x 5 2054 MYRTLE SLOUGH FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x K x x x x x x x x 6 2070 PUNTA GORDA ISLES 2 CA GOOD FAIR x x x x x x x x K x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 7 2069 PUNTA GORDA ISLES CA GOOD FAIR x x x x x x x x K K x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x B 2056A PEACE R LOWER ESTUARY FAIR THREAT 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 x 9* 2058 UNNAMED DITCH THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 10- 2060 MYAKKA CUTOFF THREAT x x x K x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 11* 2059 CLEVELAND CEM DITCH FAIR x K x x x x x x x x x x x x x K x x x x x x x K x x x 12 2056D ALLIGATOR BAY FAIR THREAT 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 x 13 2056B PEACE R MID ESTUARY FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x K x x x x x x x x x x x x x 14- 2047 UNNAMED CANAL FAIR x x x x x x 15 2041 SHELL CREEK FAIR THREAT 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 16 2040 MYRTLE SLOUGH FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 17 2046 LITTLE ALLIGATOR CREEK FAIR FAIR x x K x x x 18* 2044 CYPRESS SLOUGH THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 19 2056C PEACE R UPPER ESTUARY FAIR THREAT 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 x 20- 2035 LEE BRANCH THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x K x x x x x x x 21- 2033 UNNAMED DRAIN THREAT x x x x 22* 2008 THORNTON BRANCH THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 23* 2028 UNNAND DITC14ES THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 24 1962 PRAIRIE CREEK GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 25 1623A PEACE R AB THORTON BR GOOD THREAT 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 x x 26* 2001 HOG BAY THREAT x x x x 27 1997 HAWTHORNE CREEK FAIR THREAT K x K x 28 1995 MYRTLE SLOUGH POOR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 29 1623B PEACE R AB HORSE CK GOOD THREAT 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 x x 30* 2003 UNNAMED DITCHES THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x K x 31 1964 COW SLOUGH GOOD THREAT x x x x 32 1950A JOSHUA CK AB PEACE R FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x 33* 1986 UNNAMED SLOUGH THREAT x x x x 34 1623C PEACE R AB JOSHUA CK POOR THREAT 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 x x 35 1787A HORSE CK AB PEACE R FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 36* 1950B JOSHUA CK AB HONEY CK THREAT x x x x x x x x x x 41 1623D PEACE R AB CHARLIE CK FAIR THREAT 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 x x 43 1623E PEACE R AB OAK CK FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x K x x x x x x x K x x x x x x x x 49 1623F PEACE R AB TROUBLESOME FAIR THREAT x x x K 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 53 1107B HORSE CK AB BUSHY CK GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x K x x x x x K x x 55 1623G PEACE R AB LTL CHARLIE FAIR THREAT 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 x x 59 1623H PEACE R AB PAYNE CK FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x K x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 61 1677A BOWLEGS CREEK GOOD THREAT x x x x 64 16231 PEACE R AB WHIDDEN CK GOOD THREAT x x x K x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 66* 1677B BOWLEGS CK AB BOGGY CK THREAT x x x x 67 1677C Lake Buffum GOOD THREAT x x x x 68 1623J PEACE R AB BOWLEGS CK POOR THREAT 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 x x x x 69- 1647 LAKE PEMBROKE OUTLET THREAT x x x x 70* 1613 PEACE CR TRIB CANAL THREAT x x x x x x x Oc 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-PEACE RIVER HUC-03100101 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (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 E p W A Q Q I E M I R B Y N E I P R R K L W 1 0 D S F R 3 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 'Z I I 1 0 p N I N I I H I E T P A A 0 A 0 L A E 1 0 Cl S Y N T A R S L U C H 0 D D N 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 71- 1622 LAKE GARF:ELD THREAT x x x x x 72- 1634 MULE ISLAND DITCHES THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 73- !626 WEST WALES DRAINAGE CA THREAT x x x x x x x 75. !629 BRUSH LAKE OUTLET FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x 76 1617 LAKE EFFIE OUTLET POOR FAIR x x x x x x x x x x 77 1623K SADDLE CREEK FAIR THREAT 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 x x x x 78. 1539B MOUNTAIN LAKE FAIR x x x x x x x x x 79@ 1608 UNNAMED SLOUGH FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x So- 1602 UNNAMED DITCHES THREAT x x x x x x x 81. 1598 GASKIN BRANCH FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 82 1623L Lake Hancock POOR THREAT 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 x x x x 83* 1590 LAKE MYRTLE OUTLET THREAT x x x x x x x 84, 1580 WAHNETA FARMS DRAIN CA FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 85. 1588 LAKE MCLEOD OUTLET GOOD 86 1549B Banana Lake 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 x 87 1521A LAKE WINTERSET 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 88 !521B LAKE ELOISE 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 99 1.623M EAGLE LAKE GOOD THREAT 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 x x 90 1,521C LAKE LULU RUN 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 91- 1539C LAKE ANNIE FAIR x x x x x x x x x 92 1521 LAKE LULU OUTLET 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 93 1521D LAKE SHIP? 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 94 1549A BANANA LAKE CANAL 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 x 95 @1521E LAKE MAY 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 96 1539D LAKE OTIS GOOD FAIR x x x x x x x x x 97 1497A CRYSTAL LAKE GOOD FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 98 1.501A LAKE LENA RUN POOR FAIR x x x x x x x x 99 1539 PEACE CREEK DR CANAL POOR FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x 100 1521G LAKE MIRROR 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 101 1521H LAKE CANNON 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 102- 1488A LAKE SMART FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 103- '1504 LAKE HAMILTON OUTLET THREAT x x x x x x 104 1497 SADDLE CREEK POOR FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 105 1521F LAKE HOWARD 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 106 1.521J LAKE IDYLWILD FAIR FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x A x x x x x x x x x x I LAKE FANNIE OUTLET 1488 FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 108 1521K LAKE JESSIE 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 109 1497B LAKE PARKER FAIR FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 110 1501 LAKE LENA POOR FAIR x x x x x x x x III 1488B LAKE ECHO GOOD FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 112- 1521L LAKE MART-ANNA FAIR X X X X X X K X X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 113 1488C LAKE LUCERNE GOOD FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 114* 1500 CHANNELIZED STREAM THREAT x x x x x x 115 1504A LAKE HENRY POOR THREAT x x x x x x 116 LAKE ARIANNA 1501B GOOD FAIR x x x x x x x x 117 '1497C LAKE TENOROC FAIR FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 118 '1488D LAKE ALFRED GOOD FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 119- 1,510 LAKE EVA OUTLET THREAT x x x x x x 0C mmomsommlow am mwvft@mm Imam 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@PEACE RIVER HUC=03100101 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (continued) N B S P 0 S 0 F I F 0 U A E E T A H T T I U I T M T C D S R 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 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 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 C H 0 D D N 5 S I 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 3, N M T 120 1497D LAKE GIBSON GOOD FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 121 1501C LAKE ARETTA GOOD FAIR x x x x x x x x 122* 1492 LAKE TRACY OUTLET THREAT x x x x x x ot Smsota Ba PEN SLOUGH GULF OF MEXICO RRY CREEK OTTFRIED CREEK LEMON SARASOTA BAY BASIN 03100201 WATER QUALITY AVERAGE WATER QUALITY On GOOD 1984-1993 STORET DATA THREATENED WATERSHED 10 NUMBERS LINK MAP TO TABLES FAIR INDICATES QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT POOR UNMOWN page 90 SARASOTA BAY BASIN --------------- ----------------------------------------------- - - - ----- Basic FagU Drainage Area: 268 square miles Major Land Uses: urban development, agriculture Population Density: moderate to high in coastal area (Sarasota, Bradenton, Venice) Major Pollution Sources: urban runoff, WWTP Best Water Quality Areas: Sarasota Bay near passes, Cowpen Slough Worst Water Quality Areas: Whitaker Bayou, Alligator Creek Water Quality Trends: stable quality at 23 sites, improvements at Phillippi Creek, Sarasota Bay and Lemon Bay, worsening trend at Elligrow Bayou OFW Waterbodics: Sarasota Bay Estuarine System Lemon Bay Estuarine System Lemon Bay State Aquatic Preserve SWIM Waterbodies: none Reference Reports: Sarasota County Ambient Water Quality Report, Sarasota County, 1988 Water Quality Status and Trends in Sarasota Bay, Heyl and Dixon, 198 Sarasota Bay: Identification of Resource Management Problems and Issues to EPA, Mote Marine, 1988 Basin Water Quality Experts: Peter Clark, TBRPC, 813/577-5151 Ford Walton, DEP (Punta Gorda), 813/639-4967 Bruce DeGrove, DEP (Tallahassee), 904/488-0780 Ernie Estevez, Mote Marine Lab (Sarasota) 813/388-4441 Doug Farrell, DEP (Tampa), 813n44-6100 Dave Tomasko, SBNEP, 813/361-6133 Mike Heyl, CDM, 813/351-7100 Mike Milligan, Mote Marine Lab, 813/388-4441 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- thr, &1y Sarasota Bay is part of EPA's National Estuary Program. The Cities of Sarasota, Venice And Sarasota County currently have applications under review by DEP for reverse osmosis and/or EDR reject discharges to state waters. Venice and Sarasota County are proposed to discharge to the Intracoastal Waterway. Venice's discharge point will be a combined outfall for their R/O reject and Domestic Wastewater effluent (a relocation of the WArl? discharge). The City of Sarasota is proposed to discharge to Sarasota Bay via a Stormwater outfall at Payne Terminal. 91 � The City of Sarasota also has an application pending for its WWTP to increase the number of discharge days to Whitaker Bayou. � The Army Corps of Engineers and Sarasota County's Stormwater Utility are currently considering a flood control project for the tributaries of Whitake Bayou which involve creek channelization . DEP has suggested they explore other alternatives. � Dredging of Stamp Pass in Lemon Bay has provoked controversy. � DEP has rejected requests from Sarasota County for permit to dredge and reopen Midnight Pass. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ecological Characterization The Sarasota Bay drainage area is 268 square miles and extends from Tampa Bay to Charlotte Harbor. Sarasota Bay, Little Sarasota Bay and Lemon Bay have a combined estuarine area of approximately 24 square miles. This bay is really more like a sound, protected by a strip of barrier islands and receiving little fresh water inflow. There are several small streams, most of which are less than five miles long, that enter the estuary. Nearly all of these streams and relatively clear waters of the basin support healthy, but degrading, seagrass beds. This basin has two major urban centers, Sarasota and Bradenton, and most of the rest of the area is developed into subdivisions and small municipalities. There is also some agricultural drainage in the basin, mostly from citrus groves in the east section of the basin and rangeland at the headwaters of Phillippi Creek and Cow Pen Slough. Sarasota Bay has been designated in Section 317 (National Estuarine Program) of the Water Quality Act of 1987 as an Estuary of National Significance. Anthropo-genic Impacts The major point source of pollution in the basin is the City of Sarasota WWTP which discharges into Whitaker Bayou. Whitaker Bayou has nutrient, DO and coliform problems. The plant has had a long history of enforcement actions taken against it, and the city has explored a variety of political, engineering and permitting options. The plant has been upgraded to an advanced water treatment facility. Currently, a combined system of "ridge and furrow" seepage irrigation and direct discharges to Whitaker Bayou are being used to dispose of wastewater. The plant is allowed a maximum of 59 days per year of direct discharge (primarily Phillippi Creek area). Agricultural and urban stormwater runoff is also a problem in this basin. Many of the streams running through developed areas are affected by septic tanks. Tributaries and direct runoff supply the bay systems with heavy nutrient loading. Seagrass beds are declining in upper Sarasota Bay, especially the eastern side, presumably because high algae concentrations are reducing transparency. Runoff from the Bradenton area and the Manatee County WWTP "ridge and furrow" seepage irrigation (which actually water a fertilized gladiolus farm) provides further nutrient loading. Sarasota Bay, Little Sarasota Bay and Lemon Bay have been declared Outstanding Florida Waters, which should afford them greater protection from both point source and nonpoint source pollution. However, all are threatened by increased boat traffic, seawalling and the replacement of mangroves by lawns and drainage canals. In association with the National Estuarine Program, several local agencies arc conducting water quality monitoring within the bay and beginning a process of establishing a bay management plan. 9@ an m M M M m USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100201 SARASOTA BAY INDEX GOOD FAIR POOR SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 1910-1993 ----------- ----- ----- ----- MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED WQI-RIVER 0-44 45-59-60-90 CURRENT PERIOD OF RECORD (1989-19931 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 BIOLOGICAL KA::T_R WATERSHED WATERSHED DATA RECORD WATER DISSOLVED OXYGEN PH TROPHIC SPECIES Q,:A:.T7y ID NAME ---------------------- CLARITY OXYGEN DEMAND ALKALINITY STATUS COLIFORM DIVERSITY COND FLOW :ND:C__S ----- --------------------------------- 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 WQ: Ts: WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 7 LEMON BAY 28 76 86 Historical 4.0 1.6 20 7.1 82 2.3 8.0 0.44 0.08 14 450 2 4 .4 46375 42 13 ROCK CREEK 4 91 92 Current 2.9 . 15 13 5.0 58 3.0 7.9 3.94 0.09 4 25 46000 @0 14 LEMON BAY 28 89 89 Current 3.0 1.5 15 . 6.7 14 7.9 0.70 0.21 so 5 47250 5 0 17 GOTTFRIED CREEK 13 89 92 Current 2.2 . 25 17 4.7 56 3.2 7.7 1.07 0.16 6 975 80 42250 52 18 FORKED CREEK 8 89 89 Current 4.0 1.2 21 5.1 69 7.1 0.95 0.38 288 55 39575 5z 19 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY 4 89 89 Current 3.0 30 4.4 47 7.6 1.16 0.28 300 100 39950 -9 21 ALLIGATOR CREEK 4 89 89 Current 4.2 63 3.7 41 7.7 1.63 0.33 1750 33S 5245 66 22 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY 16 89 89 Current 5.2 1.3 8 6.6 73 8.1 0.50 0.14 so 10 48685 48 23 HATCHETT CREEK 8 89 89 Current 2.5 . 38 3.7 41 7.4 0.91 0.25 875 295 20645 54 27 DONA BAY 4 89 89 Current 5.2 1.2 15 5.9 65 8.0 0.64 0.18 50 10 46390 28 Little Sarasota Bay 4 89 89 Current 4.1 1.7 5 6.2 69 8.2 0.67 0.15 50 S 43900 46 32 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY 4 89 89 Current 4.5 1.6 13 6.2 68 8.2 0.62 0.16 50 10 48965 47 36 Little Sarasota Bay 13 89 89 Current 4.0 1.4 10 6.7 76 8.2 0.85 0.16 75 8 45920 43 ROBERTS BAY 16 89 89 Current 3. 9 1.2 10 6.3 73 8.1 0.78 0.14 50 5 46430 52 46 Sarasota Bay 6 89 89 Current 2.7 2.0 0 7.0 82 8.3 0.61 0.07 50 8 48468 44 51 HUDSON BAYOU 4 89 89 Current 5.6 . 15 3.8 42 8.0 0.85 0.17 310 200 47640 5-, 52 DIRECT RUNOFF TO SAY 3 89 89 Current 5.0 1.1 10 6.9 82 8.2 0.70 0.10 50 5 47590 53 55 WHITAKER BAYOU 8 89 89 Current 3.0 . 59 3.5 38 7.4 1.52 0.62 12550 560 8763 62 56 DIRECT RUNOFF TO GULF 8 89 89 Current 5.1 1.1 14 5.3 59 7.9 3.71 1.01 125 73 39680 '74 57 Sarasota Bay 46 89 89 Current 3.7 1.6 5 44 6.7 74 8.2 0.72 0.14 3 50 5 486,70 47 59 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY 1520 83 83 Historical 11.3 0. 8 10 47 4.3 43 8.2 0.33 0.07 8 240 260 42000 51 62 Ann& Maria Sound 8 92 92 Current 4.0 0.8 15 27 8.5 97 4 8.2 121 0.54 0.15 2 1 44593 4z � WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 42 CLARK LAKE 4 89 89 Current 7.7 45 6.7 68 7.3 1.23 0.51 4500 995 570 60 � WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 4 Coral Creek E.Branch 28 89 92 Current 2.4 43 13 5.2 63 2.1 7.6 1.48 0.07 10 26 41898 46 26 CURRY CREEK 4 89 89 Current 2.5 65 5.7 63 7.7 1.37 0.28 600 230 1-1430 49 33 NORTH CREEK 4 89 89 Current 4.9 so 3.1 36 7.6 1.40 0.26 2700 1000 33335 71 34 SOUTH CREEK 8 89 89 Current 4.6 48 4.2 46 7.5 1.23 0.35 613 83 21160 54 37 CATFISH CREEK 11 89 92 Current 5.0 0.5 45 27 6.2 78 9 7.9 90 1.29 0.27 6 17500 905 34685 53 38 CLOWERS CREEK 4 89 89 Current 30.5 125 5.7 62 7.4 1.63 0.33 3100 1100 940 74 41 ELLIGRAW BAYOU 8 89 89 Current 5.2 58 3.8 42 7.6 1.33 0.28 2400 680 9S18 66 45 COW PEN SLOUGH 12 89 89 Current 1.3 45 9.2 100 8.2 1.01 0.06 100 45 1075 20 49 PHILIPPE CREEK 20 89 89 Current 2.9 48 6.5 72 7.7 2.29 0.45 1000 12S 1220 47 54 PHILIPPI CREEK 12 89 89 Current 4.6 50 8.1 82 7.5 0.88 0.50 1050 320 480 47 58 BOWLES CREEK 492 70 87 Historical 4.1 45 5.7 65 2.6 8.0 353 240 20000 52 LEGEND: BOD-BIOCHFMICAL 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-CHL40ROPHYLL 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 MPNjl00ML. BEG YR-BEGIN14ING SAMPLING YEAR COLOR-COLOR PCU FECL-PECAL 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 Ic @Ij SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100201 SARASOTA BAY MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED SCREENED 'x'-EXCEEDS SCREENING CRITERIA SCREENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA 10'-WITHIN SCREENING CRITERIA '.'-MISSING DATA RANK DATA RECORDI TS I STREAM I LAKE J PH I AIX I TURB 4 1 COND I OXYGEN I DO 1COLIFORM I BIOL I CHIA SECCRI ------------------ I I TP I TP I TSS I I DEMAND I I BACTI I DIV I I DISC I WQI CURRENT I I I I I I I I I I I WATERSHED I OR OR I TN>2.0 I TP>.46 ITP>.12 J 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 I PH<5.2 I I TSS>18 1 11 COD>102 I IFECAL>4701DINAT<1.5 I I I -------------------------------------------- I TOC>27.51 I BECK<5.5 I - WATER BODY TYPE: 7 LEMON BAY IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 .3 ROCK CREEK IFAIR Current I x I 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 " LEMON BAY IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 x 0 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 GOTTFRIED CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 x 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 18 FORKED CREEK fFAIR Current 1 0 1 x 0 1 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 !9 DIRECT RUNOFF :0 BAY IFAIR Current 1 0 1 x 0 1 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 2'. ALLIGATOR CREEK IPOOR Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I i x 1 0 1 1 22 DIRECT RUNOFF -0 BAY IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 x 0 1 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 23 HATCHETT CREEK iFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 x 0 1 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 . 1 27 DONA BAY IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 x 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 28 Little Sarasota Bay IGOOD Current ( a I I x 0 1 1 a I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 32 DIRECT RU.1,'OFF TO BAY IGOOD Current t 0 1 1 x 0 1 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 36 Little Sardsc-a Bav iFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 x 0 1 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 43 ROBERTS BAY 1FAIR Current 1 0 1 1 x 0 1 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 46 Sarasota Bay IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 51 HUDSON BAYOU IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 x 0 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 1 . i 52 ojpEcT RuNOF-- TOO -BAY IFAIR Current f a f f a 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 55 WHITAKER BAY07: IPOOR Current 1 0 1 x 0 1 0 1 x I x I x I I I . 1 56 DIRECT RUNOFF, 70 G@7L- IPOOR Current I x I x 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 57 Sarasota Bay IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 59 DIRECT RUNOFF -00 BAY IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I x I 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 62 Anna Maria Sound IGOOD Current 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 42 CLARK LAKE IFAIR Current 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I WATER BODY TYPE: S7.,-_AX 4 Coral Ceek FAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 x 1 0 i 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 26 CURRY CREEK FAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 x I f a f 0 1 f f 33 NORTH CREEK 1POOR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x I I x x I 1 1 34 SOUTH CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x I 1 0 0 1 1 37 CATFISH CREEK iFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 x I x 1 0 1 0 x I x 1 38 CLOWERS CREEK IPOOR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I 41 ELLIGRAW BAYU-7 iPOOR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x I x I x I 45 COW PE-N SLOUGH IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 49 PHILIPPE CREE'K IFAIR Current I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 54 PHILIPPI CREEK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 58 BOWLES CREEK IFAIR Historical I I 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 0 1 0 1 LEGEND: COND-coNDUCTIVITY FECAL-FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA TP-PHOSPHORUS WQI OR TSI-WATER QUALITY INDEX RATING ALK-A.LKALINITY DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN HISTORICAL-1970 TO 1988 TOT-TOTAL COLIFORM BACTERIA WHICH INDEX USED, KI OR TSI, IS BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC CURRENT-1989 TO 1993 OXYGEN DEMAND-BOD,COD,TOC TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS BASED ON WATERBODY TYPE BIOL DIV-BIOLOGICA: _':V-5:_y 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 *a, No m m SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100201 SARASOTA BAY TRENDS-SOURCES-CLEANUP 'x'-DEGRADING TREND 1964 - 1953 TRENDS I '0'=STABLE TREND ----------------------------------------------------- '+'-IM?ROVING TREND i 1W If T T C S1 P Al T I) B TI D DI T F1 T F 1<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY '.'-MISSING DATA QUALITY RANK OVER-IQ or S1 N PH DI H Ll U S1 0 01 0 Of C C1 E L I f------------- i ALL 11 11 L I KI R. S1D C1 S1 0 of M 0 1 I WQI !TRENDI t A I I a I I A@ L Ll P W i WA.TERSHED I MEETS OR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TI 1 11 1 ID NAME IUSE ? TSI I i I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT C014DITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ----- ------------------------ I------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 7 LEMON BAY IYES GOODI I 1 .1 .1 .1 1 .1 13 ROCK CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . 1 .1 .1 -t . 1 .1 14 LEMON BAY 1PARTIAL FAIRI + I + 1 0 + +1 0 .1 0 .1 .1 0 01 0 01 + 1 17 GOTTFRIED CREEK 1PARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 .1 + .1 x f .1 0 01 x 01 0 1 18 FORKED CREEK 1PARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 01 0 .t x . I 1 0 01 0 01 0 1 19 DIRECT RUNOFF To BAY IPARTIAL FAIR) 0 1 0 1 0 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 1 0 of 0 01 0 1 21 ALLIGATOR CREEK INO POORI 0 1 0 1 0 0 .1 0 .I x I 1 0 01 0 01 0 1 22 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY IYES GOODI 0 f 0 1 0 0 01 0 .1 0 1 1 x 01 + X1 x 1 23 HATCHETT CREEK 1PARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 .1 0 .1 0 1 0 01 0 01 0 1 27 DONA BAY I PART IAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 01 0 1 0 1 1 0 01 0 01 0 1 28 Little Sarasota Bay IYES GOOD 1 0 1 0 1 0 D 0) 0 1 0 1 1 0 01 0 01 0 1 32 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY IYES GOODI 0 1 0 ; 0 0 01 0 1 0 1 1 0 of 0 01 0 1 36 Little Sarasota Bay JPARTIAL FAIR! 0 1 0 1 x 0 01 0 .1 x .1 .1 0 01 0 01 x 1 43 ROBERTS BAY 1PARTIAL FAIRJ 0 1 0 1 x 0 01 + .1 0 1 0 01 0 Of x 1 46 Sarasota Bay IYES GOODI + I + 1 0 + +1 0 .1 + .1 1 0 01 + 01 0 1 51 HUDSON BAYOU 1PARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 .1 x x 1 0 Of 0 1 52 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY 1PARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 01 0 .1 0 .1 .1 0 01 0 + 10 1 55 WHITAKER BAYOU INO POORI 0 1 0 1 0 0 .1 0 .1 + .1 .1 0 01 x 01 0 1 56 DIRECT RUNOFF TO GULF INO POORJ 0 1 a 1 0 0 of a .1 0 .( .1 0 01 0 Of 0 ( 57 Sarasota Bay IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 0 0 01 0 .1 0 .1 .1 x X1 0 01 0 1 59 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY 1PARTIAL FAIRI I I I I I I I 1 1 62 Ann& Maria Sound IYES GOODI . I . I . . . . I � WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 42 CLARK LAKE [PARTIAL FAIRf 0 1 0 1 0 x .1 0 .1 0 .1 .1 0 01 0 01 0 1 � WATER BODY TYPE: STREA14 4 Coral Creek E.Branch 1PARTIAL FAIRI 26 CURRY CREEK 1PARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 .1 0 .1 x I 1 0 01 0 01 0 1 33 NORTH CREEK No POORI 0 t 0 1 0 0 .1 x .1 0 1 .1 x 01 0 X1 0 1 34 SOUTH CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 .1 x xt 0 01 0 1 37 CATFISH CREEK JPARTIA.L FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 .1 0 01 0 01 0 1 38 CLOWERS CREEK INO POORI 0 1 0 1 + 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 .1 0 01 x X1 0 1 41 ELLIGRAW BAYOU INO POORI x I x 1 0 0 .1 x .1 x .1 .1 x X1 x 01 0 1 45 COW PEN SLOUGH IYES GOOD 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 .1 + .1 0 . 1 0 Of 0 Of 0 1 49 PHILIPPE CREEK )PARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 .I + .1 0 .1 .1 0 01 x 01 0 1 54 PHILIPPI CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI + I + i + 0 .1 + .1 0 .1 .1 + +1 0 01 0 1 58 BOWLES CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI . I I . . . . I . .1 . .1 .1 . .1 . .1 - I LEGEND- DOSAT-DO SATURATION TCOLI-TOTAL COLIFORM TURB-TURBIDITY FCOLI-PECAL COLIFORM TEMP-TEMPERATURE TSI-TROPRIC STATE INDEX FOR LAKES AND ESTUARIES ALK-ALKALINITY FLOW-FLOW TN-NITROGEN WQI-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 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=SARASOTA BAY HUC-03100201 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- N B S P 0 S 0 F T F 0 U A E E T A H I 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 9 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 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 2075A Bar:-'er Island FAIR X x X X x X x X X X x X X X x X X x 2- 2097 DIRT_C7 RUNOFF TO BAY THREAT X x X X x X 3- 2078A CORAL CREEK THREAT X X X x X X x X X X X X X 4 2078B Coral Crook E.Branch FAIR THREAT X X X X x x X X X x X X X 5, 2075B Barrier Island FAIR X X X X X X X X X X x X X X X X X x 61 20'76 DIR7_C7 RUNOFF TO BAY THREAT X X x X X X 7 1983B LE14ON BAY GOOD THREAT 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 S. 2075C Barrier Island FAIR X x X X x X X X k X X X X X x X X X 9- 2068 BUCK CREEK THREAT x X X X X X x x X x X x x X X X X X. X x x DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY x X X X X X, 2072 THREAT X X x X X X X X X X X 2067 OYS7T_R CREEK THREAT X X X X x X X X X X x X X X X x :2- 2075D Bar:-Jer Island FAIR X X X X X X X X X X x X x X X X X X .3 2052 ROCK CREEK FAIR THREAT 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 X '4 1983A LEMON BAY FAIR THREAT 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 - 2051 DIREC7 RUNOFF TO BAY 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 .6- 2050 DITCH THREAT 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 2049 GOTTFR:ED CREEK FAIR THREAT 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 X X x 2039 FORKED CREEK 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 X X THREAT X x X X x X x X X X X x X X X X X X x X .9 2042 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY FAIR X X X x x x 20, 2021 DIR:_CT RUNOFF TO BAY FAIR X x x X X x X X X X X X X X X x X X X x X X X 2- 2030 ALLIGATOR CREEK POOR THREAT 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 22 2018 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY GOOD FAIR X X x X X X X x X X x X X X X X X X x k X X X x 23 2015 HATCHETT CREEK FAIR THREAT 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 X 24- 2016 BLACKBUPW CA14AL 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 25- 2017 DIREC: RUNOFF TO BAY THREAT X X X X x X X X X x X X 26 2009 CURRY CREEK FAIR THREAT X x X X x X X X X X X, X X X X X K X X X X X X x 27 2002 DONA BAY FAIR THREAT 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 28 1968F Little Sarasota Bay 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 29- 1994 SALT CREEK FAIR X X K X X x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x x X X 30, 1)93 DIREC: RUNOFF TO BAY FAIR X x X X X X X X X X x X X X X x x X X x X X X 31- 1996 FOX 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 32 -392 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY GOOD THREAT X X X X x X X x X X X X X X X X X X X X x X X x 33 1984A NORTH CREEK POOR THREAT 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 X x 34 1982 SOUTH CREEK FAIR THREAT 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 3--, 1987 UNNAMED DRAIN THREAT X X x x X X X X X X x X X X X x X 36 1968E Little Sarasota Bay 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 X x 37 1964 CATFISH CREEK FAIR THREAT 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 X x 38 1975A CLOWERS CREEK POOR THREAT 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 X 39- i985 UNNAMED CREEK THREAT X X X X x X X X X X X X X X X X X 40. 1979 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY FAIR x X x X X K x X. X x X x x x X x X X x X X X x x x X 41 1975 ELLIGRAW BAYOU POOR THREAT 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 X X x 42 CLARK 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 43 1968D ROBERTS BAY 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 44* 1966 UNNAMED DITCH 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 X X 45 *924 COW PEI; SLOUGH 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 X X 46 i968C Sarasota Bay 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 47, 1@41 UNNAMED DITCH 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 X 46. i961 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY 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 49 1947 PHILIPPE 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 X X X X x X X M@w mmm mm NO M Man m1w NPS QUALITATIVE SURVEY RESULTS AN ;X" INDICATES A PROBLEM WITH POLLUTANT OR SOURCE THE * ON MAPID NDICATES NO STORET INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR THIS WATERSHED -SEE PAGE 11 FOR LEGEND FOR THIS TABLE- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CATNAME=SARASOTA BAY HUC-03100201 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (continued) N B 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 Q 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 _f 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 50- 1954 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY FAIR x x x x x x K x x X X K x x x x x x x x x x x x 51 1953 HUDSON BAYOU 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 x x 52 1951 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY 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 K 53- 1916 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY FAIR X X X X X X X K X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 54 1937 PHILIPPI 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 x x x 55 1936 WHITAKER BAYOU POOR FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x K x x x x x x x x x x x 56 1931 DIRECT RUNMF TO GULF POOR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 57 1968B Sarasota Bay 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 58 1896 BOWLES CREEK 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 59 1888 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY FAIR FAIR x K x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 60* 1885 WEST CEDAR HAMMOCK FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 61* 1883 PALMA SOIA BAY THREAT 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 62 1968A Anna. Maria Sound 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 63- 1862 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x LAKETARPON MPA BYPASS CANAL EETWATER CRE Tamoa ALLEN CREEK DELANEY CREE LONG BRANCH St. Petemburg BULLFROG CREEK 'P'N' GULF OF MEXICO WATER QUALITY TAMPA BAY BASIN GOOD 03100206 THREATENED AVERAGE WATER QUALITY FAIR 1984-1993 STORET DATA POOR WATERSHED ID NUMBERS LINK MAP TO TABLES INDICATES QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT UNMOWN page 98 TAMPA BAY BASIN ------------ -------------- Basic Fac Drainage Area: 350 square miles Major Land Uses: urban development Population Density: high (Tampa, St. Petersburg, Clearwater) Major Pollution Sources: urban runoff-, industrial domestic discharge Best Water Quality Areas: Lower Tampa Bay Worst Water Quality Areas: Delaney Creek, Lake Maggiore, Cockroach Bay Water Quality Trends: stable quality at I I sites, improvements in . Hillsborough and Tampa Bay OFW Waterbodies: Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve Cockroach Bay State Aquatic Preserve Terra Ceia State Aquatic Preserve SWIM Waterbodies: Tampa Bay Lake Tarpon Reference Reports: Tampa Bay SWIM Plan, SWFWMD, 1989 Tampa Bay National Estuary Program Nomination, DEP/SWFWMD, 1988 Basis, Sea Grant (Mangrove Systems), 1982 Ecological Assessment, Classification and Management of Tampa Bay Tidal Creeks, TBRPC, 1986 Proceedings, Tampa Bay Scientific Information Symposium 2 (February 27 - March 1, 199 1), S.F. Treat and P.A. Clark editor 1991 Tampa and Sarasota Bays: Issues, Resources Status, and Management NOAA Estuary of the Month Series No. 11, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1989 Basin Water Quality Experts: Doug Farrell, DEP (Tampa), 813/620-6100 Don Moores, Pinellas County, 813/4624761 Dick Eckenrod, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program ------------------------------------------------------ In JU New Consent orders have been signed and fines levied against five comp that loaded fertilizer on to ships in Hillsborough Bay. Bay water 99 tested near the fertilizer terminals after rain contained phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations hundreds to thousands of times higher than limits set for WWTPs. Tampa Bay is part of the EPA's National Estuary Program. The area surrounding Weedon Island has been closed to motorboat traffic in an effort to protect seagrasses from boat prop scarring. ---- - - - ------- - - - --------- - -- Ecological Characterization Tampa Bay is a multi-lobed (roughly Y-shaped) estuarine system which opens into the Gulf of Mexico approximately midway down the west central coast of peninsular Florida. The bay is often divided into sub-areas: Old Tampa Bay, Hillsborough Bay/McKay Bay, Middle Tampa Bay, Lower Tampa Bay, Boca Ciega Bay, and Terra Ceia Bay. The Manatee River estuary is also sometimes considered a section of the bay. Geomorphology and a difference in certain chemical and physical properties of the sub-areas are the normal criteria utilized to sub-divide the system. Tampa Bay is approximately 35 miles long, 10 miles wide, and covers a total surface area of about 346 square miles with a shoreline of 212 statute miles. The overall estuary is a rather shallow water body, having a mean depth of I I feet, with 90% of the total bay area less than 22 feet deep. Tampa Bay was reported as being the second largest estuarine system of the 40 estuaries examined along the entire Gulf Coast. River systems that empty into the bay include the Hillsborough River, the Alafia River, the Little Manatee River and, just south of Terra Ceia, the Manatee River. Because of reduced freshwater inflows and the influence of the Gulf of Mexico waters, Tampa Bay waters are of higher salinity and clarity than many estuaries. Because of its natural and anthropogenic phosphorus input, the bay is extremely nitrogen-limited (i.e., increases in nitrogen can cause algae blooms). Major cities in the basin include Tampa and St. Petersburg. The tremendous increase in Florida!s population over the past several decades has resulted in increased development along the shoreline of the bay. This development, together with increased pollutant loading, shoreline and bay bottom alterations, and wetland destruction has led to a gradual degradation of the Tampa Bay estuary. Various ecological changes in the bay system over this period of time have been documented chemically, physically and biologically. Historically, a much higher proportion of production in the bay was based on mangrove forests and seagrass beds. With increased nutrient input, phytoplankton are becoming a more dommant member of the bay community. The degradation of the bay has spurred intensive efforts over the last ten years by local scientists, environmental organizations, politicians and engineers to reverse the trends. Protective management policies, legislation and regulation have been adopted. As a result, at least one portion of the bay's system, Hillsborough Bay, has shown some recovery, based on chlorophyll levels. Anthro Mgenic IMpacts Biological and water quality degradation of the Tampa Bay system has been well documented. The primary reason for this degradation is the intensive residential and industrial development of the area which has led to: 1. Vegetative denudation and associated erosion and stormwater runoff problcms in the coastal zonc area; 2. Alteration of bay circulation patterns by channels, causeways and spoil islands; 100 3. Dredging and filling projects related to harbor development, industrialization, and finger fills for increased housing; 4. Attenuation of fresh water inflow of rivers for consumptive use; 5. Increased pollutant loading related to all of the above factors, and exacerbated by the naturally slow flushing rate of the bay. 6. Alteration of water quality and habitat in tidal streams. 7. Boat prop scarring of seagrass beds. In the past 30 years, loss of coastal vegetation (primarily mangroves) and seagrasses in the bay system has been substantial in terms of total acreage. Estimates of vegetative loss range from 50-80% for seagrass and about 50% for mangroves. The overall importance of these losses is directly related to biological integrity of the estuary since the wetlands vegetation (both submerged and emergent) serves as an important food source, nursery ground and substrate habitat for many species of marine organisms. A more recent trend, 1982-1990, shows a 10% increase in Tampa Bay. In addition to the habitat destruction, Tampa Bay has also suffered from significant point and nonpoint sources of pollution. Due to the ecological, economic and aesthetic importance of this waterbody and the noted water quality degradation, Tampa Bay has become a major focus of local, regional and state actions to reverse the negative trends. It has been legislatively designated as a priority SWIM waterbody, and a knowledgeable advisory committee has been set up. Needed studies are occurring and restoration efforts are ongoing. Nonpoint source pollution is a serious problem in the bay system. With the shift from wetland and upland vegetation to streets, lawns and buildings, the quality of runoff severely decreases while the quantity increases. The bay also serves as a shipping channel to the port and is subject to oil and grease pollution, sewage, and occasional ftiel and/or cargo spills. An extreme phosphorus and nitrogen loading source appears to be the port itself, which serves as a loading and unloading facility for items such as fertilizers, pesticides, concrete and oil. Spills and waste of these products can be washed into the bay water during rains. Even a 0. 1% fertilizer product loss would make this the major nitrogen source to the bay. In addition to the substantial habitat destruction and nonpoint pollution problems, several point source dischargers affect the bay. The worst water quality problems are found in Hillsborough and McKay Bays. This area receives 60 MGD (to be expanded to 90 MGD) of treated wastewater from Hooker's Point advanced treatment plant, 1268 MGD of cooling and process water from the TECO Power Company, and, several other small industrial discharges in this portion of the bay. These are detailed in the following paragraphs. The Hillsborough River enters the northern portion of the bay, and, while the lower river has no point sources, it receives nutrient and toxins (found in sediments) loading from Tampa urban runoff. The Alafia River, a particularly important source of nutrients to the bay, has extensive phosphate mining and fertilizer production operations in its headwaters. A phosphate processor, Cargill, is located at the mouth of the river. A 1987 release of about 14 million gallons of highly acidic process water burned hundreds of acres of productive Tampa Bay habitat. Restoration of Tampa Bay at the mouth of the Alafia River is in progress. The smaller tributaries in Hillsborough Bay area also have problems. A 1985 intensive survey of Delaney Creek indicated that there were frequent DO violations and nutrient problems. Discharge from Nitram, a nitrogen fertilizer company, has historically been a problem, but is now in compliance. In the past the creek may have received leachate or accidental spills from a battery splitting operation. That business has 101 since been closed. The site is currently under hazardous waste cleanup enforcement. A domestic WWTP discharge has been proposed for the creek. PaIM River and Sixmile C now components of the Tampa Bypass Canal, have nutrient, bacteria and -reqk, DO problems. The dischargers to these rgAches include phosphorus and nitrogen processors and the Eastside WWTP (which discharges to Sixmile Creek via Harney Creek). The worst water quality problems, however, appear to be, Caused by the historical pollutant loading and the current nonpoint runoff entenng this small river system. It flows through a heavily developed portion of Tampa and has been extensively ditched, channeled, and walled. The major Palm River problem appears to be nonpoint input of nutrients at fertilizer loading terminals. In summary, Hillsborough Bay suffers from the highest concentration of pollution sources in the Tampa Bay system. It has historically had the worst water quality in the basin. However, there has been some notable improvement since the, Hookers Point plant converted to advanced treatment in the early 1979. There has also been a net improvement of the industrial discharges. However, continued vigilance of O*Iwges and the abatement of runoff is required t9 maintaip or imprQvc conditions in Hillsborough Bay. Old Ta twate. @m -ay also has problematic tributaries. Swee r Creek exhibits high nutrient concentrations pa and low DO values. Rocky Creek has elevate ba as nutrient and DO problems. deria count4 as well Alligator Creek has high nutrient concentrations; and finally, the Cross Bayou Canal has nutrient, bacteria and DO problems. Nlany of the thew problems are caused by the numerous, small WWTPs located in Hillsbprough County operating under temporary permits (TOP). The treatment processes of many of these facilities are inadequate to meet required treatment levels. There was a legislative bill passed in 1987 requiring all dopiestif. dischargers to Tampa and Sarasota Bays to attain advanced treatment st4ndards. This condition is still far from being satisfied. The bill was somewhat controversial 4mong envi -ronment4lists bqgaw it has had the effect of increasing permit requests for surface discharge ?p opp9sqd to engo nnovative methods such as water reuse. There are several ongoing _4ragirig more i studies and acfions i the, Old Tampa Bay drainage. An im 'A . pact study of Rocky Creek has been conducted. A historical biological study of western Old Tampa Bay indicated poor conditions. Local experts indicate 4 degrading water quality trend in Old Tampa Bay. Brushy Creek receives WWTP discharges. WWTP's no longer dischorge to Cross Bayou Canal. Pinellas County has initiated a monitoring effort on that waterbody. Nonpoint sources are still a problem for the entire drainage area. Tampa Bay proper exhibits better water quality than Old Tampa Bay or Hillsborough Bay because it has greater mixing and dilution with the Gulf of Mexico waters and less concentrated pollution sources. Development is fairly intense along its shoreline, and there are both domestic and industrial discharges. Cockroach Bay, located on the east side of Tampa Bay, has been downgraded from go( A to poor water quality. It is affected by septic tanks and the lower part of Cockroach Bay has heavy agricultural impacts. Because of its close connection to the Gulf, Terra Ceia Bay has very good water quality. Development around this bay threatens it with increased runoff and mangrove cutting; although there have been some enforcement cases which will hopefully deter the latter. The Pinellas County portion of Tampa Bay is also designated as an OFW to protect it from further degradation; however, under current law, many of the existing discharges to the bay will be allowed to continue operating. The Intergovernmental Program Section of DEP (formerly Coastal Zone Management) has been conducting sediment metals surveys of Poo areas and also some "ambient" sites within estuaries. Seven different metals were measured. The Tampa Bay results show mctals enrichment (particularly lead, zinc and cadmium) in sediment throughout much of Hillsborough Bay and associated with navigation channels. Another "hot spot" for metals pprichment was the Port of St. Petersburg. Radium and radon levels are high in the bay; in fact, studies from the University of South Florida found them to be the highest of any Gulf Coast continental shelf 102 area. The suspected source is the Alafia River from the mining activities there or perhaps leachate from fissures under nearby gypsum stacks. The National Ocean Survey (NOS) has completed a study of fishes and sediments in the bay for toxin problems, In addition, USF has performed sediment sampling for metals. NOS has also completed a tidal circulation study. Information from that study will be used to correct tide tables and predict currents more accurately and also provide information to aid in hydrologic/eutrophication modeling of the bay. In August 1990, Pinellas County initiated a water resources monitoring network. The stated goals of that program are the development of specific watershed management plans for the drainage basins throughout the county. The county is preparing management plans for Allen's Creek, Lake Tarpon, and Lake Seminole. In summary, Tampa Bay has suffered impacts from welland and seagrass destruction and coastline alteration; severe stormwater pollution from residential and commercial sources; dredging and harbor activities; litter; fertilizer, food processing, and other industrial discharges; and a heavy load of domestic wastewater from power and sewage treatment utilities. The bay has extremely high phosphorus levels and is nitrogen limited. Recent trends in water quality show improving conditions in Hillsborough Bay. SWIM legislation has targeted Tampa Bay as one of the waterbodies to receive funding for restoration and other management projects. The plan encompasses stormwater control, habitat restoration and increased environmental monitoring and assessment. 103 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100206 TAMPA BAY INDEX GOOD FAIR POOR SURFACE WATER Q'-"A.:I".Y DATA FOR 1970-1993 ----------- ----------- ----- MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED WQI-RIVER 0-44 45-59-60-90 CURRENT PERIOD 007 RECORD (1989-1993) USED WHERE AVAILABLE TSI-ESTUARY 0-49 50-59 60-100 ----- PERIOD PRIOR 70 *989 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 WQI TSI WATER BODY -Y?-: -$-::ARY 7 TAMPA BAY LOWER 1228 89 93 Current 5.5 2.7 2 10 6.4 75 0.8 3 7.9 . 0.44 0.05 3 2 2 51000 32 9 BISHOPS HKRBOR 570 73 82 Historical 4.4 1.2 14 21 6.4 75 4.7 6 8.2 127 0.64 0.38 7 5 5 4.0 2.9 36750 46 10 COCKROACH BAY 110 89 93 Current 8.5 0.6 20 36 4.5 54 2.5 7.6 0.93 0.40 9 70 so 40250 64 11 TAMPA BAY MID 1726 89 93 Current 5.0 2.4 5 . 6.4 73 1.1 7.8 0.52 0.17 3 2 2 48450 36 12 DIR RUNOFF 70 BAY 57 74 75 Historical 3.2 0.8 16 24 7.3 90 2.2 4 8.0 99 0.34 0.78 6 248 50 42375 48 16 TAMPA BAY UPPER 1512 89 93 Current 5.0 2.2 7 19 6.7 76 1.3 7.8 0.58 0.29 5 2 2 44000 39 20 BIG BEND BAYOU 194 89 93 Current 7.5 1.3 8 . 6.0 70 1.4 7.8 0.65 0.38 8 2 2 43500 48 24 Old Tampa Bay LOWER 860 89 93 Current 5.2 2.1 6 25 7.0 76 1.4 6 7.8 0.52 0.32 6 4 2 42400 41 26 Hillsborough Bay LOWER 1392 89 93 Current 7.5 1.4 9 19 6.7 76 1.6 6 7.9 0.65 0.41 8 3 2 41350 49 29 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY 189 89 93 Current 4.5 1.5 10 5.7 62 1.7 7.7 0.77 0.39 8 190 60 40000 48 31 CROSS CANAL (NORTH) 8 92 92 Current 8.7 0.7 50 19 3.6 41 10 7.7 162 1.26 0.32 8 180 26732 60 32 Hillsboroug' Bay UPPER 944 89 93 Current 8.0 1.1 9 6.3 73 1.9 7.8 0.75 0.43 9 4 3 40800 51 33 BLACK POIN: CHkNEL 4 73 73 Historical 3.0 3.0 28 7.9 1.27 2.50 38700 61 34 Old T.m,. Bay 748 89 93 Current 5.5 1.8 7 3 6.9 81 1.5 7.9 0.57 0.31 2 2 42750 42 37 McKa.; Bay 388 89 93 Current 6.5 1.3 9 5.0 56 1.5 7.7 0.75 0.36 9 16 6 41475 50 39 UNNAMED D:-CH 3 71 71 Historical 2.2 . 7.1 86 9 7.8 3.56 1.80 33200 81 40 ALLEN CREEK 8 92 92 Current 6.8 0.8 20 27 5.5 65 7 7.7 119 0.90 0.39 13 '69 35990 58 42 Old Tampa Bay 1488 89 93 Current 5.7 1.5 8 20 6.8 76 1.7 7.8 0.67 0.32 7 4 2 41225 47 45 UCETA YARD D:A-5 3 89 89 Current 2.6 1.7 10 6.8 75 8.1 0.74 0.32 50 5 46110 47 46 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY 190 89 93 Current 6.0 1.1 31 3.5 40 2.0 7.2 1.02 0.20 8 2400 930 30650 53 47 DIRECT RL7,'OFF TO SAY 67 72 76 Historical 6.0 . 10 9 5.3 64 3.7 5 8.3 0.90 1.10 3 35000 50 49 Old Tampa Bay 475 89 93 Current 6.5 1.2 10 25 6.4 72 1.7 6 7.8 119 0.70 0.30 7 6 3 39950 so MUL, _ 52 1 - CREEK 8 92 92 Current 2.6 0.6 50 1 3.6 41 9 7.1 108 0.52 0.16 2 480 394 48 54 CHANNEL G 259 89 93 Current 4.2 1.0 26 5.2 61 1.6 7.2 1.18 0.22 6 900 325 7371 53 65 DOUBLE BRANCH 153 89 93 Current 7.5 0.9 48 4.5 50 1.4 7.2 0.97 0.27 5 460 300 27050 54 WATER BODY TYPE: LAI<-- 1 LAKE HOBBS 30 70 70 Historical 5.0 0 6.2 8 0.52 0.03 215 43 14 LAKE 27 71 80 Historical 26.9 0.3 34 13.4 165 8.2 103 3.94 0.11 98 1158 95 61 LAKE TARPON -A.;A:. 30 89 91 Current 1.8 52 3 10 45 0.76 0.05 6 47 66 LAKE TARPO@; CA_1;A_T 51 89 92 Current 1.6 45 2 4.7 57 10 7.0 36 0.78 0.05 8 1674 50 69 LAKEE 326 70 84 Historical 4.0 9 8 7.1 87 1.1 9 6.7 4 0.66 0.02 49 160 41 77 LAKE CHARIES 34 70 73 Historical 1.7 50 7.4 67 0.75 0.02 245 0 39 78 BUCK LAKE 63 85 85 Historical 240 7:1 70 0*8 29 6.5 . 1.43 0.30 ISO 63 79 SADDLEBACK LAKE 39 70 73 Historical 2.5 31 7,2 52 0.54 0.01 140 0 34 80 STARVATION :-k<= 2 92 92 Current 30 4:5 58 7.5 . 1.03 0.08 141 60 81 LAKE TARI@0_1; 318 89 92 Current 1.4 35 3 7.2 85 9 7.1 5 0.69 0.03 5 698 44 82 VAN DYKE :X-CT 42 70 73 Historical 4.1 130 6.6 17 1.61 0.06 192 0 62 83 ROL7ND LAKE 36 70 73 Historical 1.4 10 7.6 114 0.55 0.02 257 0 35 87 LAKE CRERN'SHAW 33 70 73, Historical 5.0 50 5.4 1 1.68 0.05 so 0 51 LEGEND: BOD-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN MG/L MAX #OBS-MAXIMU`M NUMBER OF SAMPLES SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TURB-TURBIDITY MG/L ALK-ALKALINITY MC/_ CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL UG/L DOSAT-DO I SATURATION NAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TOC-TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON MG/L TQI-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/10014L BEG YR-BEGINNING SA-!PLING 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 CFS PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L @Mwm MM USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100206 TAMPA BAY INDEX GOOD FA:R ?C`03, SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 1970-1993 ----------- ----- ----- ----- MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED WQI-RIVER 0-44 CURRENT PERIOD OF RECORD (1989-1993) USED WHERE AVAILABLE TSI-ESTUARY 0-49 50-z9 60-00 ----- PERIOD PRIOR TO 1989 IS EVALUATED AS HISTORICAL 114FORMATION TSI-LAKE 0-$9 60- 6@ BIOLOGICAL WA:--R QUAL.- WATERSHED WATERSHED DATA RECORD WATER DISSOLVED OXYGEN PH TROPHIC SPECIES ID NAME ---------------------- CLARITY OXYGEN DEMAND ALKALINITY STATUS COLIFORM DIVERSITY COND TNI: - @ C_.S --------- ----- ----- --------------- ----- --------------------------------- MAX BEG END DATA ---------------------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- ------ BECK CC= -WQ: :S: #OBS YR YR PERIOD TURB SD COLOR TSS Do DOSAT BOD COD TOC PH ALK NITRO PHOS CHLA TOTAL FECL NAT ART 88 KEYSTONE LAKE 76 72 80 Historical - 3.2 1.2 8.5 61 1.0 5.5 15 0.59 0.03 235 38 '77 4z 94 LAKE BROOKER 30 79 79 Historical 6.0 0.3 10.4 125 3.10 0.51 i6o E7 95 LAKE HARVEY 38 71 71 Historical 4.0 80 6.3 90 1.22 0.03 '25 44 WATER BODY TYPE: STRFIAM 4-7@ 3 EUREKA SPRINGS RUN 50 72 78 Historical 3.0 5 6.2 69 3.4 e 12 7.1 151 1.03 0.3S 21 1 44 6 MCMULLIN CREEK 116 72 76 Historical 7.8 325 240 41 a FROG CREEK 118 72 76 Historical 7.5 1600 220 70 15 BULLFROG CREEK 288 89 93 Current 6.2 0.6 43 4 6.0 6,7 1.5 7.3 0.96 0.35 5 2150 1475 110ie 4: 54 17 BOOKER CREEK 19 79 80 Historical 169.8 4.2 82 25 1.93 0.39 13E423000 Z-7 83 23 DIR RUNOFF TO BAY 2 75 75 Historical 3.0 - 40 4.4 190 7.6 4.25 1.40 4600 930 15640 '71 41 DELANEY CREEK 218 89 93 Current 9.5 0.4 56 6 3.5 41 2.3 7.2 2.31 0.83 6 3950 1600 2235 75 43 Palm River 498 89 93 Current 5.7 1.2 13 6 5.6 62 3.3 5 7.7 1.03 0.34 14 175 75 39600 55 44 YBOR CITY DRAIN 53 83 87 Historical 38 6.0 83 6.5 6.33 1.22 6919 z@ 88 48 ALLIGATOR CREEK 220 70 87 Historical 13.0 So 26 6.9 77 2.5 37 16 7.3 92 1.32 0.47 420 52 51 Sixmile Creek 189 89 93 Current 8.0 0.9 18 7.0 80 2.9 7 7.9 0.72 0.21 19 250 200 539 43 55 TAMPA BYPASS CANAL 24 89 92 Current 2.3 6 7.7 87 2 7.7 0.92 0.12 470 26 56 BISHOP CREEK 34 70 71 Historical 5.0 15 7.4 86 18 7.7 71 0.66 0.13 8320 45 60 SWEETWATER CREEK 95 89 93 Current 6.0 0.9 37 5 3.7 39 1.6 8 6.8 1.02 0.64 5 700 350 353 3 60 63 Rocky Creek 217 89 93 Current 7.5 1.1 25 5 5.0 55 2.5 9 7.4 1.19 0.30 15 932 140 1947a 58 72 BRUSHY CREEK 5 92 92 Current 33 3.5 38 1.0 13 6.6 0.81 0.11 447 320 285 53 84 BROOKER CREEK 41 89 92 Current 230 2.3 26 42 6.0 1.38 0.04 i95 77 92 UPPER BROOKER CREEK 48 70 88 Historical 2.6 50 7 4.9 57 1.1 5.0 2 0.86 0.04 658 60 77 z-, 34 LEGEND: BOD-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN MG/L MAX OOBS-MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TURB-TURBID:-Y MG1_7 ALK-ALKALINITY MG/L CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL UG/L DOSAT-DO % SATURATION NAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TOC-TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON MG/L WOI-WATER QUA@::Y :,;DEX 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'$ BIOTIC INDEX COND-CONDUCTIVITY UMHOS FLOW-FL40W CPS PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L SURFACE WATER QUALITY DA:A SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100206 TAMPA BAY 14EDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WA:T-ASHED SCREENED 'x'-EXCEE:)S SCREENING SCREENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA '0'wWIT,H'N SCREENING CR::3RIA '.'-MISS:NG DATA i RANK DATA RECORDI TN I STREAM I LAKE I PH I ALK I TURB & I COND I OXYGEN I DO 1COLIFORM 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 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 t TSI HISTORICAL I I I I PH<5.2 I I TSS>18 I I COD>102 I IFECAL>4701DINAT<1.5 I ----- -------------------------------------------- I TOC>27.51 I I BECK<5.5 I WATER BODY -Y?--: ES7:A:,y 7 TAMPA BAY !dOWER. I GOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 a I 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 9 BISHOPS HARBOR GOOD Historical I a I I x 1 0 1 0 1 x I x I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 10 COCKROACH BAY POOR Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 a 1 0 1 t 0 1 x ( 11 TAMPA BAY M11D GOOD Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 a I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 12 DIR AUTNO-F TO BAY I GOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 16 TAMPA BAY UPPER i GOOD Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 20 BIG BEND BAYOU I GOOD Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 24 Old Tampa Bay LWER I GOOD Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 26 Hillsbo:"gh Bay 10WER i GOOD Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 29 DIREC7 R,`NOFF TO BAY ! GOOD Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 31 CROSS 1,A';A:. (NORTH) I POOR Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 32 Hil@sborouqlh Bay - FAIR Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 j x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 33 BLACK PO:N- CHLANNE'_ I POOR Historical 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I x I 1 1 34 Old Tampa Bay I GOOD Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 37 McKay Bay I FAIR Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 39 UNNAMED D:7CH UNIN Historical I x I I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 40 ALLEN CREEK i FAIR Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 42 Old -.&=pa Bay I GOOD Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 45 UCETA YARD DRAIN f GOOD Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I I D 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 46 DIREC-1 R'_-NOFF TO BAY I FAIR Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 x I x I 1 0 1 0 1 47 DIRECT :L.7.%'OFF TO BAY I FAIR Historical 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 . 1 49 Old Tampa Bay I FAIR Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 52 MULLE: CREEK I FAIR Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I x I 1 0 1 x 1 54 CHANNE- G I FAIR Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 65 DOUBLE BRANCH i FAIR Current 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 a I WATER BODY :YPE: LAKE I LAKE HOBBS GOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 LAKE YkGG:ORE I POOR Historical I x f 1 0 0 1 a I x I I 1 0 1 1 1 x I x 1 61 LAKE -,AR?OV CNNA@ ) GOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 66 LAKE TARPON CANAL I GOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 69 LAKE MADELLNE ! GOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 77 LAKE CHA-A-ES f GOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 78 BUCK LAKE i FAIR Historical 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 79 SADDLEBACK LAKE I GOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 80 STKAVA-101,' LAKE I FAIR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 81 LAKE TA.;LDON I GOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 j 0 1 1 0 1 1 82 VAN DYKI !AKE 1 FAIR Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 83 ROUND LAKE 1 GOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 87 LAKE C.R--\'S:;AW I GOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 LEGEND: COND-CONDUCTIVITY FECAL-FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA TP-PHOSPHORUS WQI OR TSI-WATER QUALITY INDEX RATING ALK-ALKALIN:TY 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 DIVERS:-Y DIART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY PH-PH TURB-TURBIDITY CHLA-CHLOROPHY'T DINAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TN-NITROGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS mmw@m MIM M@wm MM SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100206 TAMPA RAY MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED SCREENED :X'-EXCEEDS SCREENING CRITERIA SCREENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA 01-WITHIN SCREENING CRITERIA '.'-MISSING DATA I I I RANK DATA RECORDI IN 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 TSS I IDEMAND I I BACTI I DIV I I DISC I t wQ1 CURRENT 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>8.0 I ALK<20 ITURB>16.51COND>12751 BOD>3.3 I DD<4 ITOT>3700 IDIART<1.951 CHLA>4 0 1 SD<.7 I ID NAME I TSI HISTORICAL I I I PH<5.2 I I TSS>18 I ICOD>102 I IFECAL>4701DINAT<1.5 I I i ----- -------------------------------------------- I I I I I I ITOC>27.51 I I BECK<5.5 I I I 88 KEYSTONE LAKE I GOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 94 LAKE BROOKER I POOR Historical I x I x I I 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 x I 95 LAKE HARVEY I GOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 3 EUREKA SPRINGS RUN I GOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 a 1 0 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 6 MCMULLIN CREEK I GOOD Historical I . I . I 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 8 FROG, CREEK I UNKN Historical I . I . I 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 15 BULLFROG CREEK I FAIR Current 1 10 1 10 1 1 0 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 x I 11 BOOKER CREEK I POOR Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 x I I x I I x I I I . 1 23 DIR RUNOFF TO BAY I POOR Historical I x I x I 1 0 1 0 1 x I x I I x I I I . i 41 DELANEY CREEK ) POOR Current I x I x I 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 x I x I 1 0 1 x 1 43 Palm River I FAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I x 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 44 YBOR CITY DRAIN I POOR Historical I x I x I 1 0 1 1 x I x I x I I I I I . 1 48 ALLIGATOR CREEK I FAIR Historical 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 . 1 51 Sixmile Creek I GOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 a 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 55 TAMPA BYPASS CANAL I GOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 . 1 56 BISHOP CREEK I FAIR Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 . 1 60 SWEETWATER CREEK I POOR Current 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 63 Rocky Creek I FAIR Current 1 0 1 a I 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 72 BRUSHY CREEK I FAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 84 BROOKER CREEK ( UNKN Current ( 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I x I 1 1 92 UPPER BROOKER CREEK I GOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 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 1988 TOT-TOTAL COLIFORM BACTERIA WHICH INDEX USED, WQI OR TSI, IS B=-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 - USGS HYDROLDGIC UNIT: 03100206 TAMPA- BAY TRENDS-SouRcES-CLEANUP 1x1-DEGRADING TREND 1984 - 1993 TRENDS '0'-STABLE TREND ----------------------------------------------------- '+'-IMPROVING TREND I 1W Ti T T C S1 P At T TI B TI D DI T F1 T F j<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY '.,-MISSING DATA IQUALITY RANK IOVER-10 or S1 N P H D1 H L1 U S1 0 01 0 01 C C1 E L I I------------- I ALL II it L I Ki R S1 D C1 S1 0 01 M 0 1 1 WQI ITRENDI I A I I B I I Ai L Ll P W I WATERSHED I MEETS OR I I I I I I I TI I It I ID NAME IUSE ? TSI I I I I I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ----- ------------------------ I------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 7 TAMPA BAY LOWER )YES GOODI + I + 1 0 + + 01 x .1 x . 1.x .1 0 +1 0 01@0 1 9 BISHOPS HARBOR IYES GOOD I I I I I I I I I I 10 COCKROACH BAY INO POOR 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 01 0 .1 0 . 1 0 .1 0 01 0 01 0 1 I I TAMPA DAY M-7D IYES GOODI + I + 1 0 + + 01 x .1 x .1 0 .1 0 01 0 D1 + 1 12 DIR RUNOFF TO BAY IYES GOOD I t I I I I I I 1 1 16 TAMPA BAY UPPER IYES GOODI + I + I . . . . I x .1 x +1 0 .1 0 01 0 01 0 1 26 BIG BEND BAYOU IYES GOODI + I + 1 0 + + 01 0 .1 x .1 0 .1 0 01 0 01 0 ) 24 Old Tampa Bay LOWER IYES GOODI + I + I . . . . I x .1 x 01 + .1 0 +1 0 01 0 1 26 Hillsborough Bay LOWER IYES GOODI + I + I . . . . I x .1 x +1 0 .1 0 Of + 01 0 1 29 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY IYES GOODI + I + I + + 0 +1 0 .1 0 .1 x .1 0 01 + 01 0 1 31 CROSS CANAL (NORTH) INO POORI . I . I . . . . I . .1 . .1 . .1 . .1 . .1 . 1 32 Hillsborough Bay UPPER IPARTIAL FAIRI + I + I . . . . I x .1 x .1 0 .1 0 01 + 01 0 1 33 BLACK POINT CHANNEL INO POORI I I I I I I I 1 1 34 Old Tampa Bay IYES GOODI + I + I . . . . I x .1 x 01 + .1 0 01 + +1 0 1 37 McKay Bay 1PARTIAL FAIRI + I + I . . . . 1 0 .1 x .1 0 .1 0 01 + 01 0 1 39 UNNAMED DITCH INO UNKNI I I I I I I I 1 1 40 ALLEN CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI I . I . . . . I . .1 . .1 . .1 . .1 . .1 . 1 42 Old Tampa Bay IYES GOODI + I + I . . . . I x .1 x +1 0 .1 0 01 0 01 + 1 45 UCETA YARD DRAIN IYES GOOD 1 0 1 a 1 0 0 . 4? 0 1 0 .1 . . 1 0 01 0 01 0 1 46 DIRECT RU14OFF TO BAY 1PARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 01 0 .I x . 1 0 . 1 0 01 0 01 0 1 47 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY IPARTIAL FAIRI I I I I I I I 1 1 49 Old Tampa Bay 1PARTIAL FAIRI + I + 1 4 1 x .1 x .1 + .1 0 01 + 01 + I 52 MULLET CREEK ly9s FAIRI . I . I . . . . I . .1 . .1 . .1 - .1 . .1 . I 54 CHANNEL G 1PARTIAL FAIRI + I + I + 0 + 01 0 .1 0 .1 0 . I + +1 0 +1 0 1 65 DOUBLE BRANCH (PARTIAL FAIRI 0 ( 0 1 0 0 0 +1 0 .1 0 .1 0 t 0 01 + 01 0 1 WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 1 LAKE HOBBS IYES GOODI I I I I I I 14 LAKE MAGGIORE INO POORI I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 61 LAKE TARPON CANAL IYES GOODI . I . I . . . . I - .1 - .1 - - .1 . . 1 66 LAKE TARPON CANAL IYES GOOD[ 0 1 a 1 0 0 . f .1 .1 .1 .1 1 69 LAKE MADELENE [YES GOODI I I . . . . 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 1 77 LAKE CHARLES IYES GOODI I I I I I I I 78 BUCK LAKE I PART IAL FAIRI I I . . . . I i .( .1 .1 79 SADDLEBACK LAKE IYES GOOD I I I I I I I I 1 1 80 STARVATION LAKE IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . 1 .1 .1 . - I - .1 .1 1 81 LAKE TARPON IYES GOODI + I + 1 0 + . .1 0 .I f . +1 0 0( .1 0 82 VAN DYKE LAKE 1PARTIAL FAIRI I I I I I I 1 1 1 83 ROUND LAKE IYES GOODI I I 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-NITROGEN WQI-WATER QUIAITY INDEX FOR STREAMS AND SPRINGS BOD-BIOCHEM. OXYGEN DEMAND MEETS USE-MEETS DESIGNATED USE TOC-T.ORGANIC CARB011T CHIA- CHLOROPHYLL PH-PH TP-PHOSPHORUS DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MM ME-am mm @mmm Mim MM mm mm SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100206 TAMPA BAY TRENDS-SOURCES-CLEANUP :X'-DEGRADING TREND 1964 - 1993 TRENDS I 0'-STABLE TREND ----------------------------------------------------- '+'-IMPROVING TREND I 1W TI T T CSl PAl TTI B T1 DDI T Fl T F l<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY -MISSING DATA IQUALITY RANK JOVER-JQ or Sl N P RDI RLi USl 0 01 001 C Cl E L I I------------- I ALL II il L I KI RSl D Cl Sl 0 01 M 0 1 I KI ITRENDI I A I I BI I Al L Ll P W I WATERSHED MEETS OR I I I I T1 I Il I ID NAME USE ? TSI I I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ----- ------------------------ ------------- I I I----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 87 LAKE CRENSHAW IYES GOODI I 88 KEYSTONE LAKE IYES GOODI I 94 LAKE BROOKER INO POORI I 95 LAKE HARVEY IYES GOOD I I WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 3 EUREKA SPRINGS RUN IYES GOODI I 6 MCMULLIN CREEK IYES GOODI I 8 FROG CREEK INO UNKNI I 15 BULLFROG CREEK IPARTIAL FAIR 1 0 1 0 1 00 0+1 0.1 001 0 01 xX1 0 01 0 0 1 17 BOOKER.CREEK INO POORI I I I I I I I I 23 DIR RUNOFF TO BAY No POORI I I I I I I I I 41 DELANEY CREEK INO POORI + 1 0 1 +0 001 x.1 ++1 + . I xX1 0 01 0 1 43 Palm River IPARTIAL FAIRJ + 1 0 1 . 1 0.1 x.1 0 01 001 0 01 0 1 44 YBOR CITY DRAIN INO POOR I I 48 ALLIGATOR CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI I 51 Simile Creek ]YES GOOD I a 1 0 1 +0 001 +.1 x.1 0 01 ++1 0 01 0 1 55 TAMPA BYPASS CANAL IYES GOOD 1 0 1 0 1 00 ..1 0.1 0.1 . 01 001 . .1 0 1 56 BISHQP CREEK . IPARTIAL FAIRI I I I I I I I 1 1 60 SWEETWATER CREEK INO POORI 0 1 0 1 00 0.1 0.1 0.1 + 01 001 0 01 0 0 1 63 Rocky Creek IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 00 001 0.1 x01 0 01 001 0 01 0 0 1 72 BRUSHY CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI . I . I . . I .. I ..1 . .1 ..1 . . I . . 1 84 BROOKER CREEK INO UNKM 1 0 1 0 1 00 .1 0.1 .1 01 001 .1 0 0 1 92 UPPER BROOKER CREEK IYES GOODI . I LEGEND: DOSAT-DO SATURATION TOOLI-TOTAL COLIFORM TURB-TURBIDrTY FOOLI-FECAL COLIFORM TEMP-TEMPERATURE TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX FOR LAKES AND ESTUARIES ALK-ALKALINITY FLOW-FLDW TN-NITROGEN WQI-WATER QUIAITY INDEX FOR STREAMS AND SPRINGS BOD-BIOCHEM. OXYGEN DEMAND MEETS USE-MEETS DESIGNATED USE TOC-T.ORGANIC CARBON CHLA-CHL4DROPHYLL 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 MAPTD INDICATES No STORET INFORMATIbN AVAILABLE FOR THISMATERSHED -SEE PAGE 11 FOR LEGEND FOR THIS TABLE- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CATNAME-TAMPA BAY HUC-03100206 ----------------- 7-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 B E 'X I M B E E H A B H 0 0 B 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 El S 3 N E R E 0 C C R G I T T L k P I G E D D @E W I S I S y I -1 0 P N I N I H I E T P A A A 0 L A E 1 0 C I S Y N T A R S L U C H 0 D D N S T A T D E S N Y H L T L L L L D T R L M H M D P G E L D R N M T 1 1478F LAKE HOBBS GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x 2* 1-49A LAKE DRAINAGE DITCH THREAT x x x x x x x x 3 1536D EUREKA SPRINGS Rilff GOOD FAIR x x , x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 4* 1574A ALLIGATOR LAKE FAIR X X X x x x x x x x x x x x x x 5@ ',797A TERRA CEIA RAY THREAT x x x x x x x x x A x x 9 1-797B BISHOPS HARBOR GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x K x x 10 1"8 COCKROACH BAY POOR THREAT A x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 13- 1709 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY THREAT x x x x x K x x x x x x x x x 14 !731 LAKE MAGGIORE POOR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x i x x x x x x x 17 1696 BOOKER CREEK POOR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x .18. 1100 COFFEEPOT BAYOU THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 19* 1703 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY THREAT x x 20 1693 BIG BEND BAYOU GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 21* '1687 SHORE ACRES DRAIN THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x 22- 1683 SMACKS BAYOU THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x 25- 1661 SAWGRASS LAKE THREAT x x x x x x x x x x 4 x x x x x x 27* 1656 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 28- 1654 MASTERS BAYOU FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 29 1609 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY GOOD 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 x x x x 30* 1624 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY FAIR x X x x x x x x x x i x x x x x x x x K x x 31 1625 CROSS CANAL (NORTH) POOR POOR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Ix x x x x 35- 1627 LONG BRANCH POOR x x x x x x x x x x x 36- 1630 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY POOR x x x x x x x x x x x 37 1584B McKay Bay 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 x x X x x *x x , 38* 1620 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY POOR Ix x x x x x x x x x 39 1615 UNNAMED DITCH 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 x x 40 1604 ALLEN CREEK FAIR POOR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 41 1605 DELANEY CREEK POOR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 43 1536A Palm River FAIR FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 44 1584A YBOR CITY DRAIN 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 x x x x x x x 47 1603 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY FAIR POOR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 48 1574 ALLIGATOR CREEK FAIR FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 50* 1593 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY POOR x x x x x x x x x x x x x 51 1536B Sixmile Creek GOOD FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 52 1575 14ULLET CREEK GOOD POOR x x x x x x x x x x x x x 53* 1572 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY FAIR x x x x x x x K X X 55 1536C TAMPA BYPASS CANAL GOOD FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 56 1569 BISHOP CREEK FAIR FAIR x x x x x x x x x x 57* 1559 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x 58- 1546 MOBBLY BAYOU FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 59- 15 57 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY FAIR x x x x x x x X K X X X 60 !516 SWEETWATER CREEK POOR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x 61 1541A LAKE TARPON CANAL GOOD FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x 62- 1516A LAKE LIPSEY THREAT x x x x x x x x x x 63 1507 Rocky Creek FAIR THREAT x x x x x 64* 1530 MOCCASIN CREEK FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 65 1513 DOUBLE BRANCH FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x 66 1541B LAKE TARPON CANAL GOOD FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x 67. 1.5 2 9 COW BRANCH THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x man mom MM 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-TAMPA BAY HUC-03100206 (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 I 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 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 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 7 x 68- 1514 LAKE LE CLARE DRAIN THREAT x x x x x x x 69 1516B LAKE MADELENE GOOD THREAT x x x x x 70. 1519 SLOUGH THREAT x x x 71* 1517 HALFMOON LAKE DRAIN THREAT x x x X X X x x x x 72 1498 BRUSHY CREEK FAIR THREAT x 73- 1509 DRAINAGE DITCHES THREAT x x 74* 1519A PRETTY LAKE THREAT x x x 75* 1478 DRAINAGE CANAL THREAT x K x x x x x 76* 1502 CHAPMAN LAKE OUTLET THREAT x x x x x x 77 1494A LAKE CHARLES GOOD THREAT x x _x x x x 79 1478A SADDLEBACK LAKE GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x 80 1498A STARVATION LAKE FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x 81 1486 LAKE TARPON GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x 82 1498B VAN DYKE LAKE FAIR THREAT x x 83 1478B ROUND LAKE GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x 84 1474 BROOKER CREEK POOR THREAT x x x x x x 85* 1463 UPPER ROCKY CREEK THREAT x x x x x x 86* THREAT x x x x x x 1494B BRANT LAKE x x x 87 1478C LAKE CRENSHAW GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x 89* 1478D CRYSTAL LAKE THREAT x x x x x x x x x 90* 1463A TURKEY FORD LAKE THREAT x x x x x x x x x 91- 1478E NORTH CRYSTAL LAKE THREAT x x x x x x x x x 93* 1463B LAKE THOMAS THREAT x x x x x x x x x 94 1463C LAKE BROOKER POOR THREAT x x x x x x x x 95 1463D LAKE HARVEY GOOD THREAT x x x K x x Lake Roussea GLOLF LAKE TSALA WALLED SINK WITHLA COOCHEE DADE CITY CAN WITH IVER WATER QUALITY WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER BASIN GOOD 03100208 THREATENED AVERAGE WATER QUALITY FAIR 1984-1993 STORET DATA POOR WATERSHED ID NUMBERS LINK MAP TO TABLES INDICATES QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT UNKNOWN page 112 WITHLACOOCREE RIVER BASIN, SOUTH ------------------------------------- - -------- - -------------------------- Basic Facts Drainage Area: 2,090 square miles Major Land Uses: agriculture, forest, wetlands Population Density: low (Dade City, Inverness, Wildwood, Dunellon) Major Pollution Sources: septic tank leachate, runoff Best Water Quality Areas: lower and upper Withlacoochee R, Lake Panasoflkee Worst Water Quality Areas: Dade City Canal, Walled sink Water Quality Trends: stable quality at 8 sites, improving trend for Withlacoochee River and Lake Panasoflkee OFW Waterbodies: Withlacoochee Riverine and Lake System Rainbow River SWIM Waterbodies: Rainbow River (Blue Run) Lake Panasoflkee Reference Reports: Rainbow River SWIM Plan, SWFWMD, 1989 Florida Rivers Assessment, DEP/FREAC/NPS, 1989 Florida Nonpoint Source Assessment, DEP (Tallahassee), 1988 Lake Tsala Apopka Study, SFWMD, 1990 Lake Rousseau Operations and Management Study, SWFWMD 1989 Basin Water Quality Experts: Gary Maidoff, Citrus County Planning, 904n464223 Guy Hadley, DEP (Orlando), 407/894-7555 --------------------------------------------- - ---------------- ------- In thg New * The Withlacoochee River was designated an OFW. * A compromise plan to turn the Cross Florida Barge Canal into a 40,000 acre "greenway corridor" for recreation and conservation apparently was worked out on Capitol Hill. * A major fish kill was reported on Lake Rousseau. The combined effects of herbicide spraying for aquatic weed control, overcast skies, and low dissolved oxygen levels resulted in the death of 45,000 fish. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - Ecolopical Characterization Originating from the Green Swamp near the junction of Lake and Polk Counties, the Withlacoochee River flows generally west and north for approximately 157 miles and drains 2,090 square miles of West 113 Central Florida before discharging to the Gulf of Mexico. The average flow of the Withlacoochec River is estimated to be 1,800 cfs at the mouth of the river. A major portion of the flow is contributed by the Floridan Aquifer. During the course of its long journey, the Withlacoochee crosses many habitats. From its cypress swamp headwaters, it passes through pine and hardwood forests, palmetto hammocks, small lakes and ponds and is hydrologically connected to adjacent Tsala-Apopka Lake. This "lake", covering about 30 square miles, is really more like a large grassy marsh with a series of pools of open water. It is sometimes referred to as the miniature Everglades. Downstream of Tsala-Apopka, the Withlacoochee is impounded near Inglis to form Lake Rousseau. A remnant of the Cross Florida Barge Canal connects Lake Rousseau to the Gulf through locks. From the dani, the river flows another I I miles to the saltmarsh estuary fringing the Gulf. Along its course the river receives considerable input from the Floridan Aquifer. Blue Run, a 6 mile long river flowing from the largest of the springs, Rainbow Spring, enters near the head of Lake Rousseau. Lake Panasoflkee is a spring-fed lake connected to the river upstream of Tsala-Apopka. Land use in the Withlacoochee River basin consists primarily of silviculture and citrus groves in the upper reaches of the river basin. The river flows through the Withlacoochee State Forest in the middle reaches. There is also considerable drainage from wetlands. The banks of Lake Rousseau and the downstream Withlacoochee have moderate residential development. There are no major cities along the entire corridor of the river; however, just west of Tsala-Apopka Lake there is considerable residential development and the City of Inverness. The Southwest Florida Water Management District has bought large holdings all along the river, and is especially trying to safeguard the Tsala-Apopka and Panasoflkee areas and the headwater region in the Green Swamp. AnthroppRenic Impacts Water quality in this basin is very good, especially along the river itself, where all monitored reaches are meeting their designated use. The spring fed Blue Run (also called Rainbow River) has excellent water quality and is designated as an Outstanding Florida Water and a SWIM preservation waterbody. Much of the Withlacoochee River has periods of low DO during high flows due to swampland drainage. There are few water quality problems in the basin, but the Nonpoint Assessment rates most of the waterbodies: as threatened. In the upper basin, the Dade City Canal, which is affected by agricWtural runoff and orange processing companies, loosely connects to the river via wetlands. The upper stretches of Juinper Creek may be affected by agriculture and citrus operations at Center Hill. The Little Withlacoochee River is also threatened by agriculture, silviculture and, near its confluence with the Withlacoochee, residential and septic tank runoff. Lake Panasoflkee is a spring fed lake and has good to fair water quality. There are some weed problems and there is some threat from shoreline development and septic tank leachate. In the lower basin, Lake Rousseau experiences excessive aquatic weed growth, particularly hydrilla. The river is periodically sprayed for aquatic weed control. Construction activities, shoreline alterations (such as finger canals and docks) and failing septic tanks, contribute sediments, nutrients and bacteria to the lake. The reservoir has fair water quality. The artificial maintenance of constant water levels in the lake may also affect water quality. Drawdown of the lake as a way of improving water quality has been recommended by the SWFWMD and by the FGFWFC, but it would require modifying the water control structures at the reservoir to allow a drawdown. Downstream of Lake Rousseau, the river experiences similar pollution sources. The City of Dunellon WWTP has historically discharged to the lower Rainbow 114 River. This discharge is due to switch to land application (percolation ponds) in the near future. Finally, limestone mining contributes turbidity to the lower river. 115 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100208 WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER,SOUTH 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 -0 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 NKME ---------------------- CLARITY OXYGEN DEMAND ALKALINITY STATUS COLIFORM DIVERSITY COND FLOW INDICES ----- --------------------------------- MAX BEG END DATA ---------------------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ----- ----- --------------- #OBS YR YR PERIOD TURB SD COL40R TSS DO DOSAT BOD COD TOC PH ALK NITRO PHOS CHLA TOTAL FECL NAT ART BECK COND FLOW WQI TSI WATER BODY -Y?Z: --Sn*K:LY 46 WITHLACOOCHE-2- RIVER 13 92 93 Current 1.4 4.4 30 1 8.5 92 6 7.8 101 0.59 0.03 2 68 321 27 WATER BODY -Y?E: :.A.K@ 2 LAKE OUTLET 81 71 71 Historical 5.0 8.9 109 1 11 0.03 161 47 3 LAKE Y.ATTTZ OUTLET 30 71 81 Historical 27.3 0.6 175 9.0 93 5*8 3 1:29 0.37 11 200 64 4 ORANGE @@__.OCK DRAIN 78 70 70 Historical 1.0 . 20 9.7 117 6*.0 2 0.51 0.03 67 42 5 LAKE AGNES OUTLET 8 80 80 Historical . 0.9 75 7* 0 7 0.84 0.05 23 130 59 6 LAKE HELENE OUTLET 84 70 71 Historical 1.4 0 8 : 6 10'4 6.4 10 0.58 0.02 135 33 a CLEAR :-w-E 79 70 70 Historical 5.0 0 12.0 141 7.4 39 1.01 0.02 178 40 17 LAKE i2qDSEY 20 92 93 Current 1.9 1.3 33 3 5.2 56 12 7.1 7 0.85 0.01 5 150 39 41 30 Lake Panasoffkee 4 89 89 Current 10 8.9 97 7 8.4 . 0.58 0.01 228 93 24 31 LAKE 0KA:4UM?KA (Y,;TI.ET 45 79 80 Historical 2.2 5 9.2 80 19 8.4 55 1.02 0.03 228 43 34 TSALA APOPKA OU-1-7-7 552 70 80 Historical 4.0 2.4 55 7.2 86 7.2 44 0.58 0.02 3 175 44 35 LAKE DEATOX OUTLET 54 79 80 Historical 8.5 0.6 23 8.9 92 17 7.9 25 2.93 0.04 29 182 63 38 LAKE M70NIA OUTLET 59 79 83 Historical 1.0 1.7 22 6.0 77 16 7.1 25 1.22 0.02 14 137 46 39 LADY LAKE 90 70 76 Historical 8.0 . 6 7.3 83 1.0 5 5.7 2 0.89 0.02 38 134 37 44 Lake Rousseau 23 89 93 Current 1.5 2.0 28 2 8.2 87 0.9 5 7.5 103 0.64 0.05 5 508 259 46 � WATER BODY TYPE: S?R-I;G 37 LITTLE j0N_zS SPRING 21 77 79 Historical 1.0 5 3.8 43 0.6 4 7.6 120 1.17 0.04 18 295 30 so RAINBOW SPR:1;GS 3 89 89 Current 3 5.9 67 1 7.7 1.10 0.03 204 650 27 � WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM I WITHLA,'OOC;lv-- R'V_-R 14 89 90 Current 380 3.6 39 31 4.7 1.19 0.04 82 4 6i 7 WITHLACOOCH-T RIVER 19 89 90 Current 170 5.5 59 15 6.6 0.91 0.04 206 13 41 9 DADE CITY CANAL 136 70 88 Historical 3.0 10 2.5 31 2.3 6 6.9 139 0.71 0.12 333 25 68 11 LITTLE WITHLAOOOCHEE 7 89 89 Current 30 3.6 39 6 7.4 . 0.80 0.04 331 14 41 12 SPRING HAY-MOCK T-N 155 70 B3 Historical 2.5 1.2 90 2 5.2 63 1.7 19 22 7.4 142 1.07 0.10 0 175 30 3.1 3.2 16 194 1 43 14 WITHLACOOC"-_-_ RIVER 15 89 89 Current 1.3 . 100 2 5.0 58 18 7.4 84 1.02 0.07 1 243 159 44 15 BIG GAVT CPLI;A:. 15 92 93 Current 3.5 1.4 so 2 4.0 41 13 6.7 144 0.98 0.05 60 350 44 22 WALLED SINK 18 70 72 Historical 10.4 100 4.8 56 2.2 18 6.7 19 1.22 0.04 194 0 68 25 JUMPER CREEK CANAL 192 70 87 Historical 8.0 8 8.4 96 0.5 5 7.8 190 0.32 0.03 409 26 '3 28 LESLIE-ErNER CCANAL 72 70 87 Historical 4.7 55 9 7.2 247 11 65 29 SHADY BROOK 3 89 B9 Current 100 4.4 51 15 7.4 1.02 0.14 266 59 33 Withlacoochee R;ver 117 70 87 Historical 10.0 30 4.8 55 1.0 15 7.5 98 0.57 0.03 260 459 53 36 LITTLE JONES CRT-K 4 89 90 Current 13 6.6 74 3 7.7 . 1.23 0.04 330 24 41 WITHIACOOCHE_E_ RIVER 246 70 83 Historical 3.2 2.7 34 6.8 77 1.1 8 7.5 105 0.60 0.03 172 9 264 70 26 43 BYPASS C1Lk,N'_-L 6 89 90 Current 1.1 23 3 7.5 90 1.0 5 7.0 97 0.56 0.03 248 16 45 Withlacooc-ee River 13 89 90 Current 0.9 20 2 6.8 77 0.5 6 6.4 64 0.70 0.04 15 286 436 21 51 BLUE R'-'N 60 70 81 Historical 1.3 5 2 7.0 78 0.5 22 1 7.8 103 0.58 0.03 200 19 242 658 16 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-ALKALINT-Y MG/-_- CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL UG/L DOSAT-DO % SATURATION NAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TOC-TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON MG/L WQI-WATER QUALITY INDEX ART-ARTIFICIAL SUBS7RATE DI COD-CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L END YR-ENDING YEAR NITRO-TOTAL NITROGEN MG/L TOTAL_-TOTAL COLIFORM MPN/100ML BEG YR-BEGINN:NG SA.1!?,,I.%G YEAR COLOR-COL40R 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 XG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100208 WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER,SOUTH INDEX GOOD FA:R 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 (19B9-1993) 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 BIOLOGICAL WATER WATERSHED WATERSHED DATA RECORD WATER DISSOLVED OXYGEN PH TROPHIC SPECIES QUALITY ID NAME ---------------------- CLARITY OXYGEN DEMAND ALKALINITY STATUS COLIFORM DIVERSITY COND F:.OW INDICES ----- --------------------------------- MAX BEG END DATA ---------------------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ----- ----- --------------- #OBS YR YR PERIOD TURB ED COLOR TSS DO DOSAT BOD COD TOC PH ALK NITRO PHOS CHIA TOTAL FECL NAT ART BECK COND WQI TSI 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-CHLIOROPHYLL UG/L DOSAT-DO % SATURATION NAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TOC-TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON MG/L WQI-WATER VJA:.7Y INDEX ART-ARTIF16IAL SUBSTRATE DI COD-CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L END YR-ENDING YEAR NITRO-TOTAL NITROGEN MGIL TOTAL-TOTAL COLIFOR14 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 UNHOS FLOW-FLOW CFS PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100208 WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER,SOUTH mEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED SCREENED 'x'-EXCEEDS SCREENING CRITERIA I SCREENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA '0'-WITHIN SCREENING CRITERIA I *.'-MISSING DATA I I I RMK 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 WQI CURRENT I I I I I I I I I I I I I WATERSHED I OR OR 1 TN>2.0 I TP>.46 I TP>.12 IPH>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 IPH<5.2 I I TSS>18 I I COD>102 I IFECAL>4701DINAT!(1.5 I ----- -------------------------------------------- I I I I I TOC>27.51 I I BECK<5.5 I WATER BODY TYPE: ES-UARY 46 WT-HLACOOCHEr_ RTVER IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 2 LAKE JULIANA OUT ILET IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 3 LA]KE MATTIE OUTLET IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 x I x I 1 1 6 1 1 0 1 x 1 4 ORANGE HAMMOCK DRAIN GOOD Historical ( 0 1 f 0 1 0 1 x I a I I 1 0 1 1 1 . I 5 :_AKE AGNES OUTLET GOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x I I I I I 1 0 1 0 1 6 LAKE HELENE OUTLET IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 8 CLEAR LAKE !GOOD Historical 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1-7 LA-KE LINDSEY IGOOD Current i 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 30 'Take Panasoffkee ;GOOD Current 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 . 1 31 :.AK-E OKAHUMPKA OUTLET IGOOD Historical ! 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 . 1 34 TSALA APOPKA OUTLET IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 a 1 0 1 0 1 a 1 1 6 1 1 a 1 0 1 35 LAKE DEATON OUTTLET IFAIR Historical 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 6 1 1 0 1 x 1 38 :_kKE MIONA V,77LET iGOOD Historical ; 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 39 :ADY LAKE JGOOD Historical i 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 j 44 lake Rousseau jGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 0 1 � WAIER BODY TYPE: SPRING 37 7-771LE JONES SPRING IGOOD Historical 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 f x I a I 50 ;@INBOW SPRINGS IGOOD Current 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 � WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 1 WT.HL.ACOOCHES RIVER IPOOR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I x I x 7 W:THLACOOCHEE RIVER IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 9 DADE CITY CANAL IPOOR Historical 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I I 11 LITTLE WITHLACCOCHEE IGOOD Current 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 x I I 12 SPRING HAMMOCK RUN IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 6 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 14 WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 15 BIG GANT CANAL IGOOD Current 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 0 1 0 1 22 WALLED SINK IPOOR Historical 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 . 1 25 JUMPER CREEK CANAL IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 28 LESLIE-HEFNER CANAL IUNKN Historical ! . I . 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 29 SHADY BROOK IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 a I 1 0 1 0 1 33 withlacoochee River IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 36 '_-TTLE JONES CREEK IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 p 1 0 1 41 W:7HLACOOCFEE RIVER IGOOD Historical f 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 43 BYPASS ClLkNNEL IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 45 Withlacoochee River IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 51 BLUE RUN IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 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 1988 TOT-TOTAL COLIFORM BACTERIA WHICH INDEX USED, V1QI OR TSI, IS BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX CURRENT-1969 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 DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100208 WITHLkC0OCHEE RIVER,SOUTH 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 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 TP I TP I I TSS I I DEMAND I I BACTI I DIV I I DISC I wQI CURRENT WATERSHED OR OR TN>2.0 1 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 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 TOC>27.51 I I BECK<5.5 I I I 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 oe WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100208 WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER,SOUTH .RVNDS-SOURCES-CLEANUP 'x'-DEGRADING TREND 1984 - 1993 TRENDS '0'-S-ABLE TREND ----------------------------------------------------- '-'-I-PROVING TREND I 1W TI T TC Sl P Al T T1 B TI D DI T Fl T F l<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY '.'-M'SSING DATA ]QUALITY RANK IOVER-IQ or Sl N PH 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 6 01 M 0 1 1 KI ITRENDI I A I I B I I Al L Ll P W I IMEETS OR I I I I I I I TI I Il I :,I NAME IUSE ? TSI I I I I I I I I I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ----- ------------------------ I------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- '.-.k:--, BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 46 W:-:.ACOOCHEE RIVER IYES GOODI I I . . . . I -A:--R BODY TYPE: LAKE 2 :A:<-- -jLIANA OUTLET IYES GOODI I I I I I I I 1 1 3 :.K<-- MATTIE OUTLET IPARTIAL FAIRI I I I I I I I I I 4 0:LkV5-_ HAMMOCK DRAIN IYES GOODI I I I I I I I I I AGNES OUTLET IYES GOODI I I I I I I I I I :-k<-- HELENE OUTLET IYES GOODI I I I I I I I I I '_:@:AR LAKE IYES GOODI I I I I I I I 1 1 :A:<--- , INDSEY IYES GOODI I I . . . . I 3' _ake ;anasoffkee I@Es GOODI + I + 1 0 + .1 0 .1 .1 01 0 Ol .1 0 0 1 3' :.AK_T OKAHUMPKA OUTLET IYES GOODI I I I I I I I I I 3k -SA:.A APOPKA OUTLET IYES GOODI I I I I I I I I I 35 LAKE DEATON OUTLET IPARTIAL FAIRI I I I I I I I 1 1 32 M:ONA OUTLET IYES GOODI I I i I I I I I I 39 1-AZY :.AXE IYES GOODI I I I I I I I 1 1 44 '-ake Ro"sseau IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 0 0 .1 a 01 0 01 + 01 0 01 .1 0 1 WA:SR BODY TYPE: SPRING 37 JONES SPRING IYES GOODI I I I I I I I 1 1 51 SPRINGS IYES GOODI 0 1 x 1 0 0 .1 0 .1 .1 01 0 KI .1 0 0 1 '.A:--R BODY TYPE; STREAM W-:u!AC0OCHEE RIVER INO POORI + 1 0 1 + + .1 0 .1 .1 .1 0 01 .1 0 0 1 I W"_:FIACOOCHEE RIVER IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 0 + .1 0 1 .1 01 0 01 .1 0 0 1 9 --A:;z- C:TY CANAL INO POORI . I . I . . . . I WITHLA.COOCHEE IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 0 0 .1 0 .1 .1 .1 0 01 .1 0 0 1 12 S?R:I;G HAMMOCK RUN IYES GOODI I I I I I I I I I '4 W-:H!ACOOCHEE RIVER IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 0 0 .1 0 .1 .1 01 0 01 .1 0 0 1 iz 3,G GANT CANAL IYES GOOD] 0 1 0 1 . . . . 1 0 .1 1 1 0 61 1 0 1 24 WALIED S:NK INO POORI I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 25 -.7M?TR CREEK CANAL IYES GOODI I I . . . . I 28 CANAL No UNKNI I I . . . . I 29 SHADY BROOK IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I 33 Wit*--acocchee River IPARTIAL FAIRI I 36 *-:::'--- TONES CREEK IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 0 0 .1 0 1 .1 01 .1 .1 0 1 4. W::"4:-k--OOCHEE RIVER @YES GOODI I I I I I I I I I 43 BY?ASS CHANNEL IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 + D 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 01 .1 x I 4@ W_"_'-_&c:cochee River IYES GOODI + 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 xl + 01 + 01 0 01 .1 0 0 1 DOSAT-DO SATURATION TCOLI-TOTA.L COLIFORM TURB-TURBIDITY FCOLI-FECAL COLIFORM TEMP-TEMPERATURE TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX FOR LAKES AND ESTUARIES, ALK-A:@<A_T:N:TY FLOW-FLOW TN-NITROGEN WQI-WATER OULAITY INDEX FOR STREAMS AND SPRINGS BOD-B:OCCHEM. OXYGEN DEMAND MEETS USE-MEETS DESIGNATED USE TOC-T.OR5ANIC CARBON PH-PH TP-PHOSPHORUS DO-:@:SSO'_VED OXYGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS = = = = = m = m = = = m = = = = = m = SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03100208 WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER,SOUTH TRENDS-SOURCES-CLEANUP : x'-DEGRADING TREND 1984 - 1993 TRENDS 0'-STABLE TREND ----------------------------------------------------- +'-IMPROVING TREND I 1W T1 T T C Sl P Al T TI B TI D D1T Fl T F I<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY '.'-MISSING DATA iQUALITY RANK IOVER-tQ or Sl N P H D1 H Ll U Sl 001 0 01C Cl E L I I------------- I ALL 11 11 L I KI R St D Cl Sl0 Oi M 0 1 WQI @TREND@ A B A@L L@ P W WATERSHED MEETS OR T I I ID NAME I USE ? TSI I I I I I I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ----- ------------------------ I------------- I I I I I I I----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 51 BLUE RUN IYES GOODI I I I I I I I LEGEND: DOSAT-DO SATURATION TOOLI-TOTAL COLIFORM TURB-TURBIDITY FOOLI-FECAL COLIFORM TEMP-TEMPERATURE TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX FOR LAKES AND ESTUARIES ALK-ALKALINITY FLOW-FLOW TN-NITROGEN WQI-WATER QULAITY INDEX FOR STREAMS AND SPRINGS BOD-BIOCHEM. OXYGEN DEMAND MEETS USE-14ERTS 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-WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER,SOUTH HUC-03100208 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ N 3 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 a 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 a S 3 N E R E 0 C C R G I I T L M P I G E D D E W I S I S 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 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 1329G WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER POOR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x I WITHLACODCHEE RIVER GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x a CLEAR LAKE GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X, 9 13@9 DADE CITY CANAL POOR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 1c. 1390 LAKE ELIZABETH OUTLET THREAT x x x x x 13. 1385 ROCK POND OUTLET THREAT x .4 1329B WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x i6* 1379 WILD COW PRAIRIE DRAIN THREAT x x x x x 11 , '1329H LAKE LINDSEY GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 'a- '375 MUBISY POND OUTLET THREAT x x 1371 mcKlrmF.N LAXE OUTLET THREAT x x x x x 1376 GATOR HEAD SLOUGH THREAT x x 21* CLABBER CREEK THREAT x x 23 . - 1369 UNNAMED DITCH THREAT x x 24. *372 GRANT SLOUGH THREAT x x 26- 1365 TOWNS PRAIRIE DRAIN THREAT x x 27. 1363 SCHOOLHOUS POND DRAIN THREAT x x x x x '9 1356 SHADY BROOK FAIR THREAT x ;2- 1352 ROBINSON LAKE OUTLET THREAT x x x x 33 1329D Withlacoochee River FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 38 1342 LAKE !%-NA OUTLET GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x 39 1342A LADY LAKE GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x 4@! 1338B GUM SLOUGH THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x 41 ',329A WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 42- 1338A GUM SPRINGS THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x 44 1329B Lake Rousseau GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 4- *.32@,' Withlacoochoo R@ver GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 4 JON_.S CR__T,, THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x BIG :3`6 7URNER CREEK GOOD BELL BlAINCH GOOD @_'A RAINBOW SPR:N*GS GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x .320 BLUE RUN GOOD ..q R EAT x x x Ll LAKE BUFFUM 73 PRAIRIE CREEK 73 ALAFIA RIVER 16 LAKE CANNON 73 PUNTA GORDA ISLES CA 73 ALLIGATOR CREEK 98 LAKE CHARLES 98 ROBERTS RAY 90 ANCLOTE RIVER 31 LAKE CRENSHAW 98 ROCKY CREEK 98 BAKER CREEK 43 LAKE DAN 31 ROUND LAKE 98 BANANA LAKE 73 LAKE DEATON OUTENT 112 SADDLE CK AB LK HANCOC 73 BEAR BRANC14 73 LAKE DRAIN 16 SADDLE CREEK 73 BEAR CREEK 31 LAKE EFFIE OUTLET 73 SADDLEBACK LAKE 98 BELL CREEK 16 LAKE ELOISE '/3 SAN CARLOS BAY 24 BIG BEND BAYOU 98 LAKE GIBSON 73 SARASOTA BAY 90 BIG DITCH 43 LAKE HANCOCK 73 SEFFNER CANAL 43 BIG GANT CANAL 112 LAKE HARTRIDGE 73 SHELL CREEK 73 BIG SLOUGH CANAL 65 LAKE HARVEY 98 SIXMILE CREEK 98 BISHOP CREEK 98 LAKE HELENE OUTLET 112 SO FK LITTLE MANATEE R 51 BISHOPS HARBOR 98 LAKE HENRY 73 SOUTH BRANCH 31 BLACKWATER CREEK 43 LAKE HOBBS 98 SOUTH PRONG ALAFIA R 16 BLUE RUN 112 LAKE HUNTER 43 SPRING HAMMOCK RUN 112 BOCA CIEGA BAY 31 LAKE IDYLWILD 73 ST JOE CREEK 31 BONN CREEK 31 LAKE IOLA 31 STEVENSON CREEK 31 BOOKER CREEK 98 LAKE JESSIE 73 SULPHUR SPRINGS 43 BOWLEGS CREEK 73 LAKE JULIANA OUTLET 112 SWEETWATER CREEK 98 BOWLES CREEK 90 LAKE LENA RUN 73 TAMPA BAY 98 BRADEN RIVER 58 LAKE LINDSEY 112 TAMPA BYPASS CANAL 98 BROOKER CREEK 98 LAKE LUCERNE 73 THOMPSON BRANCH 73 BUCK LAKE 98 LAKE LULU OUTLET 73 TROUT CREEK 43 BULLFROG CREEK 98 LAKE MADELENE 98 TSALA APOPKA OUTLET 112 CAPTIVA ISLAND 24 LAKE MAGGIORE 98 TURKEY CK AB LTL ALAFI 16 CATFISH CREEK 90 LAKE MATTIE OUTLET 112 TWO HOLE BRANCH 43 CHANNEL G 98 LAKE MAY 73 UPPER BROOKER CREEK 98 CHARLOTTE HARBOR LOWER 24 LAKE MIONA OUTLET 112 VAN DYKE LAKE 98 CHASSARAWITZKA RIVER 31 LAKE MIRROR '13 WALLED SINK 112 CLEAR LAKE 112 LAKE OKAHUMPKA OUTLET 112 WARES CREEK 58 COCKROACH BAY 98 LAKE OTIS 73 WARM MINERAL SPRING 65 CORAL CREEK E.BRANCH 90 LAKE PARKER 73 WEEKIWATCHEE RIVER 31 COW PEN SLOUGH 90 LAKE ROUSSEAU 112 WHIDDEN CREEK 73 COW SLOUGH 73 LAKE SEMINOLE 31 WILLIAMS CREEK 58 CRYSTAL RIVER 31 LAKE SHIPP 73 WINGATE CREEK 65 CURLEW CREEK 31 LAKE TARPON 98 WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER 112 CYPRESS CREEK 43 LAKE TENOROC 73 DADE CITY CANAL 112 LAKE THOMAS 31 DEER PRAIRIE CREEK 65 LAKE THONOTOSASSA 43 DELANEY CREEK 98 LAKE WINTERSET 73 DOUBLE BRANCH 98 LEMON BAY 90 DUG CREEK 51 LESLIE-HEFNER CANAL 112 EAGLE LAKE 73 LITTLE CHARLIE BOWLEGS 73 EUREKA SPRINGS RUN 98 LITTLE CHARLIE CREEK 73 FISH HATCHERY DRAIN 43 LITTLE JONES SPRING 112 FISHHAWK CREEK 16 LITTLE MANATEE RIVER 51 FLINT CREEK 43 LITTLE SARASOTA BAY 90 FROG CREEK 98 LTL ALAFIA 16 GAP CREEK 58 MANATEE RIVER 58 GATES CREEK 58 MATLACHA PASS 24 GATOR SLOUGH CANAL 24 MCKAY BAY 98 GILLY CREEK 51 MCMULLIN CREEK 91 GOTTFRIED CREEK 90 MEDARD RESERVOIR 16 HILLSBOROUGH BAY 98 MILL CREEK 58 HILLSBOROUGH RIVER 43 MINED AREA 73 HOG BRANCH 73 MOON LAKE 31 HOLLIN CREEK 31 MUD LAKE SLOUGH 65 HOLLOMANS BRANCH 43 MYAKKA RIVER 65 HOMOSASSA RIVER 31 MYRTLE SLOUGH 73 HORSE CK 73 N. FORK L. MANATEE R. 51 HUNTER LAKE 31 NO. PRONG ALLIGATOR CR 24 ITCHEPACKASASSA, CREEK 43 NORTH PRONG ALAFIA R. 16 JOHNSON CREEK 65 OLD TAMPA BAY 98 JOSHUA CK AB PEACE R 73 ORANGE HAMMOCK DRAIN 112 JUMPER CREEK CANAL 112 PALM RIVER 98 JUMPING GULLY 31 PEACE RIVER 73 KEYSTONE LAKE 98 PECKS SINK OVERFLOW 31 KLOSTERMAN BAYOU RUN 31 PEMBERTON CREEK 43 LADY LAKE 112 PHILIPPE CREEK 90 LAKE ALFRED 73 PHILIPPI CREEK 90 LAKE ARETTA 73 PINE ISLAND SOUND LOWR 24 LAKE ARIANNA 73 PITHLACHASCOTEE RIVER 31 LAKE BROOKER 98 POLEY BRANCH 58 . JOAA WAVAL SERVICIS C'M LIBRARY I 3 6668 14111665 9 , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I