[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
SOUTHEAST AND SOUTH FLORIDA DISTRICT WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT 1994 305 (b) TECHNICAL APPENDIX FT.MYERS WATER QUALITY GOOD THREATENED FAIR POOR UNKNOWN MIAMI JOE HAND, JANA COL, AND ERIC GRIMISON BUREAU OF SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION .4 NOVEMBER, 1994 % 40000'a INDEX TO RIVER BASINS TAYLOR CREEK PAGE 64,.,,,Ll FISHEATING CREEK PAGE 32 LAKE OKFECHOBEE -/- PAGE 43 CALOOSAHATCHE R. PAGE W SOUTHEAST COAST PAGE 50 EVERGLADES SOUTHWEST COAST PAGE 24 K@S PAI E CCALOC,F SO, 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 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. * Rezional 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). * 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. 9 ARCANFO 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 Nonuoint Source Oualitative Survey - A nonpoint source qualitative survey was performed in 1988 and has been updated and included in this report for 1994. The survey used the same watersheds which were used to assess the water quality data and the qualitative results were integrated into this report to both supplement the quantitative information and to provide information when no quantitative information was available. 0 Current versus Historic Data - Water quality data were examined for two time periods: current data from 1989-1993 and historic data from 1970-1988. astoric data were used to assess waterbodies only when there was no current data available. 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 Caloosahatchee River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Everglades West Coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Fisheating Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Florida Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Lake Okeechobee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 outheastern Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Taylor Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 S 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 EAA Everglades Agricultural Area EPA Environmental Protection Agency FGFWFC Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission MGD millions of gallons per day NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPS nonpoint source NWFWMD Northwest Florida Water Management District OFW Outstanding Florida Waters REACH an EPA-designated waterbody or portion of a waterbody SFWMD South Florida Water Management District SJRWMD St. Johns River Water Management District SRWMD Suwannee River Water Management District STORET EPA's water quality data STOrage and RETrieval system SWFWMD Southwest Florida Water Management District swim Surface Water Improvement and Management TKN total Kjeldahl nitrogen (organic nitrogen and ammonia) TSI trophic state index WIA wasteload allocation WMD Water Management District WQI water quality index WWTP wastewater treatment plant 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 199 4, 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 estuaries with fewer miles in the "meets use" category and more miles in the "does not meet use" category. Interestingly enough, this year's lake assessment brought in many more small lakes with good Vi overall quality, however, Florida's largest I akes (Lake Okeechobee and Lake George) still overwhelm the State average with their large mileages of fair to poor quality. 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: I . Only one-tenth of the waterbodies are assessed for trends. 2. The primary focus of our monitoring network is not trend assessment; most of our stations are frequently moved, and there are very few sites with long-term, monthly data. 3. Our trend assessment technique is tailored to the problem identified in #2, thus, it only identified relatively drastic changes in water quality. Subtle water quality changes due to population growth or nonpoint source treatment improvements are not picked up by this analysis. Table 1. Mileages of Florida Waters Assessed Monitored 1. Evaluated 2. Unknown 3. Total River (miles) 7,025 4,855 39,9782. 51,858 Lake (sq. miles) 1,541 400 124 2,064 Estuary (sq. miks) 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 NVERS (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 60 ..... ..... ......... .. 47 60 ......... .. 8MONITORED ........ ..... 0 41 LL Lu 50 ......... .... ... . . . .. 0 -1 13EVALUATED 40Z ........ ..... . ....... z E3 UNKNOWN Lu 4C 30 20 8 uj lo@ ...... ....... .... CL 0 ...... ....... RIVERS LAKES ESTUARIES FIGURE 2. DESIGNATED USE SUPPORT IN FLORIDA WATERBODIES 65 70- 63 60. 50. 42 0 I.- 13YES u. 40V 0 0 PARTIAL z 30. ONO 20,Z Lu ............... .......... ....... 9L 10V . ..... 0- RIVERS LAKES ESTUARIES FIGURE 3. TEN YEAR WATER QUALITY TREND ANALYSIS FOR FLORIDA WATERBODIES (1984-1993) 80- 7? 72 68 ca 70-1Z Agar'.. Ui ..... .... . .......... .. 0 r'oV .......... 50- ................ BRIVER .......... 40-z ... ....... 0 LAKE .......... 0 OESTUARY 30-z 24 23 .......... ......... ...... z ...... ......... ...... . . . . w ....... ............ 20-Z .......... . 6 Lu z IL 10- 4 ..... ..... 0 ......... BETTER NO CHANGE WORSE WATER QUALITY TREND ix Ten Year Florida Water Quality Trends (1984-1993) V8 10 year water quality trend Better No change Worse Florida's surface water quality is displayed on the map on the cover of the main report. Two important conclusions can be drawn from this figure: first, the majority of Florida's surface water has good quality; and second, the majority of problems are found in Central and South Florida. The sparsely populated northwest and west-central sections of the State have relatively better water quality than other areas. Water quality problem areas in the State are evident around the densely populated, major urban areas including: Jacksonville, Orlando, Tampa, Pensacola, the Cape Kennedy area and the southeastern Florida coast. Other areas of poor water quality, not associated with population, are found in basins with intense agricultural usage. Pollution sources and problems in Florida are varied. The State does not have extensive industrialization, but rather localized concentrations of heavy industry centered mostly in urban areas. Many of the problems found in surface waters in urban areas can be attributed to industrial discharges. Silviculture, agriculture and various types of animal husbandry are a large part of Florida's current and historical economy. Furthermore, Florida has undergone rapid population growth over the past two decades and this continues. This has resulted in more pollution sources associated with residential development. Florida's major surface water quality problems can be summarized into five general categories 1. 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 miffor, 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 reIuse 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. Xi 4. Industrial Wastewater. Most notable among these are the pulp and paper mills. Because of the volume and nature of their discharge, all of the pulp and paper mills operating in the State seriously degrade their receiving waters. The phosphate and fertilizer industries are major pollution sources (both point and nonpoint) in several of Florida's surface water basins. In addition, the mining of phosphate causes surface water hydrological modifications and major land use disturbances. 5. Hydrological Modifications. This can take the form of damming running waters, channelizing slow moving waters, or dredging, draining and filling wetlands. Such modifications are not strictly pollution sources. However, in most cases where the natural hydrological regime was modified (mostly for water quantity purposes) water quality problems have ensued. Rating the effect of hydrologic modification is difficult. 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 Miami 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 Day. 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 Xii the stormwater pipe system, leaking or broken sewer lines, and direct discharges of raw sewage when pump stations have exceeded their capacity. During acute contamination events (direct discharge of sewage) coliform bacteria counts in the Miami River and adjoining waters of Biscayne Bay are hundreds of times higher than State criteria. Efforts are being made by the City of Miami and Dade County to correct these problems. South Florida Region Basin-by-Basin Evaluation of Water Quality The quality of Florida waters is graphically depicted on basin maps which follow each basin description. Areas of good, fair, and poor quality are readily discernible on these maps. The following is a summary of the status of the quality of waters in south Florida: This part of the State has had extensive surface hydrologic modification. Large areas, that were once low-lying swamps, are now man-made canals designed for flood control and reclamation of land. Much of the once-inundated lands are used for intensive agriculture or urban development. Other significant portions of the marsh land are used for water storage and recharge or are preserved in State and federal holdings. The Caloosahatchee River has mostly been channelized from Lake Okeechobee to the Gulf of Mexico. It receives agricultural runoff. Biological diversities are lower in the river than in its tributaries. The estuarine portion receives urban runoff and some wastewater discharge and exhibits water quality problems. The City of Cape Coral recently connected its first home to a dual use water system. That system allows treated effluent and canal water to be used for irrigation. Several streams drain into Lake Okeechobee. The Fisheating Creek basin has no major pollution problems, although rangeland and agricultural runoff have resulted in some depressed DO concentrations. The five small streams that compose the Taylor Creek Basin (north of Lake Okeechobee) have some of the poorest water quality in the State. They are severely impacted by dairy-farm runoff. Lake Okeechobee exhibits fair overall quality. The northern section of the lake receives excessive nutrient loads from Kissimmee River and from the streams in the Taylor Creek basin. The southern section of the lake receives nutrient loading from historic backpumping of agricultural lands (which still occasionally occurs). These lands are primarily planted in sugar cane and vegetables and are sprayed with various pesticides and/or fertilizers. Backpumping, which is now much reduced, occurs only during drought periods. There is a concerted effort by DEP and the Xiii South Florida Water Management District to reverse the trend of worsening water quality in Lake Okeechobee. Lake Okeechobee serves as the hub of a flood control system that involves five major cA nals that run east and southeast of the lake through water conservation areas and the Everglades to the Atlantic Ocean. These major canals are greatly subdivided and dammed for flood control purpoges. The canals, along with the residential finger-canal systems which are located along the Intracoastal Waterway and the Biscayne Bay area, make up most of the water systems of the Southeast Coast basin. The canals are characterized by high nutrient levels, low DO concentrations and poor flushing. Vish kills occur periodically 'as a result of the low DO. Water quality in the western teaches of these canals near the lake is poor due to agricultural runoff. The Water quality of the canals in the eastern section of the basin depends on the degree of urbanization surrounding thdffi And domestic point sources. Areas of relatively good water quality in the Southeast Coast basin are the Savannas near Ft. Pierce, portions of the St. Lucie and Ukahatehee Rivas and their estuaries, portions of Lake Worth, and the more open areas of Biscayne Ba:y. The marshes constituting t .he water conservation areas and most of the Everglades National Park are also included in this basin and have good water quality but are threatened by nutrient loading from agricultural areas. Largemout Ih bass in the &vannas Marsh, Everglades, and Conservation Areas 2and 3 had high enoughfissue concentrationsof mercury to warrant no consumption advisories. A t.hree year lawsuit against DEP and the SVWMD filed by the U. S. Department of Justice for water quality violations in the Everglades -and Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge has been settled. Nutrient enrichment hag causedor contributed to four violations of Florida's Class III water quality criteria. These include imbalances of flora or fauna, dominance of nuisance species, biological integrity, and dissolved' oxygen. Waterb6dies in portiont,of southern -Florida that areheavily urbanized @have a different set of problems than those in agricultural areas. Urbanrunoff.and'higtoric wastewater discharges have created serious problems forthese water-bodies. Of particular concern are the New River in Br6ward County and the Miami River"in Dade County. TheNewRlver@receives discharges from improperly functioning septic tanks, vessels, industrial activities, and rundff. Metals enrichment of sediments has been found at -niarina'sites. The Miami River has serious problems with high coliform counts and contaminated sediments. Overload @of the sewer system during -periods,of:high inflow of,stormwater or groundwater results in discharges of sewage. A more chronic,problem of high @colifbrm counts exists because of illegal connections of sewer lines to the stormwater system, leaking -,pipes -and joints, and broken pipes. Sediments are contaminated with heavy metals, pesticides, and oTganic -pollutants; sources of these,pollutants,includes-stormwater -runoff, domestic and industrial waste -discharges, and biocides used @on vessels. Xiv The Florida Keys have good water quality except for problems in some of the manmade canals, in the marina areas, and in the port at Key West. There are also localized problems around some of the wastewater discharges. Biological problems have become evident with the die-off of seagrasses and mangroves. High temperature, high salinity and lack of flushing from hurricanes have been implicated as causes of the seagrass die-off. XV 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 Secchi depth. Screening levels for 19 water quality parameters were also used to determine the quality of Florida lakes, estuaries and streams. The water quality indices and screening levels have all been tailored to FloriUs water quality by using the actual distribution of Florida data to determine the water quality criteria used by the procedures. Specific information on each of the procedures is described in the following sections. Watershed as the Assessment Unit In the 1992 305(b) assessment report, Florida was subdivided into 1600 reaches which were based on EPA's RF2 (river reach file #2). A reach was defined as a 5 mile long section of river, or 5 square mile section of lake or estuary. Only major 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. The original 1600 reach delineations have been kept intact, however, many additional watersheds have been added due to the increased resolution of RF3 and the USGS watersheds which cover the entire State. USGS was contracted to develop useable, small watersheds (approximately 5 square miles) using watershed boundaries identified on USGS topological maps and ARC/INFO GIS techniques. USGS completed 75% of the State, but unfortunately they did not delineate watersheds in south Florida (USGS subregion 0309). Watersheds for South Florida were adapted from a much coarser delineation developed by the South Florida Water Management District. The resulting watersheds in this area are about 50 square miles each, ten times larger than those for the rest of the State. The major waterbody within each watershed was identified and named. Usually each watershed encompassed one major or one minor named waterbody (similar to the 1992 reach structure). The length of each stream waterbody and the area of lake and estuary waterbodies is essential information. The length of stream waterbodies was determined by GIS measurements of the RF3 trace ( or assigned a length of 5 miles if no RF3 trace was available). The area of lake and estuary waterbodies was determined with crude GIS aerial measurement techniques (if estuary waterbodies had no RF3 traces, their area was set to 5 square miles and unknown lake waterbodies were assigned an area of I square mile). The water quality within each waterbody is assumed to be homogenous (if data prove this assumption to be wrong, then the waterbody was subdivided). GIS techniques were used to assign STORET sites to their respective watersheds and the location of each site was visually inspected on a GIS map. If more than one named waterbody showed up in a watershed (based on the STORET data within a watershed), then the watershed was subdivided. Inventory of STORET Data An inventory of data was retrieved from STORET for the 1970-1993 time period. If data within a watershed were available for the current time period (defined as 1989-1993), then historical data was not examined, except for trend analysis. If no current data were found, then historic data (defined as 1970-1988) were used for the assessment. Fifty STORET parameter codes representing 21 different water quality parameters were inventoried (Table 3). There are about 8000 Florida stations in STORET which were sampled in 1970-1993. These stations are located in 1500 of the 4400 watersheds. Annual average (median) water quality was calculated for each of these stations and the data were stored on a local 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 Table 3. Storet Water Quality Assessment Parameters. Category Storet Parameter Name Storet Parameter Code Coliform Fecal Coli MPN-FCBR/100m.1 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/1 300 Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen Probe mg/1 299 Diversity Index Biotic Index BI 82256 Diversity Index Diversity Index Artificial substrate 82251 Diversity Index Diversity Index Natural substrate 82246 Flow Stream Flow cfs 60 Flow Stream Flow inst.-cfs 61 Oxygen Demand BOD 5 day mg/1 310 Oxygen Demand COD Hi Level mg/1 340 Oxygen Demand Tot Organic Carbon C mg/1 680 pH-Alkalinity PH SU 400 pH-Alkalinity PH SU lab 403 pH-Alkalinity Total Alkalinity CaC03 mg/1 410 Temperature Temperature Water cent 10 Trophic Status Chlorophyll A mg/1 32230 Trophic Status Chlorophyll A mg/1 32217 Trophic Status Chlorophyll A mg/1 32210 Trophic Status Chlorophyll A mg/1 corrected 32211 Trophic Status Chlorophyll Total mg/1 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/1 608 Trophic Status Nitrogen NH3-NH4- N total mg/l 610 Trophic Status Nitrogen Nitrate Diss-N03 mg/1 71851 Trophic Status Nitrogen Nitrate Tot-N03 mg/1 71850 Trophic Status Nitrogen N02&NO3. N-Diss mg/1 631 Trophic Status Nitrogen N02&NO3 N-Total mg/1 630 Trophic Status Nitrogen N03-N Diss mg/1 618 Trophic Status Nitrogen N03-N Total mg/1 620 Trophic Status Nitrogen Org N N mg/1 605 Trophic Status Nitrogen Tot Kjel N mg/1 625 Trophic Status Nitrogen Total N As N03 mg/1 71887 Trophic Status Nitrogen Total N N mg/1 600 Trophic Status Phosphorus OrthoPO4 mg/1 660 Trophic Status Phosphorus Total As P04 mg/1 71886 Table 3. Storet Water Quality Assessment Parameters (continued). Category Storet Para'meter Name Storet Parameter Code Tr6phic Status Phosj@horus total -,tr@/ 1 P 665 Trophic Status Trahsparehcy Secchi inches 77 Tro@hic'. Status Transparency 8ecchi -Meter@s 78 Water Clarit y Color PT-CO Units 80 Water Clakit@ col6r@kp Pt-to 'Units 81 Water Clarity ROsidue t6t f4kI;T mg/.1 530 Water Clarity tu-kbidity jr-KIN -JTU 70 Water Clarity Turbidity 'TR13IDMT-R 14ACH FTU 16 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 streaffdriver 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 water quality data in Florida (Table 4). [The percentile distribution of STORET water quality data were determined in 1987 for 2,000 ambient, stream STORET locations in Florida.] For example, Table 4 shows the BOD concentrations ranged from 0.8 mg/l (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/l 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 WQI is based on an average of anywhere from 1 to 6 water quality index categories. Table 5 shows an example calculation of the WQ1. 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 Table 4. Florida Stream Water Quality Index Criteria. Percentile Distribution of STORET Data. ?a:,a:ne':er Best Quality Median Value Worst Quality Unit 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 10% 80% 90% - --=::egory: Water Clarity 7. " @:.,:y 1.50 3.00 4.00 4.50 5.20 8.80 12.20 16.50 21.00 JTU Tc--a-- Suspended Soldis mg/l 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.50 6.50 9.50 12.50 18.00 26.50 -- Ca--egory: Dissolved Oxygen Dissz-ved Oxygen mg/1 8.00 7.30 6.70 6.30 5.80 5.30 4.80 4.00 3.10 - Ca--egory: Oxygen Demand Bi@c--emical Oxygen Demand mg/1 0.80 1.00 1.10 1.30 1.50 1.90 2.30 3.30 5.10 C@em'cal Oxygen Demand mg/l 16.00 24.00 32.00 38.00 46.00 58.00 72.00 102.00 146.00 9.50 12.00 14.00 11.50 21.00 21.50 37.00 .c--aL --rqanic Carbon mg/1 5.00 7.00 - I -=-egory: Nutrients -c--a' Nitrogen mg/1 as N 0.55 0.75 0.90 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 2.00 2.70 7--:al ?,osphorus mg/1 as P 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.16 0.24 0.46 0.89 Ca:egory: Bacteria Coliform #/100 ml 100.00 150.00 250.00 425.00 600.00 1100.00 1600..00 3700.00 7600.00 -eca' Coliform #/100 ml 10.00 20.00 35.00 55.00 75.00 135.00 190.00 470.00 960.00 C-=@egory: Biological Diversity lfver-z"Lty Index Nat. Substrate Index 3.50 3.10 2.80 2.60 2.40 2.15 1.95 1.50 1.20 -ve:-'ty 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 Table 5. An Example Calculation of the Florida stream water Quality Index (WQI). Parameter Water Quality Category' Water Quality Paramete r2 Value3 Index Value4 Index Average 5 Water Clarity Turbidity 3.9 mg/1 29 40 Water Clarity Total Suspended Solids 7.0 mg/1 52 Dissolved oxygen Dissolved Oxygen 5.4 mg/l 58 58 Oxygen Demanding Substances BOD 2.8 mg/1 75 Oxygen Demanding Substances COD 31.0 mg/l 29 52 Oxygen Demanding Substances TOC Nutrients Total Nitrogen 1.87 mg/1 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 MI. 70 Macroinvertebrate Diversity Natural Substrate 1.7 76 Macroinvertebrate Diversity Artificial Substrate 2.3 72 69 Macroinvertebrate Diversity Beck's Biotic Index 11.0 60 WQI = 61' 1 - These are the 6 water quality categories. 2 _ These are the 13 water quality parameters which make up the 6 categories. 3 _ These are the actual data values (1.1 indicates no measurement was taken for this parameter). 4 - The index value is based on the percentile distribution values shown in Table 4. 5 _ The category average is based on an average of each of the water quality parameter values. 6 - The WQI is an average of the category index values, i.e., WQI = (40+58+52+79+70+69)/6=61. works; it nicely identifies areas of good, fair, and poor water quality that correspond to professional and public opinion. A toxic pollutants category would be a valuable addition to the index; however, toxic pollutants were not included in the index since there is relatively little data in Florida (compared to the amount of data for conventional pollutants ). Toxic pollutants were assessed separately as discussed later in this section of the report. Trophic State Index Procedure The Trophic State Index procedure provides an effective method of classifying lakes based on the lake's chlorophyll, Secchi depth, nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations. The index was developed in 1982 in response to the EPA Clean Lakes Program and is documented in the Classification of Florida Lakes Report by the University of Florida, Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences. This index remains unchanged from the 1988 305(b) report. The index is based on a trophic classification scheme developed in 1977 by R.E. Carlson. It relies on three trophic indicators to describe the trophic status of a lake. The goal was to have each indicator relate to algal biomass such that a 10 unit change in- the index would represent a doubling or halving of algal biomass. Carlson developed indices based on Secchi disc transparency, chlorophyll concentration and total phosphorus concentration. The Florida Trophic State Index (TSI) is based on the same rationale, but also includes total nitrogen concentration as a fourth index. Criteria were developed for Florida lakes from a regression analysis of data on 313 Florida lakes. The desirable upper limit for the index is set at 20 ug/l chlorophyll which corresponds to an index of 60. Doubling the chlorophyll concentration to 40 ug/l results in an index increase to 70 which is the cutoff for undesirable (or poor) lake quality. Index values from 60 to 69 represent 'fair' water quality. The criteria for chlorophyll, Secchi depth, total phosphorus and total nitrogen concentrations are shown in Table 6. A nutrient index is also calculated based on phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations and the limiting nutrient concept. The 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 30, solely on nitrogen if less than 10, or based on both nitrogen and phosphorus if the ratio is between 10 and 3 0. An overall index (TSI) is calculated based on the average of the chlorophyll TSI, the Secchi depth TSI and the nutrient TSI. For this index to be calculated, both nitrogen and phosphorus measurements are required for the sample. The lake trophic state index was also applied to Florida estuaries to describe estuarine water quality. The criteria for the estuary quality ratings is 10 less than the lake ratings (i.e., good estuarine water quality is a TSI value of 0-49, fair quality is 50- 59, and poor quality is a value of 60-100). Table 7 shows an example TSI calculation. 8 Table 6. Trophic State Index (TSI) for Lakes and Estuaries. For Lakes: 0-59 is good, 60-69 is fair, 70-100 is poor For Estuaries: 0-49 is good, 50-59 is fair, 60-100 is poor Trophic State Chlorophyll Secchi Depth Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen Index CHIA SD TP TN TSI (ug/1) W (mgP/l) (mgN/1) 0 0.3 7.4 0.003 0.06 10 0.6 5.3 0.005 0.10 20 1.3 3.8 0.009 0.16 30 2.5 2.7 0.01 0.27 40 5.0 2.0 0.02 0.45 50 10.0 1.4 0.04 0.70 60 20.0 1.0 0.07 1.2 70 40 0.7 0.12 2.0 80 80 0.5 0.20 3.4 90 160 0.4 0.34 5.6 100 320 0.3 0.58 9.3 TSI equations which generate the above criteria: CHLAT,j = 16.8 + [14.4 x IN (CHLA)] (use Natural Log) SDTSI = 60- [30 x IN (SD)j TNTSI = 56 + [19.8 x IN (TN)] TPTSI = [18.6 x LN (TP x 1000)] -18.4 TSI = (CHLATs, + SDTsj + NUTRTsr.) /3 Limiting Nutrient considerations for Calculating NUTRTsj: If TN/TP > 30 then NUTRTs, = TPTSI If TN/TP < 10 then NUTRTs, = TNTSI If 10 < TN/TP <30 then NUTRTs, (TPTsj + TNTSI) /2 9 Table 7. An Example Calculation of the Trophic State Index (TSIY (See Table 6 for Formulas). Annual Average TSI Calculation Average TSI Chlorophyll 6.0'ug/l 42.61. 42.1 Secchi Depth 1.8 meters 42.3" 42.3 Phosphorus* 0.04 mg P/1 50.2" Nitrogen* 0.67 mg N11 48.1 4. 49.2 5. 45. 0 1. CHLA = 16.8 + [14.4 x LN (6.0)] 42.1 (use Natural Log) 2. SD = 60 - [30 x LN (1.9)] = 42.3 3. TP = [18.6 x IN (0.04 x 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. 10 Screening Levels Screening levels were used to deternuine water quality problems caused by each of nineteen water quality parameters (Table 8). Screening levels were based on either Florida criteria or on criteria established by professional judgment when quantitative Florida criteria are absent. Different screening levels were developed for streams, lakes and estuaries to take into account the natural differences among these waterbodies. The criteria which were established by professional judgment were based on the percentile distribution of Florida data. The eightieth percentile was chosen as the cutoff between acceptable and unacceptable water quality. This means that 80% of Florida's water quality data will have acceptable levels. Table 8 identifies the screening levels used, the typical values measured and the Florida criteria for streams, lakes and estuaries. Screening level exceedances are noted in the data tables for each watershed in each basin. Trend Analysis Water quality trend analysis was performed on 12 water quality parameters (plus the overall stream water quality index and the trophic state index) for 460 watersheds. The time frame for the analysis is from 1984-1993. The analysis was quite simple; a non- parametric correlation analysis (Spearman's Ranked Correlation) was used to analyze the ten-year trend of the annual STORET station medians for each watershed. There may have been only one station analyzed within a watershed resulting in a maximum of ten years of data, or there may have been many stations sampled within the watershed resulting in the analysis of many more yearly station medians and a more meaningful trend analysis. A separate trend assessment technique was used to analyze stream, lake, and estuary waterbodies. Stream trend analysis utilized the trend information from eight water quality parameters (bacteria, turbidity, total suspended solids, BOD, dissolved oxygen, Secchi depth, nitrogen and phosphorus) plus the overall water quality index. Lake and estuary trend analysis focused on four trophic state parameters (chlorophyll, Secchi depth, nitrogen and phosphorus) plus the trophic state index. The overall trend of each waterbody was determined by comparing the number of improved water quality parameters to the number of degraded water quality parameters. Some waterbodies showed quite strong trends. If a waterbody showed no trends, or just one parameter showed a trend (or the number of improved trends minus the number of degraded trends is zero or one), then the trend is classified as "no change". This trend analysis must be considered preliminary due to the simplicity of the technique. Table 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 (75) 960 200/100 ml Coliform-total #/100 ml >3700 100 (600) 7600 1000/100 ml Color Platinum-Color Units 21 (71) 235 No nuisance conditions Conductivity micromho >1275 100 (335) 1300 1275 or 50% a.bv 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 (68) 90 Fecal Strep #/100 ml 20 (15) 1700 Fluoride mg/l 0.1 (0.2) 0.8 10.0 mg/l Nitrogen-total mg/l as N >2.0 0.5 (1.2) 2.7 Not cause imbalance pH standard units 6.1 (7.1) 7.9 <6.0 >8.5 Phosphorus-total mg/l as P >0.46 0.02 (0.09) 0.89 Not cause imbalance Secchi Disc Depth meters 0.4 (0.8) 1.7 min. 90% background Temperature centigrade 19 (23) 28 No nuisance conditions Total Organic Carbon mg/l >21.5 5 (14) 37 Total Suspended Solids mg/l >18.0 2 (7) 26 Turbidity JTU FTU >16.5 1.5 (5) 21 29 NTUs above background Waterbody Type: Lake Alkalinity CaC03 Mg/l >20. 2 (28) 116 20.0 mg/l min. Chlorophyll ug/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 Secchi Disc Depth meters <0.7 0.4 (0.9) 2.7 Min. 90% background ** Waterbody Type: Estuary Chlorophyll ug/l >40 1 (9) 36 Nitrogen-total mg/ 1as N >2.0 0.3 (0.8) 1.6 Not cause imbalance Phosphorus-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 12 Toxic Pollutant Assessment The assessment of toxic pollutants in Florida's waters was accomplished by an inventory of 9 STORET toxic metal parameters for 1991-93 (Table 9). The Florida surface water quality standards (Chapter 17-302, Florida Administrative Code) were used to assess whether the toxic pollutant was found at an elevated level. Several standards are based on hardness levels, however, since hardness levels were not available in all cases, a hardness value of 100 mg/I as calcium carbonate was assumed'. An elevated level was defined as any exceedance of the standard for any of the nine metals. Generally, each waterbody was sampled two or three times for several of the metals during the last three years. Nonpoint Source Assessment An extensive assessment of nonpoint source impacts on Florida's waters was conducted in 1988 through the use of a questionnaire sent to all major State agencies (Water Management Districts, Division of Forestry, Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission), city and county offices, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Forestry Service, Regional Planning Councils, local Soil and Water Conservation Districts, citizen environmental groups (Sierra Clubs, Audubon Society and others) and professional outdoor guides. The respondents (approximately 150 agencies and 350-400 participants) to the questionnaire identified nonpoint sources of pollution, environmental pollution symptoms (fish kills, algal blooms, etc.) pollutants and miscellaneous comments. The assessment has been updated in 1994. The 1994 nonpoint source assessment was performed more efficiently than the 1988 version due largely to the use of GIS technology for compiling and displaying the data, and also advancements in the questionnaire methodology. Scannable forms were used eliminating the need to key punch data and integration with the 305b report was much improved. Florida's 1994 nonpoint source assessment was performed using a qualitative, best professional judgment approach. Unlike point source pollution analysis and its readily available STORET ambient data, there is rarely any convenient database of water quality monitoring data that has been designed for analyzing impacts of nonpoint source pollution on surface waters. Therefore, the assessment procedure was designed to make use of the knowledge of experienced field personnel who had information about individual waterbodies. The 1994 survey was sent to essentially the same group of professionals as the 1988 report and approximately fifty respondents identified nonpoint sources of pollution, environmental symptoms of pollution (fish kills, algal blooms, etc.), degree of impairment (rating) of a waterbody and miscellaneous comments. A total of 1720 watersheds or about 40 % of the total watersheds were qualitatively assessed by the respondents. Data tables summarizing the 1994 NPS survey are presented for each basin in this report. The remainder of this section describes the information presented in these tables. 13 Table 9. Toxic Metals in the Water Column. Storet Number of Parameter Waterbodies Florida % of Waterbodies Metal Number Sampled Criteria (ppb) With Exceedances Arsenic 1002 162 50 0% Cadmium 1027 211 1.1 17% Chromium 1034 155 207* 0% Copper 1042 330 12* 10% Iron 1045 378 1000 22% Lead 1051 240 3.2* 30% Mercury 71900 129 0.012 470/6 Nickel 1067 130 158* 0% Zinc 1092 253 106 10% * actual criteria is dependent on water hardness which was assumed to be 100 mg/l as calcium carbonate since hardness was not available in all wateebodies 14 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: 1 . 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 waterbodies, release of radioactive materials to groundwater, discharge of acid mine drainage and depletion of water supplies in aquifers. 7. Hydrologic modification. Dams, canals, channelization and other alternations to the flow of a waterbody result in habitat destruction and in general water quality deterioration. 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,thiscriteria. 2. 'Bacteria. This-refers to the presence bfhigh lev0s.-df coliform, strep and enteric fecal organisms whichzaflse'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 oa the water surface. 5. Pesticides. These class of chemicals;can be found in runofffrom agricultural lands and -some urban -areas. 6. OtherChemicals. General -category for -other chemicals besides pesticides and oil and grease, typically associated withiandfills, industrial land uses and hazardous waste sites. 7. Debris. This category includes trash ranging from Styrofbam 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 His. 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: I . Fish lCills. 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 His. 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. 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 wat erbody (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. urb'an or construction runoff) and part of the information on causes and symptoms of pollution, Integrating the information from the quantitative (STORET) analysis and the qualitative NPS survey was not easy, but many additional watersheds were assessed based on the results of the integration. In the future, the two techniques should blend together much better through increased coordination of efforts. IM 41 Hicpoch" yal CAL CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER BASIN WATER QUALITY 03090205 GOOD AVERAGE WATER QUALITY THREATENED 1984-1993 STORET DATA FAIR WATERSHED ID NUMBERS LINK MAP TO TABLES POOR INDICATES QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT UNKNOWN page 17 CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER BASIN ---- - -------- Rasic F" Drainage Area: 1,327 square miles Major Land Uses: rangeland, agriculture, wetlands, urban development Population Density: low, except high at mouth (Ft. Myers, Cape Coral) Major Pollution Sources: hydrologic modification, agriculture, urban Best Water Quality Areas: non-channelized tributaries Worst Water Quality Areas: urban tributaries, parts of estuary, agricultural areas Water Quality Trends: stable quality at four sites OFW Waterbodies: Caloosahatchee River State Recreation Area SWIM Waterbodies: none Reference Reports: Caloosahatchee River BAS, DEP (Punta Gorda), 1988 Florida Nonpoint Source Assessment, DEP (Tallahassee), 1988 Basin Water Quality Experts: Ford Walton, DEP (Punta Gorda), 813/639-4967 David Heil, DEP (Tallahassee), 904/488-5471 David Ceilley, Lee County Lab, 813/939-7908 Tom Fontaine, Ken Todd, Anthony Waterhouse, SFWMD, 407/686-8800 - - - - --- - --- - ---- - ------ - --- - ------- - ------+ - - -- - --- - ------------ - --- In the News The EPA has indicated it is considering suing the City of Cape Coral because the city is dumping too much wastewater into the Caloosahatchee River. --------------- - ------------------ Ecological Characterization The Caloosahatchee River is basically a channelized flood control waterway that runs from Lake Okeechobee to the lower Charlotte Harbor Basin at San Carlos Bay. It travels approximately 45 miles from the Moore Haven locks on western Lake Okeechobee to the Franklin Locks near the Town of Olga, Florida. There is a third set of locks in between, near Ortona. The Caloosahatchee is the only flood control outlet leading west from Lake Okeechobee. It is part of the Okeechobee Waterway that is the only navigable passage between the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. From Olga to the Gulf, approximately 30 miles, the river broadens into a tidally influenced estuarine system. The river drains low, flat muck lands and is blackwater in nature. It also receives overflow brom the lake. The river's flow is controlled by the lock system, but averages 1,300 cfs at Franklin Lock. Wen of these locks, which act to prevent saltwater intrusion, the river progressively becomes wider, saltier, and tidally influenced. 18 Land use in the Caloosahatchee basin is dominated by rangeland and agriculture, particularly in the upper portion. Tributaries are generally drainage canals. The lower river, below Ortona Locks, still has portions of the old meanders and natural tributaries. Some of these tributaries receive flow from saline artesian wells. There is more citrus and fern farming here, and some large residential developments. Wetlands also constitute a major land use category in the basin. Large urban centers are not present in the upper basin; however, the Cities of Fort Myers, North Fort Myers and Cape Coral are located along both banks of the estuarine portion of the Caloosahatchee River. These cities are among the fastest growing "boom" towns in the State. The river has a long history of use by man and has some of southern Florida!s oldest settlements. It was used as a trade route for the Indians before the Seminole Wars in the early 1800s. Later the river became more important as a steamboat waterway, especially as it was dredged and channelized in the early to mid-1900s. Anthropogenic Impacts The South District of DEP conducted an assessment of the river in 1988-1989. The upper portions near Lake Okeechobee had frequent violations in dissolved oxygen and also high conductivity and nutrient values. These problems are a result of low flows and drainage from agricultural fields (mostly sugar cane). Nine Mile Canal drains agriculture fields and has very poor water quality. Biological samples were dominated by pollution tolerant species. No algal blooms were seen during the sample period but have been reported in the past. Water quality improves down river near Alva. Land use is less intensive (mostly orchards) and the river has more natural tributaries and old channels. Several of the tributaries have good water quality and biological community measurements. The river's biological community measures are somewhat poorer than the tributaries, probably because of the flow and habitat reduction in the channel. The City of Ft. Myers uses the Caloosahatchee River above Franklin Locks as its potable water source. Below Franklin Locks, the river widens and becomes estuarine. Fort Myers is on one bank and Cape Coral on the other. The latter is a massive residential area developed largely before there was strict regulation of dredging and filling. Miles of networked canals provide the fill and drainage for the roads and homesites. The community has been sparsely populated, but is now growing rapidly. As the population continues to grow and more lots are converted to lawn, there will be greater impact on the water quality in the canals and on the limited underground- drinking water source. In March 1992, the City of Cape Coral officially connected its first home to a dual-water system. That system allows the use of treated effluent and canal water for irrigation. The two Ft. Myers WWT?s that discharge to the river are required to meet advanced treatment. The City of Ft. Myers is giving consideration to implementing its own dual-water system. However, at present, the more serious impact to the estuary is the high nutrient waters from the river and tributaries and the stormwater runoff from the cities. Nutrient and chlorophyll values arc high and small algal blooms occur regularly. The Orange River, a tributary that discharges below the Locks, is a favored wintering place for manatees. A power plant that discharges warm water is located nearby. A fish kill and die-off of clams occurred in 1990 and have been determined to be the result of high temperature water discharge and low DO. USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT; 03090205 cALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER INDEX GOOD FAIR POOR ----------- ----- ----- ----- SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 1970-1993 KI-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---- --------- ---- ---- ------- ------------- ---------- -- TSI ----- --------------------------------- MAX BEG END DATA ---------------------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- -- LA TOTAL FECL NAT ART BECK COND FLOW K I #OBS YR YR PERIOD TURB SD COLOR TSS Do DOSAT BOD COD TOC PH ALK NITRO PHOS CH � WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 48 4 29500 53 2 TIM CALOOSAHATCHEE 36 89 93 Current 2.9 2.3 35 11 6.5 76 2.3 - 7.8 . 1.06 0.11 a � WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 55 35 2060 46 I WHISKY CREEK 8 73 75 Historical 5.0 66 5.9 68 1.3 41 16 7.6 186 1.34 0.33 . 3 Manuel Branch 3 92 92 Current 6.3 80 10 3.7 40 1.6 7.0 1.10 0.22 11 2195 11900 68 4 Billy Creek 2 92 92 Current 5.0 90 5 7.5 90 3.0 e.0 1.31 0.19 57 1839 6995 57 7 orange River 4 92 93 Current 3.0 63 6.0 67 1.6 7.0 0.82 0.02 2 270 127 522 36 9 Hickey Creek 50 73 79 Historical 2.0 2.4 30 6.4 74 1.1 9 7.7 186 0.58 0.04 - 748 7 28 10 TIDAL CALOOSAMATCHEE 4 91 91 Current 3.5 110 6.6 78 2.8 7.5 . 1.64 0.10 10 13 6235 41 11 Yellow Fever Cr. 9 73 75 Historical 3.0 63 3.5 41 1.3 42 15 7.5 108 1.45 0.23 "25 51 13 Badman Creek 81 73 88 Historical 2.0 1.8 50 6.7 77 0.9 10 7.6 201 0.86 0.01 1 124 720 35 23 14 TOWNSEND CANAL 80 73 80 Historical 1.6 1.5 79 6.3 72 0.6 17 7.5 139 1.90 0.10 619 37 is TIDAL CALDOSAKATCHEE 65 89 93 Current 2.1 1.1 60 3 7.0 81 1.6 7.5 155 1.42 0.11 5 70 48 750 39 17 Goodno Canal 2 92 92 Current 1.6 90 2 8.3 96 2.0 7.8 132 1.21 0.03 12 . 290 460 38 is Long Hammock Creek 2 92 92 Current 6.2 110 6 7.7 90 3.0 7.7 212 1.23 0.04 21 220 80 620 44 19 Ninemile Canal 2 75 75 Historical 1.0 150 0.6 '1 2.3 6.8 . 1.80 0.05 170 10 580 49 20 Cypress Creek 89 73 88 Historical 1.9 1.3 62 4.8 54 2.0 22 9 7.2 150 0.97 0.03 2 185 694 11 37 21 Daughtrey Creek 11 73 73 Historical 2.0 130 4.3 51 1.7 7.5 51 1.96 0.50 56 22 WEST CALOOSAHATCHEE 4 91 91 Current 1.5 80 7.1 85 1.2 7.1 . 1.92 0.14 8 14 70*0 30 23 Telegraph Creek 3 93 93 Current 7.7 130 4 5.7 61 1.0 6.9 244 0.71 0.02 1100 204 385 39 24 Trout Creek 17 73 88 Historical 2.5 52 3.5 54 1.6 79 14 7.5 122 0.93 0.09 1 265 1465 55 25 Jacks Branch 90 73 80 Historical 0.9 1.0 55 5.3 60 1.1 16 7.1 98 1.17 0.02 593 2 38 27 Bee Branch 25 76 79 Historical 2.0 0.5 50 5.4 57 30 7.2 22 0.81 0.05 948 2 37 28 EAST CALDOSAHATCHEE 67 89 91 Current 3.6 82 4 6.4 76 2.6 7.6 . 1.69 0.14 25 582 47 LEGEND: BOD-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN MG/L MAX #OBS-MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES SD-SECCNI 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-OOLOR PCU FECL-FECAL COLIFOAM MPN/100ML PH-PH STANDARD UNITS TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX COND-aNDUCTZVITY UMHOS FLOW-FLOW CFS PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L Nj 0 SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03090205 CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER MEDIAN VAlUES FOR EACH WATERSHED SCREENED W-EXCEEDS SCREENING CRITERIA SCREENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA '0'-WITHIN SCREENING CRITERIA '.'-MISSING DATA I RANK DATA RECORDI IN I STREAM I LAKE I PH I ALK I TURB & I COND I OXYGEN I Do ICOLIFORM I BIOL I CHIA I SECCHI ------------------ I TP I TP I I TSS I DEMAND I I BACTI I DIV DISC I WQI CURRENT 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 f ALK<20 (7URB>16.51COND>1275j BOD>3.3 I DO<4 ITOT>3700 IDIART<1.951 CHLA>40 I SD<.7 ID NAME I TSI HISTORICAL I I PH<5.2 I I TSS>18 I I COD>102 I IFECAL>4701DINAT<1.5 I I TOC>27.51 I IBECK<5.5 I �WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 2 TIDAL CALOOSAHATCHEE IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 D 1 0 �WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 1 WHISKY CREEK IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 3 Manuel Branch IPOOR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 4 Billy Creek IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 7 Orange River IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 a I 1 0 1 0 1 0 9 Hickey Creek IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 10 TIDAL CALIDOSAHATCHEE IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 11 Yellow Fever Cr. IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 13 Bedman Creek IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 14 TUoINSEND CANAL IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 15 TIDAL CALOOSAHATCHEE IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 17 Goodno Canal IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 18 Long Hammock Creek IGOOD Current 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 19 Ninemile Canal 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 )FAIR Historical j 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 20 Cypress Creek IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 21 Daughtrey Creek IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 22 WEST CALIOOSAHATCHEE IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 23 Telegraph Creek IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0- 1 0 1 0 1 24 Trout Creek IFAIR Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 25 Jacks Branch IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 27 Bee Branch IGOOD Historical 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 0 28 EMT CALOOSAHATCHEE IFAIR Current 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 LEGEND: COND-CONDUCTIVITY FECAL-FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA TP-PHOSPMORUS 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 DEKAND-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 HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03090205 CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER TRENDS-SOURCES-CLEANUP 'x'-DEGRADING TREND 1984 - 1993 TRENDS '0'-STABLE TREND ----------------------------------------------------- "'-IMPROVING TREND 1W TI T T C S1 P Al T T1 B TI D D1 T F1 T F j<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY '.'-MISSING DATA IQUALITY RANK 1OVER-1Q or S1 N P H DI H Ll U S1 0 01 001 C C1 E L I ------------- I ALL I I if L I KI R S1 D C1 S1 0 01 M 0 1 WVI ITRENDI I A I I B I I A I L L I P W I WATERSHED I MEETS OR I I I I I I I T1 1 11 1 ID NAME IUSE 1 TSI I I I I I I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ----- ------------------------ I------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 2 TIDAL CALoosARATCHES 1PARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 +1 x .1 0 .1 .1 001 x 01 0 1 WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM I WHISKY CREEK 1PARTIAL FAIRI I I I 1 1 3 Manuel Branch IND POORI 1 .1 .1 4 Billy Crook 1PARTIAL FAIRI I - 1 .1 7 Orange River IYES GOOD I I I . . . . I 9 Hickey Crook [YES GOODI I I I 10 TIDAL CALOOSAHATCHEE IYES GOOD I I I . . I . .1 - .1 .1 .1 . .1 . I 11 Yellow Fever Cr. 1PARTIAL FAIRI I I I I I I I 1 1 13 Bedman Crook IYES GOOD I I 1 .1 .1 .1 . .1 1 14 TuWNSEND CANAL [YES GOODI I I I I I 1 1 15 TIDAL CALOOSARATCHEE IYES GOOD 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 + 01 0 01 0 .1 0 01 001 + 01 0 1 17 Goodno Canal IYES GOOD I 1 .1 18 Long Hammock Crook IYES GOOD I 19 Ninemile Canal IPARTIAL FAIR[ I 1 1 20 Cypress Crook IYES GOODI I I . . . . 1 .1 - .1 . - 1 21 Daughtray Crook IPARTIAL PAIRI I I 1 1 22 WEST CALOOSAHATCHEE IYES GOODI 1 .1 .1 23 Telegraph Crook IYES GOODI 1 .1 .1 24 Trout Crook 1PARTIAL FAIRI 1 .1 .1 25 Jacks Branch IYES GOOD I I I I 27 Bee Branch IYES GOODI I I I 28 EAST CALOOSARATCHEE I PART I AL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 01 0 .1 0 01 .1 001 01 x LEGEND: DOSAT-DO SATURATION TCOLI-TOTAL COLIFORM TURB-TURBIDITY FCOLI-PEChL COLIFORM TEMP-TEMPERATURE TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX FOR LAKES AND ESTUARIES )LLK-ALKALrNITY FLOW-FLOW TN-NITROGEH 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 SO-SECCHI DISC METERS TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS t1j r_j NPS QUALITATIVE SURVEY RESULTS AN "X" INDICATES A PROBLEM WITH POLLUTANT OR SOURCE THE * ON MAPID INDICATES NO STORET INFOP14ATION AVAILABLE FOR THIS WATERSHED -SEE PAGE 11 FOR LEGEND FOR THIS TABLE- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CATNAME-CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER HUC-03090205 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- N B S P 0 S 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 8 E X I M B E E H A B H 0 0 E W A 0 0 1 E M I R B Y N E I F R R K L W 1 0 D S F R B S 3 N E R E 0 C C R G I T T L M P I G E D D E W I S I S I 1 0 P N I N I I H I E T P A A 0 A 0 L A E 1 0 C I S Y N T A R S L U C H 0 A D L L D T R L M H M D P G E L D R N M T D N 5 S T T L E S N Y H L T W L L x x x x x x x x x x 3240H WHISKY CREEK FAIR FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2 3240A TIDAL CALIDOSAHATCHEE 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 x x x x 3 32401 Manuel Branch 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 x x x 4 3240J Billy 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 x x 5. 3235L Townsend 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 x x x x 6- 3240D Hancock Creek FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 7 3240K Orange 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 x x x x 8- 3235J Dog 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 x x x x 9 3235H Hickey Creek 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 10 3240B TIDAL CALOOSAHATCHEE 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 x x 11 3240E Yellow Favor 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 x x x x x x i2- 3235N Roberts 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 x x x x x x x x x x x 13 32351 Bodman Creek GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x '4 x x x x x x 3235K TOWNSEND CANAL GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x :5 3240C TIDAL CALOOSAHATCHEE GOOD FAIR 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 16. 3235A WEST CALOOSAHATCHEE 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 17 3235M Goodno Canal 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 is 3237B Long Hammock Creek 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 i9 3237D Ninemile 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 x x 20 3235C Cypress Creek 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 21 324OF Daughtray 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 x x 2, 3235B WEST CALOOSAHATCHEE 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 23 3236A Telegraph Creek GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x 24 x x x x x 324 OG Trout Creek 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 25 3235D Jacks Branch 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- 3237C Lake Hicpochee 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 27 323SE Bee Branch 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 18 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 3237A EAST CALOOSARATCHEE FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x 2@- 3235G Cypress Branch THREAT 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 x x x 30- 3235F Pollywog 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 x x x 31. 3236 TELEGRAPH SWAMP THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x Hen -.3 ESTERO SAY "Wo is Forg6isdn Oyster Bai Cheveller Bay EVERGLADES-WEST COAST BASIN WATER QUALITY 03090204 GOOD AVERAGE WATER QUALITY THREATENED 1984-1993 STORET DATA FAIR WATERSHED ID NUMBERS LINK MAP TO TABLES POOR INDICATES QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT UNKNOWN lpoagae24 EVERGLADES WEST COAST BASIN --- - --- - ------ Basic Drainage Area: 2,657 square miles MaJor Land Uses: wed" agriculture, rangeland, urban development Population Density: low, except coastal population centers (Naples, Marco Island) Major Pollution Sources: hydrologic modification, agriculture Best Water Quality Areas: Gulf waters adjacent to Everglades Worst Water Quality Areas: Gordon River, Cocohatchee River Water Quality Trends: stable quality at 6 sites, declining trend at Henderson Creek Canal OFW Waterbodies: Everglades National Park Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve Cape Romano State Aquatic Preserve Rookery Bay State Aquatic Preserve and National Estuarine Research Reserve Big Cypress National Preserve SWIM Waterbodies: Everglades National Parkffllorida Bay Reference Reports: West Coast Basin Assessment, DEP (Puzita Gorda), 1990 Florida Nonpoint Source Assessment, DEP (Tallahassee), 1988 Basin Water Quality Experts; Sid Flannery, SWFWMD, 904n96-7211 Ford Walton, DEP (Punta Gorda), 813/6394967 Tom Fontaine, Ken Todd, Anthony Waterhouse, SFWMD, 407/686-8800 7 ---- - ---------- - ---------- -----+ ------ - ----------- In the New See Southeastern Basin This area has been undergoing a severe drought in recent years, with water use restrictions and wildlife impacts. The coastal area around Naples is among the fastest growing areas in the nation. Interstate Highway 75 is being constructed across this basin. There many drainage culverts and wildlife corridors (underpasses) built into the design of the highway. Health advisories recommending no consumption and limited consumption of largemouth bass have been issued for portions of Everglades National Park due to high mercury content. ------------- ------------------ Ecological Characterization 25 This basin consists of 2657 square miles of land south and east of the City of Ft. Myers. In can be characterized as land with very little topographic relief with primarily wedand in the southeastern portion of the basin and mixed dry and wedand areas in the northwestern portion of the area. Much of this 11dryll area is periodically wet, and it is commonly drained by a network of ditches. The predominant vegetation in the wetlands is sawgrass with patches of cypress or hardwoods. Inches of difference of elevations account for vast differences in vegetation. The southern coast is a thick forest of mangroves extending inland five or more miles. This coastal area below Naples, known as the Land of Ten Thousand Islands, is a rich estuary where the freshwater sloughs and rivers mix with the bays and tidal creeks of the Gulf of Mexico. Most of the basin east of the Barron River Canal is part of the Big Cypress Swamp or Everglades National Park, which, with Ten Thousand Islands Aquatic Preserve, contains most of the coastal wetlands. In the northwestern portion of the basin, a considerable amount of farming, including cattle ranching and vegetable growing, is done in the quadrangle formed by the Cities of Naples, Sunniland, Immokalee and Ft. Myers. There is pressure from the citrus and ranching industries to extend this area southward. There is already some ranching in the privately owned areas in the southwest, especially near the major drainage canals. A large area about 175 square miles east of Naples was "developed" into lots in the 1960s. This involved extensive ditching and draining through a network of 183 miles of canals and an associated 813 miles of roads. Although the project, Golden Gate Estates, was somewhat of a "boondoggle" a@d few of the lots were ever inhabited, the canals and roads remain, and the site has never recovered. Part of the southern area of Golden Gate Estates is being acquired by DER Further west, along the coast, urbanization is occurring very rapidly as a series of cities and communities from Ft. Myers to Naples. This development is also associated with canal and road building. The canals join with natural drainage channels which lead in a west to southwesterly direction to the Gulf of Mexico. Also, Marco Island, south of Naples, is almost completely developed. It is a winter resort. Water flows very sluggishly in this area because of the small difference between land and sea elevations. The waters in these manmade canals and natural streams are typically low in dissolved oxygen and are often below State criteria. Although these low values are considered a natural condition in many southern Florida waters, care must be taken to prevent further lowering of dissolved oxygen through nonpoint source or point source discharges. AnthroiDogenic Impa Because it is so large and remote, this basin has very limited STORET water quality data. It is also somewhat difficult to assess water quality due to the naturally low DO conditions and the fact that most of the "streams" are actually manmade canals. However, given these background conditions, it is possible to note and compare some impacts to the canals. The Nonpoint Assessment notes that most of the canals run through agricultural lands. The western half of the Tamiami Canal is threatened or moderately impaired due to nutrients, algal and weed growth and pesticides. Canals draining urban areas are also affected by urban runoff and septic tank leachate. The receiving bay waters are threatened or moderately impaired (Naples Bay and parts of Estero Bay). Lake Trafford, near Immokalee, is rated as severely impaired due to agriculture, urbanization and septic tank runoff. It experiences algal blooms, weed growth, and occasional fish kills. Probably the most disturbing and ecologically destructive problem in the area is the severe alteration of fresh water flow by the drainage canals. Excess fresh water drains into the estuaries in the wet season while saltwater intrusion is greater in the dry season. The drainage comes from canals which have 26 inadequate control structures or none at all. Furthermore, there are proposals to expand the existing canals and/or create new ones to alleviate flooding in developed and developing areas. The unnatural oscillations of salinity arc suspected of damaging seagrasses and lowering the productivity and fish yields in the cstuary. Those bays at the mouth of the main canals are the most threatened. Finally, the drought conditions in the last few years has caused severe strew to the flora and fauna of the region. The potential for widespread, disastrous fires is great. Additionally, water use restrictions have been implemented throughout much of the basin. 27 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03090204 EVERGLADES-WEST COAST INDEX GOOD FAIR POOR SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 1970-1993 ----------- ----- ----- ----- MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED WQI-RIVER 0-44 45-59-60-90 CURRENT PERIOD OF RECORD (1989-1993) USED WHERE AVAILABLE TSI-ESTUARY 0-49 50-59 60-100 ----- PERIOD PRIOR TO 1989 IS EVALUATED AS HISTORICAL INFORMATION TSI-LAKE 0-59 60-69 70-100 1 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 BOO COD TOC PH ALK NITRO PHOS CHLA TOTAL FECL NAT ART BECK COND FLOW WQI TSI � WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 16 Naples Bay 19 89 89 Current 4.j 1.0 50 5.4 64 1.5 7.4 0.98 0.07 9 56 20300 52 20 Gordon River 7 89 89 Current 2.0 80 1.6 20 1.6 7.1 1.06 0.10 5 329 1610 51 24 Cocohatchee River 10 89 92 Current .3.0 68 2 5.1 58 1.8 7.2 1.13 0.64 9 230 136 8963 50 � WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 13 Tamiami Canal 3 91 91 Current 2.0 126 3.4 40 2.2 7.0 1.42 0.57 9 74 31500 56 15 Henderson Creek Canal 10 89 91 Current 0.8 20 8.4 103 1.2 7.7 0.55 0.09 2 6 753 17 17 Henderson Creek Canal 5 89 89 Current 4.8 0:7 70 3.5 44 2.8 7.7 0.93 0.03 40 3 2678 46 is Barron River Canal 8 89 91 Current 2.4 . 58 4.3 52 2.0 7.1 0.89 0.05 8 18 13033 39 19 Gordon River 8 89 91 Current 3.3 1.1 80 6.1 78 2.0 7.4 0.95 0.03 L3 45 725 38 23 Cocohatches River Cana, 161 71 88 Historical 4.2 0.3 69 2 6.5 123 14 7.5 238 1.08 0.03 575 4 29 25 Oak Creek 12 75 75 Historical 2.0 . 50 . 4.8 56 1.6 7.6 0.89 0.09 331 13648 48 26 Imperial River 14 89 93 Current 2.7 1.7 60 9 5.6 67 2.0 7.2 0.86 0.05 12 40 ill 23250 46 27 Estero River 18 92 93 Current 2.0 . 46 5 5.1 58 1.2 7.2 0.78 0.04 2 108 230 15355 42 29 Hendry Creek 10 92 93 Current 5.4 0.8 7@ 17 5.0 59 1.65 7.4 0.94 0.12 7 36 41 20875 48 LEGEND: BOD-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN MG/L MAX 0OBS-MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TURB-TURBIDITY MG/L ALK-ALKALINITY MG/L CHIA-CHLDROPHYLL UG/L DOSAT-DO, I SATURAT10N 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 MGIL TOTAL-TOTAL COLIFORM MPN/10OML BEG YR-BEGINNING SAMPLING YEAR COLOR-CODOR PCU FECL-FECAL COLIFORM MPN/100ML PH-PH STANDARD UNITS TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX BEC%-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX COND-CONDUCTIVITY UNHOS PLOW-FLOW CPS PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS XG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L = M M = M M = M = M M = = = M M M M = SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03090204 EVERGLADES-WEST COAST MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED SCREENED 'X'-EXCEEDS SCREENING CRITERIA SCREE14ING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA 101-WITHIN SCREENING CRITERIA '.'-MISSING DATA I I RANK DATA RECORDI TN I STREAM I LAKE I PH I ALK I TURB & I COND I OXYGEN I DO ICOLIFORM I BIOL I CHLA I SECCHI I------------------ I I TP I TP I I I TSS I I DEMAND I BACTI I DIV I I Disc I 1WQ1 CURRENT I I I I 1 1 $ I I t WATERSHED I OR OR ITN>2.0 I TP>.46 ITP>.12 I PH>8.8 IALK<20 ITURB>16.SICOND>12751 BOD>3.3 I DO,<4 ITOT>3700 IDIART<1.951 CHLA>40 I SD< 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 TOC>27.51 IBECK<5.5 I I WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 16 Naples Bay IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 20 Gordon River IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 24 Cocohatchee River IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 a I 1 0 1 WATER BODY TYPE. STREAM 13 Tamiami Canal IFAIR Current 1 0 1 x I 1 0 0 1 x 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 15 Henderson Creek Canal IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 17 Henderson Creek Canal IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 18 Barron River Canal IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 19 Gordon River IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 23 Cocohatchee River Cana IGOOD Historical 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 x 25 Oak Creek IFAIR Historical 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 26 Imperial 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 27 Estero River IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 29 Hendry Creek 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 LEGEND: C0ND-CCNDUCTIVITY FECAL-FECAL OOLIFORM BACTERIA TP-PHOSPHORUS W0I OR TSI-WATER QUALITY INDEX RATING ALK-ALKKLINITY 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-B0D,COD,TOC TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS BASED ON VATERBODY TYPE BIOL DIV-BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY DIART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY PH-PH TURB-TURBIDITY CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL DINAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TK-NITROGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03090204 EVERGLADES-WEST COAST TRENDS-SOURCES-CLEANUP Im'-DEGRADING TREND 1 1984 - 1593 TRENDS I 10'-STABLE TREND I----------------------------------------------------- 1+1-IMPROVING TREND I 1w TJ T T C S1 P Al T T1 B T) D DIT F1 T F Oc--- PLEASE AM THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY '.'-MISSING DATA IQUALITY RANK IOVER-10 or S1 N P H D) H Ll U S1 001 001 C C1 B L I I------------- I ALL 11 11 L ( Kj R S1 D C) S1 0 01 M 0 1 1 WQI I TREND I I A I Ia I ( A(L Ll P W I WATERSHED I NESTS OR I I I I I I T1I rl ID NAME IUSE ? TSI I I I I I I t i I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEM? EFFORTS ----- ------------------------ I------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- � wATERBODY TYPE: ESTUARY 16 Naples Day IPARTIAL FAIRF I I . . . . 20 Gordon River 1PARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . 24 Cocohatchee River IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 + 1 0 0 - .1 0 .1 0 01 .1 + .1 .1 1 � WATER B013Y TYPE. STREAM 13 Tamiami Canal )PARTIAL FAIRi I I . . . . 15 Henderson Crook Canal (YES GO= I I . . . . 17 Henderson Crook Canal IPARTIAL Fk1R1 ( $ . . 18 Barron. River Canal IYES C400DI 0 1 0 1 0 0 t 0 .1 0 0@ .1 0 .1 f 1 19 Gordon River IYES GOOD 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 .1 0 .1 0 +1 1 a 1 .1 1 23 Cocohatchae River Cana, IYES GOOD 1 0 1 a 1 0 0 .1 . .1 0 01 .1 - 1 .1 1 25 Oak Creek IPARTIAL PAIRI I I I I I I I 1 1 26 Imperial River [PARTIAL PAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 .1 0 .1 .1 .1 0 01 .1 0 1 27 Estero River IYES GOODI I I . . . . I 29 Hendry Creek, IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I LEGEND: DOSAT-DO SATURATION TCDLI-TOTAL COLIFORM TURB-TURBIDITY FCOLI-FECAL COLIFORM TMP-TEMERATURB TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX FOR LAKES AND ESTUARIES AIX-ALXALINITY FLCW-FLOW TN-NITROGEN WQI-WATER OULAITY INDEX FOR STREAMS AND SPRINGS BOD-SIOCHEM. OXYGEN DEMAND MEETS USE-MEETS DESIGNATED USE TOC-T.ORGANIC CARBON CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL PH-PH TP-PHOSPHORUS DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN $D-SECCHI DISC METERS TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS @m M Man" M." M M MM NPS guALITATIVE SURVEY RESULTS AN "X" INDICATES A PROBLEM WITH POLLUTANT OR SOURCE THE - ON M&PID INDICATES No STORET INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR THIS WATERSHED -SEE PAGE 11 FOR LEGEND FOR THIS TABLE- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CATNAME-EVERGLADES-WEST COAST Huc-03090204 N B S P 0 S 0 F T F 0 U A E E T A H T T I U I T M T C D S H D 0 L A H H S R S N N H A B W W R T I T E E x I M B E E H A B H 0 0 E P W A 0 0 1 E M I R 3 Y N E I F R R K L W 1 0 D S F R B S 3 N E R E 0 C C R G I T T L M P I G E D D E W I S I S y 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 I 1 0 P N I N I I H I E T D R N M T 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 1- 3289 EVERGLADES NATIONAL PA THREAT x x x x x x x x x x 2* 3289F Charley Creek THREAT x x x x x x x x x x 3* 3289G Cannon Bay THREAT x x x x x x x x x x 4- 3289D Chevalier Bay THREAT x x x x x x x x x x 5* 3289B Huston River THREAT x x x x x x x x x 6* 3289E Chevalier Bay THREAT x x x x x x x x x x 7* 3289C Last Huston Bay THREAT x x x x x x x x x x 8* 3289A Oyster Bay THREAT x x x x x x x x x 9* 3259S Runoff to (julf 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 10* 3259P Ferguson River THREAT X X X x x x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x x x ll* 3259R Runoff td gulf THREAT X X X x x x X X X x x x x x x x x x x x x X 12- 32591 WEST COLLIER THREAT x x x x x X x x x X X X X X X x X x x x x X 13 3261B Tamiami Canal 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 X x x x x x x x x 14* 3259J Rookery Bay THREAT x x x x x x X X X x x X X X 15 3259K Henderson Cree,k Canal 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 16 3259G Naples 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 17 3259H Henderson Creek 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 x is 3261A Barron River Canal GOOD FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X X X 19 3259D Gordon River GOOD THREAT x x x x x x X X X X X X x x x X X 20 3259C Gordon 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 21* 3259B Henderson Creek 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 22* 3259F Golden Gate 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 X X 23 3259B Cocohatchee River Cana 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 24 3259A Cocohatchee 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 x x 25 3258F Oak Creek FAIR FAIR x x x x x x X X X x x x x x x x x x 26 3258B Imperial River FAIR FAIR x x x x x X X X x x x x x x x x x 27 3258D Estero River GOOD FAIR X X X x x X X X X x x x x x x x x 28* 3250A ESTERO RAY FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X 29 3258B Hendry Creek FAIR FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 30* 3258C ESTERO RAY FAIR X X X x x X X X X x x x X X x x x '2' ........... L 7, FISH 0 TMG-CR E EA .-.F- KEECHOBEE LAKE 0 FISHEATING CREEK BASIN WATER QUALITY 03090103 GOOD AVERAGE WATER QUALITY THREATENED 1984-1993 STORET DATA FAIR WATERSHED ID NUMBERS LINK MAP TO TABLES POOR INDICATES QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT UNKNOWN page 32 FISHEATING CREEK BASIN --------------- -- - ------------ Basic Drainage Area: 918 square miles Major Land Uses: rangeland, agriculture Population Density: low, no population centers Major Pollution Sources: agricultural runoff Best Water Quality Areas: Fisheating Creek Worst Water Quality Areas: Indian Prairie Canal, Hamey Pond Canal Water Quality Trends: stable quality at 2 sites OFW Waterbodies: none SWIM Waterbodies: none Reference Reports: Lake Okeechobee Drainage Basin Assessment, DEP (Punta Gorda), 1987 Florida Rivers Assessment, DEP/FREAC/NPS, 1989 Florida Nonpoint Source Assessment, DEP (Tallahassee), 1988 Basin Water Quality Experts: Sid Flannery, SWFWMD, 904n96-7211 Homer Royals, FGFWFC, 904/357-6631 Ford Walton, DEP (Punta Gorda) 813/6394967 Tom Fontaine, Ken Todd, Anthony Waterhouse, SFWMD, 407/686-8800 - - -------- - - - ---------- - -------- - -------- ---+ - ------- ------ - - - ---- - - In the New Lykes Brothers, Inc., illegally dug 22 miles of ditches and canals and subsequently has restored these areas. The monitoring reports which have been submitted indicate a very high success rate for the restored wetlands. ------ - ------------ - ---- - ---- - --------- - - - Ecological Characterization The Fisheating Creek basin forms part of the northwest drainage basin of Lake Okeechobee. The creek itself is a meandering blackwater stream that flows through rangeland in Highlands and Glades Counties, eventually emptying into Gator Slough, which then flows into Lake Okeechobee. it is mostly lined by cypress swamps. The river has the reputation of being an excellent place to observe wildlife. in drier years, many of Lake Okeechobee's wading birds seek refuge in the swamp and sloughs surrounding the creek. The basin drains 918 square miles and is primarily improved rangeland with some agriculture. Fisheating Creek is unique in that the entire river corridor is (except the river itself) in private ownership by Lykes 33 Brothers Company. It has an average flow of 260 cfs 16 miles above its mouth at Lake Okeechobee. Other waterways in the basin include several major canals connected to a network of smaller canals designed to drain land for more intensive grazing and some agricultural areas. The basin is very sparsely populated and has no major urban areas. The Brighton Indian Reservation is in this. basin. Anthro ts ____Mgenic LMpgc_ Fisheating Creek and Gator Slough have generally good water quality with several remote segments used for recreational canoeing and swunming. The canals, however, are impaired from rangeland and agricultural runoff Habitat and flow alteration and nutrient enrichment have lead to low biotic indices and declining,fisheries. The canals also experience odor problems and weed growth. Stream areas which have low flow velocities, such as the upper part of Fisheating Creek and the canals, usually have low dissolved oxygen levels. This basin is one of the many sources of nutrient loading to Lake Okeechobee. 34 m m M M M M M mm M M am USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03090103 FISHEATING CREEK INDEX GOOD FAIR ?OO.A ----------- ----- ----- ----- SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 1970-1993 UVI-RIVER 0-44 45-59-60-90 14EDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED CURRENT PERIOD OF RECORD (1989-1993) USED WHERE AVAILABLE TSI-ESTUARY 0-49 50-59 60-100 TSI-LAKE 0-59 60-69 70-ioo PERIOD PRIOR TO 1989 IS EVALUATED AS HISTORICAL INFORMATION BIOLOGICAL WATER WATERSHED WATERSHED DATA RECORD WATER DISSOLVED OXYGEN PH TROPHIC SPECIES QUALITY ID NAME ---------------------- CLARITY OXYGEN DEMAND ALKALINITY STATUS COLIFORM DIVERSITY COND F:,W INDICES ----- --------------------------------- MAX BEG END DATA ---------------------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ----- ----- --------------- $OBS YR YR PERIOD TURB SD COLOR TSS Do DOSAT BOD COD TOC PH AIX NITRO PHOS CHIA TOTAL FECL NAT ART BECK COND FLOW TAV 1 TSI WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM I FISHEATING CREEK 66 89 92 Current 2.0 218 2 4.7 56 1.0 6.6 26 1.43 0.14 400 289 188 5: 45 2 HARNEY POND CANAL 65 89 91 Current 2.3 116 2 5.5 64 6.6 1.54 0.14 303 45 3 INDIAN PRAIRIE CANAL 84 89 92 Current 2.3 115 2 5.3 61 1.6 6.9 1.46 0.11 26*94 334 46 LEGEND: BOD-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND M/L DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN M/L MAX #OBS-MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TURB-TURBIDITY M)G/L ALK-ALKALINITY MG/L CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL UG/L DOSAT-DO i SATURATION NAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TOC-TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON M/L WQI-WATER QUALITY INDEX ART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DI COD-CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND m/L END YR-ENDING YEAR NITRO-TOTAL NITROGEN MOIL TOTAL-TOTAL COLIFORM MPN/100ML BEG YR-BEGINNING SAMPLING YEAR COLOR-OOLOR PCU FECL-FECAL COLIFORM MPN/100ML PH-PH STANDARD UNITS TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX 00ND-CONDUCTIVITY UMHOS FLOW-FLOW CFS PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS W.11, w SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA SCR:-:---,:I;r, REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 0309D103 FISHEATING CREEK MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERS'H_F,- SCREENED lxl-EXCEEDS SCREENING CRT----,:.k SCREENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA '0*-WITHIN SCREENING CR,:--R:.k '.'-MISSING DATA RANK DATA RECORDI TN I STREAM I LAKE I PH I ALK I TURB & I COND I OXYGEN I DO ICOLIFORM I BIOL I CHIA ISECCHI I ------------------ I I TP I TP I I I TSS I I DEMAND I I BACTI I DIV I I DISC I vi CURRENT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WATERSHED OR OR I TN>2.0 I TP>.46 ITP>.12 I PH>8.8 IALK<20 ITURB>16.SICOND>12751 BOD>3.3 I DO<4 ITOT>3700 IDIART<1.951 CHLA>40 I SD<.7 I ID NAME 7SI HISTORICAL I I PH<5.2 I I TSS>18 I I COD>102 I IFECAL>4701DINAT<1.5 I I I ----- -- ----------------------------------------- I I I I I TOC>27.51 I I BECK<5.5 I WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM I FISHEATING CREEK 7AIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 HARNEY POND CANAL -AIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 INDIAN PRAIRIE CANAL --AIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x LEGEND: COND-CONDUCTIVITY FECAL-FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA TP-PHOSPHORUS WQI OR TSI-WATER QUALITY INDEX RATING ALX-ALKALINITY DO-'D'SSOLVED OXYGEN HISTORICAL-1970 TO 1988 tOT-TOTAL COLIFOP14 BACTERIA WHICH INDEX USED, SMI OR TSI, IS BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX ='.;G_:NT-1989 TO 1993 OXYGEN DEMAND-BOD,OOD,TOC TSE-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS BASED ON WATERBODY TYPE BIOL DIV-BIOLOGICAL DiVERSITY -_-A_-kT-APLTIPICIAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY PH-PH TURb-TURBIDITY CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL D:S'AT -NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TN-NITROGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS cl m = m m m = tm no so M im, M we SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03090103 FISHEATING CREEK TRENDS-SOURCES-CLEANUP 'x'-DEGRADING TREND 1 1984 - 1993 TRENDS '0'-STABLE TREND ----------------------------------------------------- '+'-IKPROVING TREND 1W Tj T T C Sl P Al T Tj B Tj DD1 TF1 T F l<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY '.'-MISSING DATA lQUALITY RANK IOVER-10 or Sl N P H DI H Ll U Sl 0 01 001 CCl E L I I------------- I ALL II il L I KI R Sl D Cl Sl 001 M 0 1 1 ViQI 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 111 1 ID NAME IUSE ? TSI I I I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ----- ------------------------ I------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 1 FISHRATING CREEK IPARTIAL FAIRI + 1 0 1 + + . .1 + 01 0 01 .1 0 01 .1 0 0 1 2 HARNEY POND CANAL IPARTIAL FAIRI . I . I . . . . I . .1 . .1 .1 . .1 .1 . . 1 3 INDIAN PRAIRIE CANAL IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 a 0 . .1 0 .1 0 01 .1 0 01 .1 + . I LEGEND: DOSAT-DO SATURATION TCOLI-TOTAL COLIFORM TURB-TURBIDITY PCOLI-FECAL COLIFORM TEMP-TEMPERATURE TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX FOR LAKES AND ESTUARIES ALK-ALKPLLINITY FLOW-FLOW TN-NITROGEN WQI-WATER OULAITY INDEX FOR STRRAMS 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 -4 Florida Keys Basin 03090203 --Z ........... K rgo 906.: X, 423 022 il@6 4 R:: ....... 929 9 6 92 ............ 918 . ..... :.:.: .............. . . ..... Key Wes! ........ ... ... .. . . .......... ... .... .... 93 ...... .... ............. ....... .... ............. . ... ... ..... Average Overall Water Quality 1982 1991 STORET Data Rivers / Streams Lakes/ Estuaries EPA Water Florida Tropl*ic Study Area Ouality Index State Index Good F-7-77.7-71 Fair Poor ........ Unknown USGS B asinBoundary Cities Facilities (D FLORIDA KEYS BASIN Basic Facts Drainage Area: 918 square miles Major Land Uses: urban development, recreation, sportfishing Population Density: moderately high (Key West, Marathon, Key Largo) Major Pollution Sources: construction, septic tanks, marinas, live aboards, stormwater runoff Best Water Quality Areas: open ocean and bay waters Worst Water Quality Areas: urban canals and marinas Water Quality Trends: stable trend at one site, very limited trend sampling OFW Waterbodies: Florida Keys Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge Key West National Wildlife Refuge Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge Key Largo Coral Reel National Marine Sanctuary John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary Aquatic preserve SWIM Waterbodies: none Reference Reports: Fate and Pathways of Injection Well Effluent in the Florida Keys (draft) USGS 1994 Florida Keys Monitoring Study, DEp (Marathon), 1987 Florida Nonpoint Source Assessment, DEP (Tallahassee), 1988 Interim Report: Ambient Water Quality Assessment in the Middle and Lower Florida Keys During 1989, Lapoint and Clark, 199o, Florida Keys Land and Sea Trust Boot Key Harbor Study (Draft), DEP (marathon), 1990 Florida Keys as Outstanding Florida Waters, 1985 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Assessment Reports, 1991-1992 Basin Water Quality Experts: Gus Rios, DEP (Marathon), 305n43-5955 ----------- - --------------- - - -- - -------- - -------- - ----- -------------- - ------ - ------ - - In lba Sm Key West WWTP increased the treatment level of their discharge and wen on-line in 1989. A new DEP permit issued in November 1991 requires monitoring of the effluent for nutrients, DO, conductivity, pK salinity and biological monitoring of the sediment in the vicinity of the outfall. * In order to better protect the fragile Key reefs and the Everglades, the State has launched a unified effort to block offshore oil drilling and to move shipping channels further offshore. * Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act was signed into law on November 16, 1990. A Management Plan is now being developed. 39 An issue of heated debate is whether treated sewage pumped into the ground via deepwell injection may be reemerging through an ocean sinkhole to provide nutrients to fuel algal blooms. The Monroe County Commission has proposed a moratorium on new hotel/motcl construction and the restriction of home building permits to 250 per year. A recent USGS Report (DRAFT, 1994, prepared for the DEP and EPA) that monitored the onshore and offshore ground water to study the fate of injection-well effluent, determined that the source of nutrients observed at some offshore reef locations could not be directly linked to onshore injection wells. The final report is expected later this year. Ecolo,gical Characterization The Florida Keys located south of Miami consist of a 100 mile string of islands which extend in a west-southwesterly direction. To the north and west, the Keys are open to Florida Bay and the Gulf of Mexico; to the south and cast is the Atlantic Ocean. The islands form many lagoons, predominantly on the Gulf side. Due to the rapid flushing of the lagoons, water chemistry is generally similar to open sea water. The islands sit on the edge of an elevated shelf so the waters, particularly on the Gulf side, are shallow and support lush growths of seagrasses. Along the cast coast, as the shelf drops off into deeper water, there is the only stretch of living coral reef in the continental United States. There are no reaches of freshwater on the islands. The three main urban areas, Key Largo, Marathon and Key West are connected by one highway, U.S. 1, and a chain of small municipalities. Anthropogenic IMpacts The island waters open to the Atlantic Ocean or Gulf of Mexico have good water quality and are designated as Outstanding Florida Waters, and as such are afforded legal protection against any significant change in water quality. On November 16, 1990, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act was signed into law. This act is an expansion of the National Marine Sanctuary Program already in place in Key Largo and Looe Key. The act prohibits oil and gas development and hard mineral mining; and restrict commercial vessel traffic (750m length) within designated "area to be avoided". The Comprehensive Management Plan is due out this fall. The Water Quality Protection Program is in place and the research and monitoring program is in the first phase of implementation. Many of the maninade canals and marinas exhibit some water quality problems which are exacerbated by decreased flushing. A 1986 2056) study in the Keys indicated that the major sources of pollution were: 1. WWTPs and "package plants" discharging to poorly fl u'shed manmade waterways; 2. thousands of septic tanks and cesspools; 3. marinas with no pump out facilities; 4. fish processors; and 5. stormwater runoff, especially into the canals. A more recent study by the Florida Keys Land and.Sea Trust confirmed this report emphasizing eutrophication of canals by septic tank leachate. They found several violations of dissolved oxygen standards in the canals. Both of these reports confirmed the importance of superior water quality to the coral reefs and other resources of the Keys, and warned against treating pollution with dilution. Even minute changes in nutrient, turbidity or toxics concentrations can have a severe impact on the highly fragile coral reef communities. The 2056) report questioned the validity of using only water quality standards and criteria to assess the need for treatment facilities in this special area. 40 Additionally, the 2050) report suggested that the need for wastewater treatment facilities and collection systems be based on population density, and that the facilities should discharge to the unconsolidated, non-potable aquifer that underlies the Keys. Most of the existing WWTPs have already shifted from surface water discharge to underground injection. However, there is potential for seepage of underground wastes into nearby surface waters. A study by the DEP Marathon office is being conducted on the Blue Water RV Park package plant to determine the extent of seepage problems. Baseline data was collected in late 1989, prior to discharge. Monitoring of surface waters and groundwater at this site is in progress. Another major pollution source is associated with sewage disposal in the urbanized areas, particularly Key Largo and Key West. For years, the City of Key West discharged raw sewage directly to the ocean. The DEP and EPA issued a Consent Order to the City requiring that a treatment facility be built. It finally went on-line early in 1989 and appears to be operating well. T'here are also localized problems (high fecal coliforin counts, sediment contamination with metals, oils, etc.) in some of the marinas and the port at Key West. A manna related study was completed on Boot Key Harbor near Marathon in 1990. That study indicated that live aboard vessels were contributing to the degradation of surface waters. Recently, there has been a mass die-off of the seagrasses in Florida Bay (particularly Barnes Bay) and consequent declining fisheries. Disruptions in the quantity and quality of freshwater inflow into the bay due to charmelization on the mainland is suspected as one cause of the die-off. A study was conducted by the DEP district staff on the effect of discharge water from the C-1 11 canal. The SFWMD has taken over that project. Other suspected causes are the lack of hurricanes to flush sediments out of the bay and very warm water temperatures. The coral reefs on the ocean side have suffered from careless divers, boat anchors, and several commercial ship grindings and/or spills. In 1989 there were two groundings of large ships that caused severe damage to the reef. 41 FLORIDA KEYS USGS HYDROLOGIC CODE # 03090203 INDEX GOOD FAIR POOR ----- ----- ----- ----- WQI-RIVpR 0-44 45-59 60-90 ----- TSI-ESTLYARY 0-49 50-59 60-100 1 WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 1982-1991 TSI-LAKE 0-59 60-69 70-100 1 (MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH REACH) I SAMPLE RECORD WATER BIOLOGICAL WATER REACH REACH NAME DISSOLVED OXYGEN PH TROPHIC SPECIES QUALITY ------------- CLARITY OXYGEN DEMAND ALYALINITY STATUS COLIFORK DIVERSITY COND FLOW INDICES ----- -------------------------------------------------- MAX BEG END --------------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ----- ----- ---------- - WATER BODY TYPE: COASTAL #OBS YR YR TURB SD COLOR TSS DO DOSAT BOO COD TOC PH ALK NITRO PHOS CHLA TOTAL FECL NAT ART BECK COND FLOW WQI TSI 905 XEY LARGO ab FLORIDA BAY 78 85 85 2.1 6.8 73 7.8 0.53 0.02 1 54300 17 35 906 PLANTATION KEY ab FLORIDA BAY 3 85 85 0.9 9.3 98 8.0 0.45 0.02 1 55000 6 50 907 WINDLEY KEY ab FLORIDA BAY 3 85 85 1.5 8.0 74 7.8 57500 10 . 908 UPPER HATECUMBE KEY ab FLORIDA BAY 6 85 85 1.6 8.1 75 7.8 o.io O.o'I 58450 8 38 909 SHELL XEY ab FLORIDA BAY 0 0 0 910 LIGNUMVITAE KEY ab FLORIDA BAY 0 0 0 911 LOWER MATECUMBE KEY ab FLORIDA KEY 4 85 85 1*2 7:9 O.i$ 0.62 51560 7 is 912 LONG KEY ab FLOORIDA BAY 3 85 85 2.7 7.7 0.40 0.02 47500 8 33 913 DUCK KEY ab FLORIDA SAY 0 0 0 914 GRASSY KEY/MhRATHON SHORES ab FLORIDA BAY 372 84 85 2:0 5 6:2 i2 0:9 7:7 O.i8 0.63 3 5 13 552i5 i2 ig 915 MARATHON KEY/VACA KEY ab FLORIDA BAY 13 85 95 3.0 6.9 75 7.8 0.29 0.01 2 54000 17 27 916 PACEr KEY ab FLORIDA BAY 0 0 0 917 OHIO KEY ab FLORIDA BAY 0 0 0 918 BAHIA HONDA KEY ab FL40RIDA BAY 31 82 88 6:3 r.:l i4 2 7:6 O.iO 0.63 4:0 557jO iO i2 919 SPANISH HARBOR KEYS ab FLORIDA BAY 0 0 0 920 LITTLE PINE KEY ab GULF OF MEXICO 0 0 0 921 NONAME KEY ab GULF OF MEXICO 0 0 0 922 BIG PINE KEY ab GULF OF MEXICO 10 85 85 2*0 7:5 i7 7:7 0.j7 0.0*2 565*0 2 j7 923 ab GULF OF MEXICO 127 82 TORCH KEYS(BIG,MIDDLE,LITTLE) 9D 2:0 2:0 2 4 6.3 72 3 7.9 0.59 0.02 0 76 1 5.5 547000 21 38 924 SUMMERIAND KEY COVE ab GULF OF MEXICO 0 0 0 925 SUMMERLAM KEY ab GULF OF MEXICO 3 as 85 1:6 7:3 i9 7:9 O.il 0.60 57160 11 j7 926 KNOCKEKDOWN KEYS ab GULF OF MEXICO 0 0 0 927 CUDJOE KEY ab GULF OF MEXICO 6 85 85 2*0 7.2 75 7:9 O.i7 0.61 570iO i4 i3 928 SUGARLOAF KEY ab GULF OF MEXICO a 85 85 1.3 8.0 87 7.8 0.33 0.01 59450 10 43 .0. 929 SADDLESUNCH KEY ab GULF OF MEXICO 0 0 0 930 BOCA CHICA KEY ab GULF OF MEXICO 0 0 0 931 KEY WEST b GULF OF MEXICO 30 93 85 3.1 6.7 75 7'1 O.i4 0.61 ;8 5*2 53760 i7 iO LEGEND: BOO-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN MG/L MAX OOBS-MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TURB-TURBIDITY MG/L ALK-ALKALINITY MG/L CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL UGIL DOSAT-Do % SATURATION NAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TOC-TCTAL ORGANIC CARBON MG/L WQI-WATER QUALM INDEX ART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DI COD-CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L END YR-ENDING YEAR NITRO-ToTAL NITROGEN MG/L TOTAL-TOTAL COLIFORM MPN/10OML BEG YR-BEGINNING SAMPLING YEAR COLIOR-COLOR PCU FECL-FECAL COLIFORM MPN/IOGML PH-PH STANDARD UNITS TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX -OND-CONDUCTIVITY U14HOS FLOW-FLOW CFS PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L @ M an m m m a" m m WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT " USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03090203 FLORIDA KEYS SCREENING LEVEL PROBLEMS -TRENDS -SOURCES -CLEANUP ISCREENING PROSLFMI 1982-1991 TRENDS I I SOURCES I "'=PROBLEM OR DEGRADING TREND ------------------ I I :0'=NO PROBLEM OR STABLE TREND ITPSCIBDBBICSTTlM0I IOITFrTIBDDTIC97TIWTITFIPAI IISIASCUIMDHSI .:=IMPROVltP3 TREND WQI RANK INNIO)OC)AIlliDNPIERI VICCUSIOO0OIHDNPIQSlELIHLI INTIGIORIIUYEI --- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY ---------- IT LNID COIL ITGJ IEJOORSID SCIL IIJIMOI KI IDPIRLNBINMOPI =NO DATA 1992 1990 IP TDI TLIA IAAI IRILLB I A IA I jpwI I I JIVSAIIPRTI IMEETS WQI WQI ol @LN: :A@ll T I TRN NG OCI PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS -------- REACH REACH NAME IUSE ? TSI TSI G si L ------ ------------------------- t----- ----------- I I Yl I Cl ILI WATER BODY TYPE: COASTAL LARGE MARINA AND CANAL SYSTEM. 05 KEY LARGO ab FLORIDA BAY IYES GOOD GOOD loo..1.00.1.0001.., I., .... I 906 PLANTATION KEY ab FLORID IYES FAIR FAIR loo.-I.00.1.0001_1 I-( .... I 907 wrNDLEY KEY ab FLORIDA B )YES UNKN UNKN I.0.*I.o..I.o..I..j I., .... I ASSESSMENT BASED ON NPS DATA AM PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT. 908 UPPER KATECUMBE KEY ab F IYES GOOD GOOD 100.-I.O..1.0001..l 1.1 .... I.... I.... 909 SHFLL KEY ab FLORIDA BAY [UNKNOWN UNKN UNKN I ASSESSMENT BASED ON PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT. 910 LIGNUMVITAE KEY ab FLORI IYES UNKN UNKN I.... I.... I .... 1..1 1.1 .... I.... I.... [..I .... I.... I ASSESSMENT BASED ON PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT. 911 LOWER MATECUMBE KEY ab F IYES GOOD GOOD loo.*l .... ;.0001..l 1.1 .... I.... I.... I..I .... I.... 1 912 LONG KEY ab FLDRIDA BAY IYES GOOD GOOD 100.*l .... 1.0001..l 1.1 .... I.... I.... I..I .... 1.*..l L.ANDFILL VERY CLOSE TO WATER. 913 DUCK KEY ab FLORIDA BAY IUNKNOWN UNKN UNKN I .... I .... I .... 1..1 1.1 .... I.... I.... I..j .... I.... I ASSESSMENT BASED ON PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT. 914 GRASSY KEY/MARATHON SHORE IYES GOOD GOOD 1000*1000.100001.11 1.1 .... I.... I.... I.-I .... I.... 1 915 MARATHON KEY/VACA KEY ab IYES GOOD GOOD 100.*1.00.1.0001..l 1.1 .... I.... I.... *1 MULTIPLE SOURCES DISCHARGING INTO CANAL SYSTEMS. 916 FACET KEY ab FLORIDA BAY 1UNKNOWN UNKN UNKN I.... I.... I .... I-.I 1.11_1 .... I.... I ASSESSMENT BASED ON PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT. 917 OHIO KEY ab FLORIDA BAY JUNKNOWN UNKN UNKN I.... I.... 1.1 .... I.... I.... I ASSESSMENT 13ASED ON PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT. 918 BAHIA HONDA KEY ab FLORI IYES GOOD GOOD loo.*100.01.0001..( 1.1 .... I.... I.... 919 SPANISH HARBOR KEYS ab F I UNKNOWN uNKN UNKN I.... I.... I .... 1..1 1.1 .... I.... I.... I ASSESSMENT BASED ON PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT. 920 LITTLE PINE KEY ab GULF I UNKNOWN UNKN UNKN I.... I.... I .... 1..1 1.1 .... I.... I.... I ASSESSMENT BASED ON PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT. 921 NONAME KEY ab GULF OF ME JUNKNOWN UNKN UNKN I.... I.... I .... I..j I'll...1 .... I.... I ASSESSMENT BASED ON PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT. 922 BIG PINE KEY ab GULF OF IYES GOOD GOOD Ioo.*I.o..I.000I..I 1.1 .... I.... I.... I..I .... I.... 1 923 TORCH KEYS (BIG, MIDDLE, LIT IYES GOOD GOOD 1000*10000100001-.1 1..1 .... I.... I STABLE 10 YEAR TREND. 924 SUNHERLAND KEY COVE ab G JUNKNOWN UNKN UNM I ASSESSMENT BASED ON PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT. 925 SUMMERLAND KEY ab GULF 0 IYES GOOD GOOD I00.*I.o..I.000I-.I 1.1 .... I.... I.... I..I .... I.... 1 926 KNOCKEMDOWN KEYS ab GULF I UNKNOWN LMW UNKN I .... I .... 1.1 .... I.... I.... I.... I ASSESSMENT BASED ON PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT. 927 CUDJOE KEY ab GULF OF ME IYES GOOD GOOD I00.*I.o..I.000I..I 1.1 .... I.... I.... W 928 SUGARLOAF KEY ab GULF OF IYES GOOD GOOD 1.1 .... I.... I.... I.... 1 929 SADDLESUNCH KEY ab GULF 1UNKNOWN UNKN UNKN I.... 1..1 1.1 .... I.... I.... I..I .... I.... I ASSESSMENT BASED ON PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT. 930 BOCA CHICA KEY ab GULF 0 IYES UNKN UNKN I.... I .... I .... 1..1 1.1 .... I.... I.... I..I .... I.... I ASSESSMENT BASED ON HISTORICAL DATA. 931 KEY WEST ab GULF OF MEXI IYES GOOD C-000 loo.*1.0001.0001..l 1.1 .... I.... I.... I..I ... *1.**Il VERY URBANIIZED. POLLUTION FROM LIVEABOARD BOATS IN LARGE BOAT BASIN. LEGEND. CHLh-CHLOROPHYLL FCOLI-FECAL COLIFORM MINING-MINING SEPTIC-SEPTIC TANKS TN-NITROGEN TURB-TURBIDITY AGRI-AGRICULTURE COND-CONDUCTIVITY FLOW-FLOW NPS SMVEY-1989 NONPOINT SOURCE SILT-SILThTION TNTP-NUTRIENTS URBAN-URBAN ALK-ALKALINITY CONSTR-CONSTRUCTION HYDRO-HYDROLOGIC MODIFICATION ORGANIC-ORGANIC TOXICS SILVI-SILVICULTURE TOC-T.ORGANrC CARBON WQI-WATFR QUIAITY :NDEX BACT-BACTERIA DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN IND-INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCE OVERALL-OVERALL TREND STP-WASTEWATER PLANT TP-PHOSPHORUS WQI OR TSI-INDEX QUALITY OF DOSAT-DO SATURATION MEETS USE-MEETS DESIGNATED USE PH-PH BIOLOGY-DIVERSITY TCOLI-TOTAL COLIFORM TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX WATER DEPENDS oN WATERBODY BOD-BIOCHEM. OXYGEN DEMAND DUMP-LANDFILL METALS-TOXIC METALS SD-SECCHI DISC TEMP-TEMPERATURE TSS-TCITAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS TYPE TAYLOR CREEK- INFLOW KISSIMMEE RIV INFLOW 7777777777.@', .......... 'KE k5t H-OOE-E-.*:@'@':,'@'-.':.-',".:.'-'.'.I -,-C @@777-777: 4 LAKE OKEECHOBEE BASIN 03090201 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 43 LAKE OKEECHOBEE BASIN Basic Facts Drainage Area: 700 square miles surface area for lake, 4600 square miles for entire basin Major Land Uses: agriculture, wetlands, improved pastime Population Density: low (Moore Haven, Clewiston, Pahokee, Okeechobee, Belle Glade and South Bay) Major Pollution Sources: dairies, agriculture Best Water Quality Areas: west near wetlands and Fisheating Creek inflow Worst Water Quality Areas: south by agricultural area, northeast by Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough, St. Lucie Canal Water Quality Trends: stable quality at 3 sites, slight phosphorus reduction in south Lake Okeechobee OFW Waterbodies: none SWIM Waterbodies: Lake OkeechobeetKissimmee River Reference Reports: Macroinvertebrate Study; FL Game and Fish - Gary Warren, 1993 Lake Okeechobee Ecosystem - SFWMD and Unv. of FL. - (Nick Auman 404-687-6716) SWIM Plan Document, SFWMD, 1989 DEP Macroinvertebrate Study, DEP, 1990 Basin Water Quality Experts: Homer Royals, FGFWFC, 904/357-6631 Greg Graves, Terry Davis, DEP (Port St. Lucie), 407/871-7662 Harvey Rudolph, Palm Beach County, 407/3554011 Tom Fontaine, Ken Todd, Anthony Waterhouse, SFWMD, 407/686-8800 --------------------------------------- - ----- - -- -- ------- ------ - ------- ----- - -- ------- In the News � Lake Okeechobee has been associated with several important developments in the Kissimmee-Okeechobee-Everglades drainage area (covered in the Southeast Florida Basin) and the Kissimmee Restoration (in Kissimmee River Basin). * As part of the SWIM plan, some dairies have been removed from the lake's drainage basins. � The Florida Steel Superfund Site is located 2 miles northwest on Indian- town in Martin County and consists of a 150 acre former steel mill that operated from 1970 to 1982, when it closed for economic reasons. Approximately 75,000 cubic yards of emission control dust were deposited on the southern portion of the site in waste piles. EPA has identified heavy metals including arsenic, cadmium and lead in the EC dust and ground water. In addition polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's) were found at various 44 locations on the site. Approximately 4,800 people live within a two mile radius of the site. The Indiantown public water supply comes from a group of shallow wells located within three miles of the site. Wetlands located adjacent to the site are threatened by contamination migrating from the site. The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site. *Adjacent to Caulkins Indiantown Citrus is the Indiantown cogeneration plant, currently under construction by Bechtel. The plant will be coal fired and will consist of coal storage, water and wastewater basins. Ecological Characterization Lake Okeechobee covers 700 square miles, depending on lake level, making it the largest lake in Florida and second largest lake within the boarders of the United States. The Kissimmee River is the largest basin draining into the lake followed by Fisheating Creek, the Indian Prairie Canal and Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough. Land use in the surrounding basins is predominantly dairy farming (Kissimmee and Taylor Creek), improved posture, rangeland and wetlands (Fisheating Creek). The natural drainage from the lake, basically a spillage into the extensive wetland system south of the lake, has been diked and dredged into six major exiting canals: the westward flowing Caloosahatchee and the eastward St. Lucie, West Palm Beach, Hillsboro, North New River, and Miami Canals. These modifications and numerous other drainage canals allowed the claiming of hundreds of square miles of non-flooded land for agricultural usage. This area covering about 1200 square miles, known as the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA), is planted mostly in sugar cane, but also has significant amounts of row crop and sod farming. Lake Okeechobee is part of the larger system known as the Kissimmee, Okeechobee, Everglades drainage that is unique in the world. Historically, the sluggish, meandering river system emptied into a high, shallow lake that slowly released water to a 50 mile wide, 125 mile long "River of Grass" to a mangrove swamp and the Florida Bay estuary. The hydrology of the Kissimmee Basin and the Evergl ades/Southeast Florida Basins has been greatly modified for flood control and to produce farmland. Lake Okeechobee still serves as a reservoir for the system, but both inflow to and outflow from the lake is, to a great extent, managed by man through a system of canals, pumps and control structures. All inflows and outflows to the lake (except Fisheating Creek) are controlled. The price of managing water quantity so heavily has been a marked lowering of water quality. AatLopggenic Lmm-ts Major sources of pollution to the lake include runoff from ranch and dairy operations in the northern drainage and from historic back-pumping of runoff from row crops and sugar cane in the southern drainage. Water quality problems in the north end of the lake include elevated phosphorus and coliforin concentrations and a continuous algal bloom. In the south part of the lake, problems of nutrient and pesticide loadings are caused by back-pumping. The back-pumping practice has mostly ceased, but still occurs when water levels in the EAA primary canal reach an elevations of 13 feet NGVD (flood control). Consequently, at different locations and different seasons of rainfall or drought, the lake receives varying amounts of nutrient, BOD, bacteria and toxic materials. Other pollutants entering the lake include high levels of total dissolved solids, unionized ammonia, chlorides, color and dissolved organics (TW precursors), water low in dissolved oxygen and high in specific conductance. The total phosphorus levels in the lake have doubled in the last decade. Considering the lake's volume, this increase represents a tremendous loading. 45 A basin assessment of the lake in 1985 revealed variable conditions in the lake from highly eutrophic (high pH and,chlorophyll values) to relatively good values. Nutrient values were mostly high. Biological sampling also indicated variability in the lake, but is generally indicative of eutrophic conditions. In recent years there have been several wide-spread algal blooms (one covered about 100 square miles) and at least one major fish kill. These widely publicize'd events launched the environmental community and governmental agencies into a period of intense investigation and analysis. The Lake Okeechobee Technical Advisory Committee (LOTAQ was formed to assess the situation and make recommendations. LOTAC determined that phosphorus loading from dairy and agricultural sources was a major cause of water quality conditions conducive to noxious algal blooms and that phosphorus loading should be reduced by 40% (as stated in a 1981 SFWMD Technical publication TP81-2). A few others contend that the secondary cause of increased phosphorus levels are the hundreds of acres of perimeter wetlands which have become flooded after a late 1970s, decision by the Water Management District to raise the water level in the lake. Also, the higher lake levels reduced valuable fish spawning grounds and waterfowl feeding and nesting areas. The South Florida Water Management District has initiated several biological, chemical and ecological research projects. The lake is a priority SWIM waterbody and plans are being submitted to attenuate pollution flowing to the lake. DEP has adopted a "dairy rule" requiring certain BMPs for dairy operation. That rule required BMP plan development and permit acquisition from DEP by June, 1989, and implementation by April, 1991 for all 52 dairies in the Lake Okeechobee drainage basin. Dairies are offered the option of selling and removing the cattle (through water management district and state funding) or coming into compliance with the rule. Additionally, DEP is regulating back pumping operations. The Dairy Rule does not seem to be uniformly accomplishing the desired result stated in the SWIM Plan of a dairy off-site phosphorus discharge concentration of no more than 2.1 mg/l. Concerning the recent federal lawsuit on the Everglades, Lake Okeechobee was not included in the lawsuit. Unlike the Loxahatchee Wildlife Refuge (WCA-1) and Everglades National Park, no direct affect on federal interests could be shown for Lake Okeechobee (or WCA-2 or WCA-3). As part of the preliminary mediated settlement agreement and included in the Everglades Forever Act, some EAA agricultural drainage was diverted away from the lake and south to the regional storm water treatment areas (STAs). A primary reason for the diversion was to provide make-up water to the Everglades for the water that would be lost to evapotranspiration in the STAs. Lake Okeechobee also received a major benefit through the annual diversion of about 20 tons of phosphorus, 500 tons of nitrogen and a number of other pollutants. Phosphorus loading limits established for the lake by the legislature in Ch. 373, ITS and effective July 1992 have still not been met. Results of recently completed research sponsored by the SFWMD indicate that because of internal recycling of lake phosphorus and the vast reservoir of phosphorus stored in the drainage basin in ground water and wedand and canal sediments, the lake water phosphorus concentration may not be lowered to acceptable levels for many decades or even a century. To shorten this time, new actions to reduce phosphorus at the points its tributaries enter the lake will be necessary. Adoption of a new regulation schedule (the current experimental schedule, Run 25) for Lake Okeechobee is being proposed by the Corps of Engineers. It doesn't meet the need for a lower fluctuating water level in the lake's extensive marsh or adequately protect the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee Estuaries from excessive fresh water discharges. It does provide for a greater agricultural water supply than the lower, environmentally friendly alternative (Run 22AZE). 46 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT* 03090201 LAKE OKEECHOBEE 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 (1@89-1993) USED WHERE AVAILABLE TSI-SSTUARY 0-49 50-59 60-100 ----- PERIOD PRIOR TO 1989 IS EVALUATED AS HISTORICAL INFORMATION TSI-LAKE 0-59 60-69 70-100 1 BIOLOGICAL WATER WATERSHED WATERSHED DATA RECORD WATER DISSOLVED OXYGEN PH TROPHIC SPECIES QUALITY ID NA14E ---------------------- CLARITY OXYGEN DEMAND ALKALINITY STATUS COLIFORM DIVERSITY COND FLOW INDICES ----- --------------------------------- MAX BEG END DATA ---------------------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ----- ----- --------------- OOBS YR YR PERIOD TURB SD COLOR TSS DO DOSAT BOD COD TOC PH ALK NITRO PHOS CHLh TOTAL FECL NAT ART BECK COND FLOW WQI TSI �WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 1 LAKE OKEECHOBEE 151 89 92 Current 8.8 0.6 35 9 8.6 95 8.1 1.34 0.05 16 60: 60 2 LAKE OKEECHOBEE 161 89 92 Current 7.3 0.7 39 7 8.6 84 8.1 1.48 0.05 10 460 17 62 63 3 LAKE OKEECHOBEE 272 89 93 Current 11.0 0.6 31 11 8.3 96 8.1 1.33 0.05 22 604 66 4 LAKE OKEECHOBEE 70 90 90 Current 14.7 0.8 33 . 7.7 97 8.7 1.56 0.05 . 210 15 707 61 5 LAKE OKEECHOBEE 31 89 93 Current 1.6 1.1 60 1 4.5 35 6.9 1.31' 0.03 23 541 49 6 LAKE OKEECHOBEE 32 89 91 Current 5.7 0.5 85 5 8.9 99 8.2 1.42 0.07 99 454 71 7 LAKE OKEECHOBEE 52 90 91 Current 20.0 0.6 30 . 7.2 89 8.7 1.54 0.10 721 68 8 LAKE OKEECHOBEE 228 89 93 Current 5.4 0.6 55 7 8.3 94 8.0 1.27 0.07 25 420 66 9 LAKE OKEECHOBEE 64 89 93 Current 16.2 0.6 80 8.5 97 8.3 104 1.51 0.09 44 172 19 523 71 � WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 10 S-135 57 89 93 Current 4.8 52 6 6.8 75 7.6 1.40 0.07 753 38 11 Lettuce Crook 128 89 93 Current 2.6 0.9 150 4.1 43 6.7 1.57 0.29 110 377 58 12 S-135 60 92 93 Current 3.0 33 6.9 1.60 0.97 536 82 LEGEND: BOD-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN MG/L MAX #OBS-MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TURB-TURBIDITY MG/L ALK-ALKALINITY MG/L CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL UG/L DOSAT-DO I SATURATION NAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TOC-TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON MG/L WQI-WATER QUALITY INDEX ART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DI rOD-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 ECU FECL-FECAL COLIFORM: MPN/100ML PH-PH STANDARD UNITS TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX BECK-BECK'$ BIOTIC INDEX COND-CONDUCTIVITY UMHOS FIOW-FLOW CPS PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MGIL m m m m m "-w m was mm mm mm SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03090201 LAKE OKEECHOBEE MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED SCREENED 'X'-EXCEEDS SCREENING CRITERIA SCREENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA 101-WITHIN SCREENING CRITERIA '.'-MISSING DATA I RANK DATA RECORDI TN ISTREAM I LAKE I PH I ALK I 7URB & 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 t I BACTI I DIV I DISC I I WQl CURRENT I I I I I I I I I I WATERSHED I OR OR ITN>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 I TSI HISTORICAL I I I I PH<5.2 I ITSS>18 I I COD>102 I IFECAL>4701DINAT<1.5 I I I ----- -------------------------------------------- I TOC>27.51 I IBECK<5.5 I I I � WATER BODY TYPE: LAKE 1 LAKE OKEECHOBEE IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 2 LAKE OKEECHOBEE IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 3 LAKE OKEECHOBEE IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 4 LAKE OKEECHOBEE IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 5 LAKE OKEECHOBEE IGOOD Current t a I 1 0 k 0 1 t 0 t 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 6 LAKE OKEECHOBEE IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I x 7 LAKE OKEECHOBEE IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I 1 0 1 1 x 8 LAKE OKEECHOBEE IFAIR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 9 LAKE OKEECHOBEE IPOOR Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x I x � WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 10 S-135 IGOOD Current 1 0 1 a I 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 11 Lettuce Creek IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 12 S-135 IPOOR Current 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 m LEGEND: OOND-OONDUCTIVITY 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 SUSPE14DED SOLIDS BASED ON WATERBODY TYPE BIOL DIV-BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY DIART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY PH-PH TURB-TURBIDITY CHIA-CHLIOROPHYLL DINAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TN-NITROGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS 41. 00 SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03090201 LAKE OKEECHOBEE TRENDS -SOURCES -CLZK'rjP Ix'-DEGRADING TREND 1964 - 1993 TRENDS '0'-STABLE TREND ----------------------------------------------------- ,,'-IMPROVING TREND I 1W T1 T T C Sl P Al T TI B TI DDI T Fl T F i<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY '.'-MISSING DATA lQUALITY RANK IOVER-10 or Sl N P H DIH LlU Sl 0 01 001 C Cl 9 L I I------------- I ALL 11 11 L I KIR Sl D Cl Si 0 01 M 0 1 1 WVI 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 1 11 1 ID NAME IUSE ? TSI I I I I I I I I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ----- ------------------------ I------------- ------------------------- - -- - -------------- - --------------- - ------------ - - - -------------- �WA75R BODY TYPE: LAKE 1 LAKE OKEECHOBEE IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 010 1 0 xi .1 001 .1 0 1 2 LAKE OKEECHOBEE IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 X10 1 0 KI .1 0Of .1 0 1 3 LAKE OKEECHOBEE IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 01+ 1 0 01 .1 001 .1 0 1 A LAKE OKEECHOBEE IPARTIAL FAIRI . I . I . . . . I . .1. .1 .1 ..1 .1 - I 5 LAKE OKEECHOBEE IYES GOOD 1 0 1 0 1 + 0 0 01x .10 .1 .1 0.1 .1 1 6 LAKE OKEECHOBEE INO FAIRI x I x 1 0 x . 010 .10 .1 .1 0.1 .1 1 7 LAKE OKEECHOBEE IPARTIAL FAIRI . I . I . . . . I . .1. .1 .1 ..1 .1 1 8 LAKE OKEECHOBEE IPARTIAL FAIRI + 1 0 1 . . . X10 .10 +1 .1 001 .1 0 1 9 LAKE OKEECHOBEE INO POORI 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 010 010 .1 .1 001 x xl 0 1 � WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 10 S-135 IYES GOODI x I x I + 0 .1x .1x 01 .1 X.1 .1 1 11 Lettuce Creek IPARTIAL FAIRI 0 1 0 1 0 0 .10 .1 .1 .1 001 1 0 1 12 S-135 INO POORI I I . . . LEGEND: DOSAT-DO SATURATION TCOLI-TOTAL COLIFORM TURB-TURBIDITY FCOLI-FECAL COLIFORM TEMP-TEMPERNTURE TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX FOR LAKES AND ESTUARIES ALK-ALKALINITY FLOW-FL40W TN-NITROGEN WQI-WATER OULKITY INDEX FOR STREAMS AND SPRINGS BOD-BIOCHEK. OXYGEN DLICAND MEETS USE-MEETS DESIGNATED USE TOC-T.ORGANIC CAREON CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL PH-PH TP-PHOSPHORUS DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS M no an as, as I": as On m LAKE OKEECHOBEE ,As.. C-0 tr- 0@1 SOUTHEAST FLORIDA BASIN WATER QUALITY 03090202 GOOD AVERAGE WATER QUALITY THREATENED 1984-1993 STORET DATA FAIR WATERSHED ID NUMBERS LINK MAP TO TABLES POOR INDICATES QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT UNKNOWN page 50 SOUTHEASTERN FLORIDA BASIN --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Basic Facts Drainage Area: 8,000 square miles Major Land Uses: wetlands, agriculture, urban development Population Density: high in coastal areas (Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, Stuart, Homestead) Major Pollution Sources: urban runoff, agriculture, boat dischargers, sewage overflows Best Water Quality Areas: Biscayne Bay, Card Sound Worst Water Quality Areas: canals from Everglades Agricultural Area, N. Fork Middle River, New River, Miami River Water Quality Trends: stable quality at 23 sites, improvements at fifteen coastal canals, degradation in the Savannas OFW Waterbodies: Everglades National Park Biscayne National Park Big Cypress National Preserve Biscayne Bay State Aquatic Preserve Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge Loxahatchee River State Aquatic Preserve Rotenberger Tract (CARL Project) Savannas State Reserve Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River SWIM Waterbodies: Lake Okeechobee Everglades National Park/Florida Bay Everglades Water Conservation Areas Biscayne Bay Savannas State Reserve Reference Reports: Bessey Creek and the Greater St. Lucie River, Estuary, DEP (PSL), 1993 Broward County Annual Report, Broward County, 1986 Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Lake Worth, Deis, Walesky, and Rudolph, 1983 Manatee Pocket and Willoughby Creek Survey, DEP (Port St. Lucie), 1988 Savannas BAS, DEP (Southeast), 1985 An Assessment of Water Quality and Sources of Pollution in the New River Basin, Broward County, 1991, 1992 A Macroinvertebrate and Water Quality Study of the Freshwater Portion of the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River in Palm Beach and Martin Counties, DEP (Port St. Lucie), 1990 Macroinvertebrates Associated with Macrophytes in Lake Okeechobee, Florida, Biological Basin Assessment Survey, DEP (Port St. Lucie), 1990 Savannas Study, Biological Sampling Results, DFP (Port St. Lucie), 1989 North Fork of the St. Lucie River Macroinvertebrate Survey in February and August 1986, with a Comparison to Previous Macroinvertebrate Surveys, a Biological Basin Assessment Survey, DEP (Port St. Lucie), 51 1990 Basin Water Quality Experts: Joe King, Broward County, 305n654900 Tom Fontaine, Ken Todd, Anthony Waterhouse, SFWMD, 407/686-8800 Greg Graves (PSL) 407-871-7662 Susan Markley, Dade DERM, 305/375-3376 Dorian Valdeo, Dade DERM, 305/372-6888 --- - - - - - ------- - --------------------------- - ---- - --------- - ---- - - In the � A federal judge signed a settlement agreement on the cleanup of Everglades pollution, signaling the end of a 3 1/2 year old lawsuit. Requirements of a preliminary mediated settlement agreement included in the Everglades Forever Act have replaced the federal settlement agreement which ended the federal lawsuit. Algal blooms occurring in Florida Bay and the continuing environmental deterioration of the bay are major current concerns. The Everglades Forever Act requires the SFWMD to develop and implement an emergency interim plan to deliver up to 800 cfs of fresh water to Florida Bay. � A proposal by the EPA and Corps of Engineers which designates 24 square miles of Broward County as unsuitable for development goes to public hearing. � Health advisories recommending no consumption of largemouth bass due to mercury content have been issued for Water Conservation Areas 2a, 3a portions of Everglades National Park, and the Savannas and for limited consumption in Water Conservation Area 1, and portions of Everglades National Park. � An illegal dump containing tires, corroded batteries and diesel fuel was uncovered near the Everglades Park boundary near interstate Highway 75 and U.S. Highway 27. A construction company under contract with DOT is being investigated and officials fear they may uncover more illegal dump sites. � Studies by Broward County's Office of Natural Resource Protection found unusually high levels of metals in muck and high bacteria counts in waters from the New River. � Twenty EPA listed Superfund Sites are located within the area identified. Approximately 50 more hazardous waste sites are subject to assessment and remediation with the State of Florida as the lead agency. The sites consist of heavy metal, solvent, pesticide/herbicide contamination. These sites will mostly affect groundwater, however, all have the potential to affect surface waters. In addition, approximately 5150 petroleum contaminated sites are located in Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Okeechobee and St. Lucie Counties. Approximately 10,000 regulated petroleum facilities are located in the counties identified. � In Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties, ten major public wellfields have shown contamination in public/private drinking water supply wells, including the City of Riviera Beach, the City of Delray Beach, the City of Hallandale, the Peele- Dixie Wcllfield-City of Fort Lauderdale, the City of Dania, the City of Deerfield Beach, the City of North Miami Beach, the Miami Springs/Preston Wcllficlds, and the Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport Wellfield. � Major petroleum assessments/cleanups are in progress at Port Everglades, Miami 52 International Airport and Homestead Air Force Base, among others. � Miami International Airport has been a recent focus for the Southeast District. Contamination related to fuel handing (pipelines, storage tanks and stormwater), aircraft maintenance and former Department of Defense facilities are all under review. A Consent Order is in preparation. between DEP, the Metropolitan Dade County Environmental Resources Management and the Dade County Aviation Department. � Several major Class I Solid Waste Disposal Facilities arc located along major canal systems, including the North Dade Landfill, the South Dade Landfill, Lantana Landfill, Resources Recovery of Dade, Munisport Landfill, Martin County Landfill, and Glades Road Landfill. All have the potential to affect surface waters. -- - --- - --- - ------------- - ------------ - ---- - - - ----- - -------------- Ecoloy-ical Characterization This basin covers 8,000 square miles, an area twice as large as the next smaller basin, the Upper St. Johns River basin. It includes the southeastern coast of Florida, from Ft. Pierce to south of Homestead, the Lake Okeechobee drainage canals (those which drain to the Atlantic Ocean), water conservation areas, and a portion of the Everglades including Cape Sable on the southwestern tip of Florida. This basin area is so large because, in its natural state, the drainage was a vast continuous wedand with a slow sheet flow of water from Lake Okeechobee south to Florida Bay. The net elevational change over the 130 miles north to south is only about 15 feet, an average of about I inch per mile. Throughout this basin any small changes in elevation can result in vast differences in vegetation and habitat. The native, predominantly sawgrass plain is dotted with cypress domes and hardwood hammocks, depending on elevation. The basin has been extensively modified from its natural state. Southeastern Florida is criss-crossed by literally thousands of miles of canals and levees used to control and manage water resources, all of which have been constructed in the last century. Controls are centered around Lake Okeechobee, often referred to as the hub of this water management system. The remainder of the system includes five major canals that radiate out korn Lake Okeechobee to the Atlantic, and one major waterway, the Caloosahatchee River, to the Gulf. The southeastern canals are the Miami Canal, North New River Canal, lEllsboro Canal, West Palm Beach Canal and St. Lucie Canal. A sixth major canal, the Tamiami Canal stretching across the middle of the basin, serves as the primary drainage for the Everglades and the lower southeastern coast. Control structures at all the majorjunctions of these canals allow water quantity management throughout the system. Water quantity is managed for flood control and water supply for agricultural activities, aquifer recharge, drinking water, and delivery to Everglades National Park. Land use can be broken into four major categories. The eastern ridge ftom Ft. Pierce to Homestead is a more or less solid band of urban development from 5 to 15 miles inland. This band is bordered on the west by a thin band of agricultural and/or citrus operations (the northernmost coast is more citrus than urban). This urban/citrus band covers about one-fourth of the basin. An area south and east of Lake Okeechobee, about an eighth of the basin, is known as the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) where intensive cultivation of mostly sugar cane and row crops occur. Another sizable row cropping operation occurs near Homestead. Another area, roughly the size of the EAA in this basin is the Everglades National Park, a vast sawgrass wetland. In between the EAA and the Park and making up most of the rest of the basin (about 1/3-1/2) are the Water Conservation Areas. These sawgrass and cattail wetlands are maintained as a water quantity buffer for all the various needs within the basin, and as a water quality buffer for the Park. 53 This basin has several waterbodies with special designations, including the only two recommended Outstanding National Resource Waters: Everglades National Park and Biscayne National Park. These are pending legislative ratification. AnthroM,zenic Impacts This basin is extremely difficult to analyze in the same manner as the other Florida basins for several reasons. First is its size. Second, most of the reaches are manmade canals with controlled flow regimes. Third, some of the reaches in this basin are too large (up to 60 miles), resulting in the loss of information on local water quality problems. The result is that this basin assessment relies more heavily on the professional judgment offered in reports and by DEP district and county agency personnel than on the calculated water quality index values. Before giving an area-by-area description of water quality, some basin-wide generalizations can be made. The eastern coast area is heavily urbanized and the major pollution source in these urban areas is stormwater. Most WWTPs either use deep well injection or ocean outfalls, but where they do discharge to surface waters, there are usually water quality problems. The western portions of the basin, particularly south of Lake Okeechobee, are affected by intensive agricultural development. In the southern portion of the basin, between the agricultural areas and the urban areas, are vast diked wetlands which are Water Conservation Areas for aquifer recharge. Although the Conservation Areas absorb some of the nutrient load, the canals' water quality depends heavily on water quantity (inverse relationship). The extensive channelization that has occurred has exacerbated water quality problems. A frequent problem is low DO with resultant fish kills. There has been a great deal of controversy about the impact of agricultural activities on the water quality in Lake Okeechobee, the canals, the Conservation Areas and the Everglades National Park. The native sawgrass community in these wetlands of the conservation areas and the park is beginning to be replaced by cattails. This shift in the predominant vegetation and its threat to the Everglades National Park has caused real concern. A federal lawsuit was filed against state and regional environmental agencies for allowing poor quality water to enter federally protected waters. A settlement was reached in that lawsuit in February, 1992. To date, DEP has identified four major violations of Class III criteria caused by nutrient enrichment. These include imbalances of aquatic flora and fauna, dominance of nuisance species, biological integrity, and dissolved oxygen. The water quality in the northeastern portion of the basin is relatively good. The major problems are near Port St. Lucie. Fivemile and Tenmile Creeks, which receive runoff from citrus groves, exhibit poor water quality with high levels of pesticides. These pesticides are suspected to adversely impact the North Fork and St. Lucie estuary. DEP plans to conduct an investigative study. The North Fork of the St. Lucie River improves downstream of the confluence of Fivemile and Terimile creeks, but is still affected along with the main stem by runoff from construction sites and urban development along the river in Port St. Lucie. Manatee Pocket, a small port area on the St. Lucie River estuary, has very poor water quality and a severely depressed biological community in its southern reaches, but improves near the inlet where circulation is better. The Savannas State Preserve, a 15 mile long area of fresh water marsh located between Ft. Pierce and Stuart, has fairly good water quality, but has other environmental problems. Concentrations of mercury in fish tissue were high enough to warrant a no consumption advisory for largemouth bass. Also, uncontrolled stormwater runoff may be adversely affecting water quality, plant communities and biota. A study is underway to assess the extent of the problem. The Loxahatchcc basin was evaluated in a district basin assessment. Good to fair water quality was generally found throughout the area. Problem areas included a small section of the North Fork of the 54 Loxahatchee River which has low DO concentrations and waters in Jonathon Dickinson State Park which had high coliform counts. The estuarine portion of the Loxahatchee River has had a dramatic decline in scagrass beds in the last decade. Jupiter Sound has good water quality and a healthy biological community. The L-8, West Palm Beach, Hillsboro, North New River and Miami Canals from Lake Okeechobee to the L4-L7 canals, which roughly delimit the EAA, exhibit poor water quality with extremely high nutrients and low DO values. Pesticides, BOD, bacteria and suspended solids have also been identified as problems. Agricultural runoff and the overflow or seepagefrom sugar mill retention ponds provide the pollutant loading to these canals. In addition, between the L-8 and West Palm Beach Canals, sludge spreading operations may further impact these waterways. The West Palm Beach canal periodically exhibited a toxicity problem with fish kills occurring after heavy rains drain from the Chemair Spray hazardous waste site. Canals bordering conservation areas generally have very low DO concentrations typical of marsh waters. Nutrient levels at the perimeter of the marsh are somewhat elevated, probably due to detritus breakdown as well as the agricultural drainage. Further to the east the North New River Canal joins the South Fork of the New River near Ft. Lauderdale and the Mian-d Canal joins the Miami River near Miami. Both rivers are located in heavily urbanized areas and have been channelized and bulkheaded. The New River receives discharges from improperly functioning septic tanks, vessels, industrial activities and stormwater runoff. A prelin-dnary assessment by Broward County's Office of Natural Resource Assessment identified two sections of the river that show nutrient enrichment and potentially high coliform bacteria counts from septic tank discharges. Areas of the river which have vessel sewage discharges have been linked to high fecal coliform. counts. Metal enrichment in sediment has been found for tin, copper, zinc, and chromium at all marina sites. The most serious problems confronting the Miami River are chronic and acute coliform bacteria contamination and enrichment of sediments with heavy metals and organic pollutants. Median levels of total coliform bacteria during the past five years exceeded 1500/100 ml at eight stations on the river. Sampling of stormwater sewers during dry season frequently gave counts of over 100,000 coliform bacteria/100 ml. Acute contan-dnation is the result of raw sewage discharge from either emergency overflows or manholes when flow conditions exceed pump station capacity. This occurs as a consequence of mechanical failure or inflow of large quantities of stormwater or ground water into the sewer system. The chronic contamination that has been occurring is the result of illegal sewer connections to stormwater pipes, leaking pipes and joints, and broken pipes. The bacteria problems 'of the Miami River and its impact on Biscayne Bay have been a concern since the 1940's. One additional problem that has plagued the river has been a lack of coordinated authority. As many as 30 agencies exercise some degree of authority over the river or activities that affect the quality of the river. In response to this problem, in 1984 then-Governor Bob Graham established the Miami River Management Committee. The mission of this committee was to develop a coordinated plan for improving the river. Through the efforts of this committee and its successor, the Miami River Coordinating Committee, local governments, and the Florida Legislature in 1986 provided funding specifically for the restoration of the river. These funds were used by state agencies and Metro-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management (DEW for the following projects: stormwater outfall improvement project, establishment of a state-local pollution control enforcement program, pollution control enforcement and monitoring, and ranking of-drainage basins for retrofitting. DERM has recently been involved in surface water monitoring, dyc studies, and televising selected stonn and sewer pipes to 55 . I I locate sources of bacterial contamination. An additional problem that DERM faces is the heavy use of the river by ship traffic. City and county ordinances prohibit discharge of untreated waste from vessels, but enforcement is very difficult. The second problem facing the Miami River is heavy metal, pesticides, and organic pollutant enrichment of sediments. Metals enrichment is among the highest in Florida. Sources of contaminants are urban stormwater runoff, domestic and industrial waste discharges, and bioacid used on vessels. A controversial issue involving the Miami River is the proposed dredging of sediments by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The purpose for dredging would be to improve navigation. At the heart of the issue is the location of a disposal site. Originally, spoil was to dumped at an ocean disposal site 3.6 miles offshore. Recent data indicates the sediments are not suitable for ocean disposal. Between West Palm Beach and Ft. Lauderdale, the four parallel north-south canals, E-1, E-2, E-3, and E4 are all of fair quality except the westemmost which ispoor from agricultural runoff The other three are more directly affected by urban stormwater. The Earman River (or C-17) has historically been degraded by WWTP discharge; however, the discharge has been reduced and should be eliminated soon, and nitrogen levels in the canal are improving. Lake Worth, which is really a coastal estuarine lagoon, has good water quality near. the inlet and is mostly good north of the inlet; however, water quality degrades south of the inlet especially where the West Palm Beach canal enters. Water quality improves again at the South Lake Worth inlet and near Boca Raton inlet. The Ft. Lauderdale area seems to be particularly plagued with water quality problems due to urban runoff and from historical WWTP discharge. Frequently the westermnost stations on the canals have the worst water quality, again from agricultural sources. Canals throughout the area are frequently choked with weeds and require mechanical removal or herbicide treatment. A DEP study of major Dade County canals in 1985 showed poor water quality conditions, low biological diversity and many exotic plants and animals. Biscayne Bay is affected by canal discharge and port activity but has fairly good water quality because of flushing from the Atlantic Ocean, especially south of Key Biscayne. A potentially threatening problem is increased turbidity caused by resuspension of spoil from the bay bottom. Much of the bay is blanketed with seagrasses which are associated with high biological quality. Boat traffic and shoreline development and pollutants from the Miami River threaten the bay. Some areas in Florida Bay have experienced a massive seagrass and mangrove die-off. Researchers estimate 9,880 acres of grass have died and another 66,690 acres have been impacted to a lesser extent. Three years of investigation has all but ruled out direct anthropogenic impacts. The mostprobable reasons are lack of flushing from hurricanes, high water temperature, and high water salinity. Diversion of water into canals has reduced freshwater inflow. Salinity of bay water has been recorded as high as 70 ppt. Mercury contamination in scatrout collected from Florida Bay may indicate a need for concern. Following the 1992 federal lawsuit settlement, agricultural interests filed legal challenges to the SWIM Plan and State permits intended to implement the settlement. After failure of mediation attempts to achieve a new settlement which included the agricultural interests, the Florida Legislature passed the Everglades Forever Act which included the latest preliminary mediated plan. Very high nitrogen concentrations have been measured in some of the canals which flow into Biscayne Bay from the agricultural area of southeast Dade County. 56 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03090202 SOUTHEAST FLORIDA COAST INDEX GOOD FAIR POOR SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 1970-1993 ----------- ----- ----- ----- MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED WQI-RIVER 0-44 45-59-60-90 CURRENT PERIOD OF RECORD (1989-1993) USED WHERE AVAILABLE TSI-ESTUARY 0-49 50-59 60-100 ----- PERIOD PRIOR TO 1989 IS EVALUATED AS HISTORICAL INFORMATION TSI-IAKE 0-59 60-69 70-!00 1 1 BIOLOGICAL WATER WATERSHED WATERSHED DATA RECORD WAN ER 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 VfQI Ts: � WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 46 INTERCOASTAL 0 89 93 Current 2.2 1.6 23 8 6.4 74 0.9 7.6 118 0.55 0.04 2 20 13 45525 42 47 SOUTH INDIAN RIVER 0 ag 94 current 1.2 1.6 43 2 4.6 52 O.S 1.2 15'? 0.89 O.Ot 6 626 60 606 49 52 TIDAL ST.LUcIE 0 89 93 Current 4.2 0.9 60 7 6.2 63 4.6 7.4 143 1.03 0.14 4 780 100 1220 6 ' 53 SOUTH COASTAL 0 89 92 Current 4.2 7.4 21 31 5.9 68 6.0 7.6 0.47 0.07 5 48150 39 �WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 1 C-111 0 89 93 Current 1.8 1.3 27 1 4.9 57 7.1 0.96 0.01 593 33 2 BISCAYNE BAY 0 0 0 Current 24 3 FLORIDA CITY 0 89 92 Current 2.3 63 2 1.1 @ (3 1.0 1.46 0.02 -154 44 4 C-102 0 89 90 Current 1.8 2.5 4 6.0 69 7.0 3.61 0.00 255 101 664 33 5 C-1 0 89 93 Current 1.5 3.0 5.3 62 7.3 196 0.43 0.02 3 511 24 6 C-100 0 89 93 Current 2.0 3.0 7.7 91 7.3 195 0.42 0.02 3 1371 12 7 TAMIAMI EAST 0 89 90 Current 2.0 1.7 28 5.0 59 7.4 0.94 0.02 144 582 33 8 AREA B 0 89 90 Current 2.0 1.5 53 2.8 33 7.0 1.23 0.02 33 729 39 9 CONSERVATION AREA 3B 0 89 93 Current 2.0 . 65 2 3.2 39 7.0 1.65 0.02 747 46 10 C-6 0 99 90 Current 51.1 1.0 &1 J.B 22 1.2 1.13 0.07 143 606 61 11 C-7 0 89 90 Current 1.6 1.9 50 2.7 31 7.1 1.57 0.04 285 673 54 12 C-8 0 89 90 Current 1.1 2.0 so 6.1 70 7.4 1.25 0.03 90 526 34 13 C-9 WEST 0 89 92 Current 1.6 2.1 63 1.8 21 7.0 1.67 0.02 160 14 792 40 14 C-9 EAST 0 89 90 Current 1.6 2.3 43 5.8 68 7.3 1.33 0.02 615 630 34 15 C-10 0 89 89 Current 3.0 1.5 30 4.0 51 7.1 0.68 0.05 190 23600 48 16 CONSERVATION AREA 3A 0 89 93 Current 1.5 . 65 2 4.1 43 7.0 1.44 0.02 553 43 17 C-11 WEST 0 B9 S9 Current 3.3 1.5 60 4.0 49 1.2 1.50 0.03 60 745 so 20 NORTH NEW RIVER 0 89 90 Current 3.2 1.2 51 4.5 54 7.4 1.37 0.04 213 38 8647 40 21 C-12 0 89 89 Current 2.9 0.7 50 4.7 58 7.1 1.23 0.09 95 2661 46 22 L-28 GAP 0 89 92 Current 2.2 80 3 5.6 54 7.2 1.11 0.06 575 37 24 CONSERVATION AREA 2B 0 89 92 Current 2.4 1.4 60 4 4.1 44 7.2 1.65 0.03 30 870 43 25 C-13 EAST 0 89 89 Current 2.9 1.7 is 4.5 57 7.4 0.45 0.06 80 39500 42 26 C-13 WEST 0 89 89 Current 3.7 1.1 50 4.0 50 7.2 1.30 0.02 5 700 36 27 P014PANO CANAL a 89 89 Current 4.1 1.2 SO 5.'s 63 1. 6 1.02 0.21 290 650 S5 28 C-14 0 89 91 Current 2.5 1.4 43 1 5.7 67 7.2 1.30 0.03 3279 43 633 30 29 L-28 INTERCEPTOR 0 89 92 Current 3.3 80 5 5.3 52 7.2 1.43 0.06 529 46 30 CONSERVATION AREA 2A 0 89 92 Current 2.2 106 5 3.3 38 7.0 2.09 0.04 678 51 840 52 31 HILLSBORO CANAL 0 89 93 Current 3.0 1.4 68 5.1 61 1.6 7.3 199 1.44 0.09 300 40 571 40 32 S-7 0 89 92 Current 4.9 95 2.5 . 6.7 2.40 0.03 1077 55 33 S-8 0 89 92 Current 2.3 100 2 5.8 65 7.0 2.55 0.03 604 54 34 C-15 0 89 92 Current 2.6 1.1 '78 10 6.1 72 2.0 7.2 192 1.37 0.10 555 66 452 43 35 CONSERVATION AREA 1 0 89 93 Current 5.7 0.6 161 7 2.7 29 6.8 3.58 0.15 1025 76 36 C-139 0 92 92 Current 8.5 0.6 38 10 8.9 103 8.3 1.28 0.07 30 495 39 37 S-6 0 89 93 Current 4.8 . 118 4 4.0 36 6.9 2.82 0.08 1183 69 LEGEND: BOD-BIOCHEMICAL, OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN MG/L MAX #OBS-MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TURB-TURBIDITY MG/L ALK-ALKALINITY MG/L CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL UG/L DOSAT-DO I SATURATION NAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TOC-TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON MG/L WQI-WATER QUALITY TNDEX ART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DI COD-CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L END YR-ENDING YEAR NITRO-TOTAL NITROGEN MG/L TOTAL-TOTAL COLIFORM MPN/100ML BEG YR-BEGINNING, SAMPLING YEAR COLOR-COLOR PCU FECL-FECAL COLIFORM MPN/100ML PH-PH STANDARD UNITS TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX BECK-BECK'S BIOTIC INDEX COND-CONDUCTIVITY UMHOS FLOW-FLOW CPS PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L "A USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03090202 SOUTHEAST FLORIDA COAST INDEX GOOD FAIR POOR SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 1970-1993 ----------- ----- ----- ----- MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED WQI-RIVER 0-44 45-59-60-90 CURRENT PERIOD OF RECORD (1989-1993) USED WHERE AVAILABLE TSI-ESTUARY 0-49 50-59 60-100 ----- PERIOD PRIOR TO 1989 IS EVALUATED AS HISTORICAL INFORMATION TSI-LAKE 0-59 60-69 70-100 1 1 BIOLOGICAL WATER WATERSHED WATERSHED DATA RECORD WATER DISSOLVED OXYGEN PH TROPHIC SPECIES QUALITY ID NAME ---------------------- CLARITY OXYGEN DEMAND ALKALINITY STATUS COLIFORM DIVERSITY COND FLOW INDICES ----- --------------------------------- MAX BEG END DATA ---------------------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ----- ----- --------------- OOBS YR YR PERIOD TURB SD COLOR TSS DO DOSAT BOD COD TOC PH ALK NITRO PHOS CHLA TOTAL FECL NAT ART BECK COND FLOW wol TSI 38 C-16 0 89 92 Current 3.6 1.1 74 3 6.8 82 2.1 7.2 142 1.52 0.14 585 65 487 41 39 S-2 0 89 92 Current 4.2 0.8 136 3.2 52 6.9 3.22 0.13 176 13 1238 67 40 S-3 0 91 91 Current 2.9 . 6.9 . 0.14 1010 75 41 C-51 0 89 93 Current 3.7 1.2 95 4 5.3 67 1.8 7.2 135 1.73 0.06 3 560 105 600 42 42 S_5A 0 89 92 Current 13.5 295 . 3.1 54 6.7 . 11.05 0.23 39 10 1509 78 43 C-17 0 89 92 Current 3.9 49 5 6.6 78 1.8 6.9 146 1.59 0.07 295 68 449 41 44 C-18 0 89 93 Current 1.6 1.6 54 2 5.6 59 1.2 7.2 0.63 0.03 7 330 60 448 32 45 L-8 0 91 91 Current 3.6 . 7.0 . 0.16 1623 74 49 JONATHAN DICKINSON 0 89 94 Current 2.5 1.0 273 4 5.3 61 1.2 7.6 19 0.82 0.05 67 '75 9190 35 50 C-44 0 89 90 Current 4.6 0.9 49 4 6.3 74 7.2 1.03 0.08 863 36 51 BASIN 2 0 92 92 Current 4.4 1.2 30 40 5.7 68 6.4 7.6 0.43 0.02 3 51500 54 54 BASIN 4 0 92 92 Current 5.2 0.9 150 4 3.5 42 7.2 7.1 0.70 0.07 6 80 530 58 55 C-24 0 89 92 Current 3.3 0.9 100 29 2.7 33 8.4 7.0 1.20 0.17 23 43 1709 63 56 NORTH ST.LUCIE 0 89 93 Current 4.3 1.1 69 24 6.0 68 7.0 7.0 58 1.00 0.14 12 99 44 5981 47 LEGEND: SOD-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN MG/L MAX #OBS-MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES SD-SECCHI DISC M13TERS TURB-TURBIDITY MG/L ALK-ALKALINITY MG/L CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL UG/L DOSAT-DO I SATURATION NAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TOC-TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON MG/L WQI-WATER QUALITY INDEX ART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DI COD-CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L END YR-ENDING YEAR NITRO-TOTAL NITROGEN MG/L TOTAL-TOTAL COLIFORM 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 OOND-CONDUCTIVITY UNHOS FLOW-FLOW CPS PHOS-TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MG/L TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L 00 mm m mm'm m mmmm mm SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03090202 SOUTHEAST FLORIDA COAST MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED SCREENED :X'-EXCEEDS SCREENING CRITERIA SCREENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA 0'-wITHIN SCREENING CRITERIA '.'=MISSING DATA I RANX DATA RECORDI TN I STREAM I LAKE I PH I ALX I 7URB & I COND IOXYGEN I DO lCOLIFORM I BIOL I CHLA ISECCHI I I------------------ I TP I TP I I TSS I IDEMAND I I BACTI I DIV I I DISC I t Mol 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>8.8 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 I ICOD>102 I IFECAL>4701DINAT<1.5 I I t ----- -------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I ITOC>27.51 I IBECK<5.5 I I I WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 46 INTERCOASTAL IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 m 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 4"l SOUTH INDIM RIVER IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 52 TIDAL ST.LUcIE IPOOR Current 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 53 SOUTH COASTAL IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x I K 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 1 C-111 IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 - 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 BISCAYNE BAY IGOOD Current 1 0 1 1 - I 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 3 FLORIDA CITY IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 x I I I . 1 4 C-102 IGOOD Current I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 5 C-1 IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 6 C-100 IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 x 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 7 TAMIAMI EAST IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 8 AREA B IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 9 CONSERVATION AREA 3B IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 x I I . I 10 C-6 IPOOR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I I x 1 0 1 0 1 11 C-7 IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 12 C-8 IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 13 C-9 WEST IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 14 C-9 EAST IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 is C-10 IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 16 CONSERVATION AREA 3A IGOOD Current 1 0 1 D 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 . 1 17 C-11 WEST IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 20 NORTH NEW RIVER IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 21 C-12 IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 22 L-28 GAP IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 . 1 24 CONSERVATION AREA 2B IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 25 C-13 EAST IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 26 C-13 WEST IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 27 POMPANO CANAL IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 28 C-14 IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 29 L-28 INTERCEPTOR IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 . 1 30 CONSERVATION AREA 2A IFAIR Current I x 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 . 1 31 HILLSBORO CANAL IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 32 S-7 IFAIR Current I x 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 x I I . 1 33 s-8 IFAIR Current I x 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 . 1 34 C-15 IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 35 CONSERVATION AREA 1 1POOR Current I x 1 0 1 0 0 x I x 1 36 C-139 IGOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 37 S-6 IPOOR Current I x 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 . I LEGEND: COND-CONDUCTIVITY FECAL-FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA TP-PHOSPHORUS WQI OR TSI-WATER QUALITY INDEX RATING ALK-ALKALINITY DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN HISTORICAL-1970 TO 1988 TOT-TOTAL OOLIFORM BACTERIA WHICH INDEX USED, WQI OR TSI, IS BM-BECKIS BIOTIC INDEX CURRENT-1989 TO 1993 OXYGEN DEMAND-BOD,OoD,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 lY DATA SCREENING REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03090202 SOUTHEAST FLORIDA COAST MED:Po@ VA@UES FOR EACH WATERSHED SCREENED SCREENING CRITERIA SCREENING VARIABLES AND CRITERIA 'o'-W_7H:N SCREENING CRITERIA 'AT SS:NGG A I RANK DATA RECORDI TN ISTREAM I LAKE I PH I ALK I TURB (i I COND IOXYGEN I DO ICOLIFORM 1. BIOL I CHLA I SECCHI I I------------------ I I TP I TP I I I TSS I IDEMAND I I BACTI I DIV I I DISC I I wi CURRENT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WATEMHED I OR OR I TN>2.0 ITP>.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 I ID N)Qa I TSI HISTORICAL I 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 ITOC>27.51 I I BECK<5.5 I 38 C- 6 1 GOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 39 5-2 1 POOR Current I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 40 S-3 I POOR Current I . 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 x I I I . 41 C-51 1 GOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 42 S-SA I POOR Current I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I I x 1 0 1 43 C-17 I GOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 44 C-le I GOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 45 '_-S I POOR Current I . 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 x I I x I I I I . 1 49 jONATIHAN :):C<-.;SON I GOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 50 C-44 I GOOD Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 51 BAS TK 2 1 FAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I x I x 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 54 BASD; 4 1 FAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1. . I x I x 1 0 1 1 D 1 0 1 55 C-24 1 POOR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 x I x I x I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 56 NOR711 I FAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x I x I x 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-ALKA.:.:N:7Y DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN HISTORICAL-1970 TO 1988 TOT-TOTAL COLIFORM BACTERIA WHICH INDEX USED, WQI OR TSI, IS BECK-BE-,<'S B--^-:@' :NDEX CURRENT-1989 TO 1993 OXYGEN DEMAND-BOD,COD,TOC TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS BASED ON WATERBODY TYPE BIOL DIV-B:O!,OG:CA:. DIVERSITY DIART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY PH-PH TURB-TURBIDITY CHLA-CF.LOROPIHY'_@ DINAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TN-NITROGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESS14ENT REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03090202 SOUTHEAST FLORIDA COAST ,TRENDS -SOURCES -CLEANUP 'X'-DEGRADING TREND 1984 - 1993 TRENDS '0'-STABLE TREND ----------------------------------------------------- '+'-IMPROVING TREND 1W TI T T C SI P Al T 71 B Tj D DlT FI T F I<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY '-'=MISSING DATA IQUALITY RANK I MR-IQ or SI N P H DI HL) U Sl 0 01 0 01C Cl B L I ------------- I ALL 11 11 L I KI R SI D Cl SI0 01 M 0 1 WQI TREND@ A B A@L L@ P W WATERSHED MEETS OR i T I I ID NAME I USE ? TSI I I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ----- ------------------------ I------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ � WATER BODY TYPE: ESTUARY 46 INTERCOASTAL IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 0 0 xI 0 a . I 1 0 010 01 x 41 S013TH INDIAN RIVER IYES GOOD 1 0 1 0 1 0 x .1 0.1 + .1 .1 0 01 01 x 1 52 TIDAL ST.LUCIE INO POORI + I + I + 0 01 x.1 0 01 .1 0 .1 .1 53 SOUTH COASTAL IYES GOODI �WATER BODY TYPE-. STREAM I C-111 IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 + 0 a.1 0 01 .1 0 .1 2 BISCAYNE BAY IYES GOOD I 1 0 1 3 FLORIDA CITY IYES GOODI 4 C-ID2 IYES GOOD I 5 C-1 IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 +1 +01 0 .1 .1 0 01 .1 a 6 C-100 IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 0 a a .1 001 0 .1 .1 a 01 .1 0 7 TAMIAMI EAST IYES GOODI 8 AREA B IYES GOODI 9 CONSERVATION AREA 3B IPARTIAL FAIRI + I + 1 0 + .1 0.1 + .1 .1 0 .1 10 C-6 INO POORI 11 C-7 IPARTIAL FAIRI 12 c-8 IYES GOODI 13 C-9 WEST IYES GOODI 14 C-9 EAST IYES GOODI is C-10 IPARTIAL FAIRI 16 CONSERVATION AREA 3A IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 0 + .1 0.1 0 01 .1 0 .1 17 C-11 WEST IPARTIAL FAIRI I - . .1 ..1 . .1 .1 - .1 20 NORTH NEW RIVER IYES GOOD I I . . . . I 21 C-12 IPARTIAL FAIRI 22 L-28 GAP IYES GOOD I 24 CONSERVATION AREA 2B IYES FAIRI I I . . . . I 25 C-13 EAST IYES GOODI ( I . . I 26 C-13 WEST IYES GOODI I I . . . . I 27 POMPANO CANAL IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I 28 C-14 IYES FAIRI I I . . . . I 29 L-28 INTERCEPTOR IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I 30 CONSERVATION AREA 2A IPARTIAL FAIRI I I - . . .1 31 HILLSBORO CANAL IYES GOOD( 0 0 1 0 0 .1 x01 0 1 1 0 010 01 0 32 S-7 IPARTIAL FAIRI 33 S-8 IPARTIAL FAIRI 34 C-15 IYES GOODI 35 CONSERVATION AREA I INO POOR 1 0 1 0 1 0 a .1 0.1 0 01 .1 x .1 .1 36 C-139 IYES GOOD 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-ALYALINITY FL4W-FLOW TN-NITROGEN WQI-WATER QULAITY INDEX FOR STR&aJ4S AND SPRINGS BOD-BIOCHEM. OXYGEN DEMA14D MEETS USE-MEETS DESIGNATED USE TOC-T.ORGANIC CARBON CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL PH-PH TP-PHOSPHORUS DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN SD-SEOCHI DISC METERS TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03090202 SOUTHEAST FLORIDA COAST TRENDS-SOURCES-CLF-kN'Ll? 'K'-DEGRADING TREND 1984 - 1993 TRENDS '0'-STABLE TREND ----------------------------------------------------- '+'-IMPROVING TREND I lw TI T T C Sl P Al TTI B TI DDI TFl T P j<--- ?LEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY *.'-MISSING DATA lQUALITY RANK IOVER-IQ or Sl N P H DI HLl USl 001 001 CCl 2 L I ------------- I ALL 11 ri L I KI RSl DCl sl 001 m 0 1 1 WQI MEND) I A I I B I I Al LLl P W I WATERSHED I MEETS OR I I I I I I I TI 111 1 ID NAME IUSE ? TSI I I I I I I I I I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ------------------------ I------------- I I I I I I I I I I----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37 S-6 INO POORI 0 1 0 1 0 0 .1 0.1 0.1 .1 0.1 .1 1 38 C-16 IYES GOODI 1 .1 .1 1.1 .1 1 39 S-2 iNO MR) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 1 40 S-3 INO POORI I I . . . . 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 1 41 C-51 IYES GOODI 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 .1 001 0.1 .1 001 .1 1 42 S-5A INO POORI I I . . . . I 43 C-17 IYES GOODI I I . . . . I 44 C-18 IYES GOODI 0 1 1 0 0 .1 0.1 0.1 0.1 001 01 0 1 45 L-8 INO POORI . I I . . I ..1 ..1 ..1 ..1 .1 1 49 JONATHAN DICKINSON IYES GOOD) + 1 0 1 0 + .1 0.1 +.1 0.1 001 01 1 50 C-44 IYES GOOD I I I . . . . I 51 BASIN 2 IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I 54 BASIN 4 IPARTIAL FAIRI I I . . . . I 55 C-24 INO POORI I I . . . . I 56 NORTH ST.LUCIE IPARTIAL FAIR; 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 F LOW- F LOW TN-NITROGEN WQI-WATER QULAITY INDEX FOR STREAMS AND SPRINGS BOD-BIOCHEM. OXYGEN DEMAND MEETS USE-MEETS DESIGNATED USE TOC-T.ORGANIC CARBON CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL PH-PH TP-PHOSPHORUS DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS NPS QUALITATIVE SURVEY RESULTS AN "X" INDICATES A PROBLEM WITH POLLUTANT OR SOURCE THE * ON MAPID INDICATES NO STORET INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR THIS WATERSHED -SEE PAGE 11 FOR LEGEND FOR THIS TABLE- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CATNAME-SOUTHEAST FLORIDA COAST HUC=03090202 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 I 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 13 3284 C-9 WEST GOOD FAIR x x x x x x x 14 3283 C-9 EAST GOOD FAIR x x x x x x x 15 3282 C-10 FAIR FAIR x x x x x x x 16 3268 CONSERVATION AREA 3A GOOD THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 17 3279 C-11 WEST FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 18* 3281 C-11 EAST FAIR x x K x x x x X. x x x x x x x 19* 3280 NORTH NEW RIVER FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 20 3277 NORTH NEW RIVER GOOD FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x K. 21 3276 C-12 FAIR FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 23* 3275 L-35A BORROW FAIR x x x x x x x 24 3272 CONSERVATION AREA 2B GOOD POOR x x x x x x x x 25 3274 C-13 EAST GOOD FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x 26 3273 C-13 WEST GOOD FAIR x x x x x x x 27 3271 P014PANO CANAL FAIR FAIR x x x x x x x 28 3270 C-14 GOOD POOR x x x x x x x x 30 3265 CONSERVATION AREA 2A FAIR THREAT x x x X. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 31 3264 HILLSBORO CANAL 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 46 3226 INTERCOASTAL 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. 48* 3232 LOXAHATCHEE RIVER FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 49 3224 JONATHAN DICKINSON GOOD FAIR x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Chandler s ui.. NUBBIN SLOUGH ................ LAKE OKEECHOBEE TAYLOR-CREEK BASIN WATER QUALITY 03090102 = GOOD AVERAGE WATER QUALITY THREATENED 1984-1993 STORET DATA FAIR WATERSHED ID NUMBERS LINK MAP TO TABLES POOR INDICATES QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT UNKNOWN page 64 TAYLOR CREEK BASIN ------------------------------------------------------------------------- BaSig Facts Drainage Area: 282 square miles Major Land Uses: agriculture, rangeland, improved pasture Population Density: low (Okeechobee) Major Pollution Sources: dairy operations and agriculture Best Water Quality Areas: none Worst Water Quality Areas: Lettuce Creek, Taylor Creek, Nubbin Slough, Chandler Hammock Slough, Popash Slough Water Quality Trends: stable quality at 2 sites, Mosquito Creek improving OFW Waterbodies: none SWIM Waterbodies: none Reference Reports: Florida Rivers Assessment, DEP/FREAC/NPS, 1989 Florida Nonpoint Source Assessment, DEP (Tallahassee), 1988 Basin Water Quality Experts: Greg Graves, DEP (Port St. Lucie), 407/878-3890 Tom Fontaine, Ken Todd, Anthony Waterhouse, SFWNID, 407/686-8800 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the New * As part of the Lake Okeechobee SWIM plan, some dairies are being removed from the basin. * Other dairies are implementing Best Management Practices (BMP) to comply with the DEP "Dairy Rule". * A SWIM Plan phosphorus discharge concentration limit of 0. 18 mg/1 established for the basin discharge at the S-191 Structure has not been met. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ecological Characterization The Taylor Creek basin forms a portion of the northeast drainage basin of Lake Okeechobee. The basin is relatively small, draining only 282 square miles. Taylor Creek, the largest stream, has an average flow of 100 cfs 9 miles above its mouth at Lake Okeechobee, Although sparsely populated, the basin is highly developed with agriculture lands and rangelands. There are also many dairies in the basin, often located directly adjacent to the streams and crecks. Anthropogenic Impacts 65 All of the reaches in this basin have severe pollution problems. There are frequent violations of the DO standard. Fifty percent of the Taylor Creek DO samples and about 80% of the Nubbin Slough DO samples were less than 5.0 mg/l. In addition, the reaches have elevated bacteria and nutrient levels. The majority of the problems are due to dairy farm runoff which contains high concentrations of BOD and nutrients. Many of the creeks in the basin actually run through dairy operations. The State has recently established a "Dairy Rule" regulating feedlot and dairy runoff and establishing time frames for compliance. As part of the South Florida Water Management District's SWIM Plan for Lake Okeechobee, dairies are being bought out on a "price per cow" basis. To date, thousands of cows have been purchased and moved out of the drainage basin. Phosphorus concentrations at off-site discharges of bought-out dairies have become lower. For farms that have installed BMPs, phosphorus concentrations are lower, but not as much as the farms that have discontinued operation. The dairy rule has not been as effective in reducing phosphorus discharges as had been expected. Improved pastures are one of the major problems affecting the basin's water quality In 1992 a $1.3 billion Cypress Energy Project was proposed for building two coal fired power plants at a site located less than 5 miles from the Kissimmee River. The project did not get approved by the PSC and the application was withdrawn. Another project is the Berman Road landfill operated by Chambers Waste Systems. This 35 acre facility may be expanded to a 2000 acre solid waste disposal facility which has the potential to affect surface and groundwater. 66 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03090102 TAYLOR CREEK INDEX GOOD FA.R POOR SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA FOR 1970-1993 ----------- ----- ----- ----- MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED 14OI-RIVER 0-44 45-59-60-90 CURRENT PERIOD OF RECORD (1989-1993) USED WHERE AVAILABLE TSI-ESTUARY 0-49 50-59 60-1@@ ----- PERIOD PRIOR TO 1989 IS EVALUATED AS HISTORICAL INFORMATION TSI-LAKE 0-59 60-69 '70-ioc BIOLOGICAL _.A_T_R WATERSHED WATERSHED DATA RECORD WATER DISSOLVED OXYGEN PH TROPHIC SPECIES -,;--A.. T Y ID NAME ---------------------- CLARITY OXYGEN DEMAND ALKALINITY STATUS COLIFORM DIVERSITY COND FLhi :11,D:Z-ES ----- --------------------------------- MAX BEG END DATA ---------------------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ----- ----- --------------- #OBS YR YR PERIOD TURB SD COLOR TSS DO DOSAT BOD COD TOC PH ALK NITRO PROS CHIA TOTAL FECL NAT ART BECK CORD FLOW W: - Tsl WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 1 Popash Slough 14 89 89 Current 2.8 0.9 113 3.3 38 7.2 . 2.34 0.85 13 785 4: 2 NUBBIN SLOUGH 661 89 93 Current 2.3 0.8 169 3 4.4 58 6.9 46 1.70 0.46 41 33 $87 4; 3 L63 CANAL 58 89 93 Current 2.8 0.8 70 . 4.9 55 7.1 . 1.60 0.57 10 472 - 4 Turkey Slough 3 78 78 Historical 6.8 . 208 23 O.e 10 26 6.2 26 4.16 0.18 17 125 5 Mosquito Creek 9 89 89 Current 2.0 0.8 65 5.9 62 7.2 1.42 0.32 660 832 7 TAYLOR CR 68 89 93 Current 4.5 0.7 100 1.6 18 6.5 1.78 0.42 80 241 -6 LEGEND: BOD-BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MG/L DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN M/L MAX #OBS-MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TURB-TURBIDITY MG/L ALK-ALKALINITY W/L CELA-CHL4DROPHYLL UG/L DOSAT-DO I SATURATION NAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TOC-TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON MG/L WQI-WATER QUALITY INDEX ART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DI COD-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-OODDR 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: 03090102 TAYLOR CREEK MEDIAN VALUES FOR EACH WATERSHED SCREENED Ix'-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 7URB 4 1 COND I OXYGEN I DO 1COLIFORM I BIOL I CHIA ISECCHI I------------------ I I TP I TP I 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 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.SICOND>12751 BOD>3.3 I DO<4 ITOT>3700 IDIAILT<1.951 CHLA>40 I SI)<. 71 ID NAME I TSI HISTORICAL I' I I I PH<5.2 I I TSS>18 I I COD>102 I IFECAL>4701DINAT<1.5 I I ----- -------------------------------------------- I I I I I I TOC>27.51 I I BECK<5.5 I I WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM I Popa3h Slough IFAIR Current x x I 1 0 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 NUBBIN SL40TJGH IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 t 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 L63 CANAL IPOOR Current 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 f 0 4 Turkey Slough IPOOR Historical I x 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 x 1 0 1 1 . 5 Mosquito Crook IFAIR Current 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 x I 1 0 1 7 TAYLOR CR IPOOR Current 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 0 1 LEGENDi 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-BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY DIART-ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY PH-PH TURB-TURBIDITY CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL DINAT-NATURAL SUBSTRATE DIVERSITY TN-NITROGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS C, 00 SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT: 03090102 TAYLOR CREEK TRENDS-SOURCES-CLEANUP 'x'-DEGRADING TREND 1984 - 1993 TRENDS '0'-STABLE TREND ----------------------------------------------------- '+'=IMPROVING TREND I 1W I[ T I C S1 P Al T T1 B T1 DDIT F1 T F j<--- PLEASE READ THESE COLUMNS VERTICALLY '.'=MISSING DATA IQUALITY RANK IOVER-10 or S1 N P H DI H Ll US1 0 01 001C C1 E L I I------------- I ALL II Ii L I KI RS1 D Cl S1 0 01 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 I I I DEGRADATION SOURCES, PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CLEANUP EFFORTS ----- ------------------------ I------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WATER BODY TYPE: STREAM 1 Popash Slough 1PARTIAL FAIRI . I . I . . . . I 2 NUBBIN SLOUGH IPARTIAL FAIRI + I + I + + 01+ .1 001 .1 0010 +1 0 1 3 L63 CANAL INO POORI 0 1 0 1 0 0 .10 .1 .1 .1 001 .1 0 1 4 Turkey Slough INO POOR] I I I I I I I I I 5 Mosquito Creek 1PARTIAL FAIRI . I . I . . . . I . .1 .1 .1 -.1 .1 - I 7 TAYLOR CR INO POORI 0 1 0 1 0 .10 .1 .1 .1 001 .1 0 1 LEGEND: DOSAT-DO SATURATION TCOLI-TOTAL COLIFORM TURB-TURBIDITY FCOLI-FECAL COLIFORM TEMP-TEMPERATURE TSI-TROPHIC STATE INDEX FOR LAKES AND ESTUARIES ALK-ALKALINITY FLOW-FLOW TN-NITROGEN WQI-WATER QULAITY INDEX FOR STREAMS AND SPRINGS BOD-BIOCHEM. OXYGEN DEMAND MEETS USE-MEETS DESIGNATED USE TOC-T.ORGANIC CARBON CHLA-CHLOROPHYLL PH-PH TP-PHOSPHORUS DO-DISSOLVED OXYGEN SD-SECCHI DISC METERS TSS-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS NPS QUALITATIVE SURVEY RESULTS t- AN "X" INDICATES A PROBLEM WITH POLLUTANT OR SOURCE THE * ON MAPID INDICATES NO STORET INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR THIS WATERSHED -SEE PACE 11 FOR LEGEND FOR THIS TABLE- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CATNAME-TAYLIDR CREEK HUC-03090102 -------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- 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 K 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 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 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 1 3205C Popash Slough FAIR THREAT x x x x x x x x 2 3203A NUBBIN SLOUGH FAIR THREAT x x x x x x 3 3203C L63 CANAL POOR THREAT x x x x x x x x 4 3199A Turkey Slough POOR THREAT x x x x x x x x 5 3203B Mosquito Crook FAIR THREAT x x x x x x 6* 3199B Chandler Ha=ock Sloug THREAT x x x x x x x x 7 3205 TAYLOR CR POOR THREAT x x x x x x x x BEDMAN CREEK 17 BEE BRANCH 17 COCOHATCHEE RIVER CANA 24 CYPRESS CREEK 17 DAUGHTREY CREEK 17 EAST CALOOSAHATCHEE 17 ESTERO RIVER 24 FISHEATING CREEK 32 HARNEY POND CANAL 32 HICKEY CREEK 17 IMPERIAL RIVER 24 INDIAN PRAIRIE CANAL 32 JACKS BRANCH 17 L63 CANAL 64 LAKE OKEECHOBEE 43 LETTUCE CREEK 43 NAPLES BAY 24 NUBBIN SLOUGH 64 OAK CREEK 24 POPASH SLOUGH 64 S-135 43 TAYLOR CR 64 TOWNSEND CANAL 17 TROUT CREEK 17 I NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY 111 1 3 6668 1411166A 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 I I