<%BANNER%>

Rebuilding a Language with the Landscape: A Saint Johns River Blackwater Assessment Program

University of Florida Institutional Repository UFAFA
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00016062/00001

Material Information

Title: Rebuilding a Language with the Landscape: A Saint Johns River Blackwater Assessment Program
Physical Description: Project in lieu of thesis
Language: English
Creator: Clem, Taylor Benjamin
Publisher: School of Landscape Architecture and Planning, College of Design, Construction and Planning, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla
Publication Date: 2013

Notes

Abstract: As current development trends continually degrade Florida’s riparian corridors, community stakeholders continually remove themselves from their environment. A once natural language of understanding the environment, technophilia detached us from our bioregions. Reliant on government policies, a coupled disassociation of environmental consciousness perpetuates water quality degradation. To help counteract Florida’s water quality degradation and support complimentary bottom-up policy development, a community visual-assessment program entitled Florida Assessment of Blackwater Streams Survey (FABS) focuses on helping identify generalized health of riparian systems through public participation. By hosting community-volunteer events on the Econlockhatchee River to test the plausibility and possible long-term effects of the FABS survey, results indicated the participants ability to accurately identify the necessary landscape patterns. Therefore, by studying place-based bioregional theories and civic environmentalism, FABS strives to become a feasible community development tool to support place recognition, environmental consciousness, and landscape literacy within communities of the Saint Johns River Watershed.
General Note: Landscape Architecture terminal project

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida Institutional Repository
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
System ID: AA00016062:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00016062/00001

Material Information

Title: Rebuilding a Language with the Landscape: A Saint Johns River Blackwater Assessment Program
Physical Description: Project in lieu of thesis
Language: English
Creator: Clem, Taylor Benjamin
Publisher: School of Landscape Architecture and Planning, College of Design, Construction and Planning, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla
Publication Date: 2013

Notes

Abstract: As current development trends continually degrade Florida’s riparian corridors, community stakeholders continually remove themselves from their environment. A once natural language of understanding the environment, technophilia detached us from our bioregions. Reliant on government policies, a coupled disassociation of environmental consciousness perpetuates water quality degradation. To help counteract Florida’s water quality degradation and support complimentary bottom-up policy development, a community visual-assessment program entitled Florida Assessment of Blackwater Streams Survey (FABS) focuses on helping identify generalized health of riparian systems through public participation. By hosting community-volunteer events on the Econlockhatchee River to test the plausibility and possible long-term effects of the FABS survey, results indicated the participants ability to accurately identify the necessary landscape patterns. Therefore, by studying place-based bioregional theories and civic environmentalism, FABS strives to become a feasible community development tool to support place recognition, environmental consciousness, and landscape literacy within communities of the Saint Johns River Watershed.
General Note: Landscape Architecture terminal project

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida Institutional Repository
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
System ID: AA00016062:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Rebuilding a Language with the LandscapeA Saint Johns River Blackwater Assessment Program Taylor Benjamin Clem

PAGE 2

Rebuilding a Language with the LandscapeA Saint Johns River Blackwater Assessment Program A Graduate Terminal Project presented to the University of Floridas Department of Landscape Architecture. :: Committee Chair :: Margaret H. Peggy Carr :: Committee Members :: Dr. Thomas Hoctor Dr. Christopher Silver April 2013 University of Florida College of Design, Construction, and Planning Department of Landscape Architecture

PAGE 3

As current development trends continually degrade Floridas riparian corridors, community stakeholders continually remove themselves from their environment. A once natural language of understanding the environment, technophilia detached us from our bioregions. Reliant on government policies, a coupled disassociation of environmental consciousness perpetuates water quality degradation. To help counteract Floridas water quality degradation and support complimentary bottom-up policy development, a community visual-assessment program entitled Florida Assessment of Blackwater Streams Survey (FABS) focuses on helping identify generalized health of riparian systems through public participation. By hosting community-volunteer events on the Econlockhatchee River to test the plausibility and possible long-term effects of the FABS survey, results indicated the participants ability to accurately identify the necessary landscape patterns. Therefore, by studying place-based bioregional theories and civic environmentalism, FABS strives to become a feasible community development tool to support place recognition, environmental consciousness, and landscape literacy within communities of the Saint Johns River Watershed.

PAGE 4

Dedicated to my future-wife, Kelsey Ladybear Kennington. With your love and devotion, anything is possible. Rebuilding a Language with the LandscapeA Saint Johns River Blackwater Assessment Program

PAGE 5

I would like to express my gratitude and thanks to all the students, faculty, and staff for their continual support throughout my stint in University of Floridas Department of Landscape Architecture. The support, encouragement, and enthusiasm exhibited by Id especially like to thank my committee members: Peggy Carr, Tom Hoctor, and Chris Silver. Your support and encouragement positively impacted and affected me with your counseling, wide breadth of knowledge, and passions towards environmental stewardship, water resources, and community planning. Thank you very much for your mentorship and friendship, my greatest gratitude is extended towards your support with this accomplishment. nights, large projects, and continual motivation developed an unprecedented passion of Landscape Architecture. Dr. Brian development as a student and Landscape Architect. Thank you. Id like to extend a great thank you to Boy Scouts of Americas North Florida Council. To my friends and companions involved with Boy Scouts of America, thank you. Your continual support, dedication, brotherhood, and fellowship are truly representative of friendship. The support and sponsorship given by the North Florida Council, Brian Patterson, Chris Hume, Michael Filz, Debra Dow, and Jeremy Shepard showcased the principals of Boy Scouts of Americas Scout Oath and Law. The gratitude for my familys support is incomprehensible. My parents and brothers continually encouraged and supported me throughout my education in Landscape Architecture. By carefully nurturing my passions, my parents instilled a sense of devotion and value towards my eco-centrism and education in Landscape Architecture. Additionally, my brothers, Andrew and Jon your curiosities, encouragement, and motivation compel myself to continually strive for my best. Finally, Id like to express my greatest gratitude towards my soon-to-be wife, Kelsey Kennington. Your love, devotion, and world, and without you I am nothing. I cannot wait to spend the rest of our lives together.

PAGE 6

Rebuilding a Language with the LandscapeA Saint Johns River Blackwater Assessment Program

PAGE 7

Chapter 1 :: A Theoretical Approach to Landscape Literacy............................................................. 1.1 :: Overview 1.2 :: The Past Leading the Future 1.3 :: Floridas Landscape Language 1.4 :: Research Intent Chapter 2 :: Literature Review................................................................................................................ 2.1 :: Overview 2.2 :: Floridas Water Resources and Development 2.3 :: Threats to Floridas Water Resources 2.4 :: Water Policy :: An examination of implications and limitations of water policy 2.5 :: Community Engagement and Civic Environmentalism 2.6 :: Reading the Landscape Chapter 3 :: Methodologies................................................................................................................... 3.1 :: Methodology Intent and Introduction 3.2 :: Floridas Blackwater Assessment Development Process Methodology 3.3 :: FABS Survey Testing (Stage 8) 3.4 :: Survey Implementation Process (Stage 10) Chapter 4 :: Results & Analysis................................................................................................................ 4.1 :: Overview 4.2 :: FABS Survey Analysis 4.3 :: Questionnaire Analysis Chapter 5 :: Results and Conclusions.................................................................................................... 5.1 :: Overview 5.2 :: Findings and Project Developments 5.3 :: Future Research Questions 5.4 :: In Closure Bibliography :: ........................................................................................................................................ Appendecies :: ....................................................................................................................................... 9 10 10 13 14 17 18 20 25 39 46 52 57 58 59 63 66 71 72 72 79 81 82 82 84 85 86 91

PAGE 9

chapter 1 A Theoretical Approach to Landscape Literacy Technology has presented human nature with an ever-widening paradox: we developed technology as a means of survival in nature, and now it is killing other life forms and threatening us as well. Yet technology is the nature of human nature. In spite of a green heart, we have made an ambivalent gray world... -Robert ThayerGray World, Green Heart Rebuilding a Language with the LandscapeA Saint Johns River Blackwater Assessment Program

PAGE 10

1.1 :: Overview Evolutionary changes associated with society, culture, and te chnology created a dynamic relationship with nature. From the existence of early-man to the modern era of on the landscape have changed. Whether good or bad, imprint of culture and society. From an early time humans maintained a conversation with the landscape, but with the introduction of technology, we have begun to forget a nearly inherent language. While losing our conversation with the landscape, the development of newer technologies has widened the gap of landscape disassociation by creating a more complex landscape structure and negatively impacting environmental integrity. While recognizing the evolving frontiers of human perspectives on the landscape, it is imperative to reintroduce a communicative language with the landscape. This graduate terminal project develops the Florida Assessment of Blackwater Systems (FABS) for the Saint Johns River watershed in order to reconnect community stakeholders back into their landscapes with landscape literacy and develop civic environmentalism. For this graduate terminal project landscape patterns, and civic environmentalism is when, communities and states will organize on their own to protect the environment, without being forced to do so by the federal government, (John, 1994, page 7). By developing FABS from precedence studies of existing visual assessment programs: Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, Utahs Stream Assessment Survey, and Vermonts Stream Geomorphic Assessment in conjunction with Floridas LakeWatch precedence of community participation, the survey could be tested in the Saint Johns River watershed. Successful completion of community-volunteer events will assess the ability of FABS to become a tool for communitybased research that promotes landscape literacy and civic environmentalism. Constructed from theoretical foundations of bioregionalism and civic environmentalism, a structure to rebuild our language with the landscape can evolve. This introductory chapter of the thesis project, will provide a roadmap describing the issues that led to the research question and what will be accomplished along the way. 1.2 :: The Past Leading to the Future 1.2.1 Recognizing a Lost Language A vibrant and resilient language with the natural environment has fallen upon empty ears and became lost. In Richard Louvs book, Last Child in the Woods (2008), he discusses how the cultural connections with the landscape became lost to younger generations. Louv (2008, page 16) cites three frontiers of cultural perspectives on the landscape; believing that the American experience with the landscape has gone from, direct utilitarianism to romantic attachment to electronic detachment. Currently in a frontier of electronic detachment, the development of technology has greatly improved the standard of living throughout the entire world. Unfortunately, technological development has become a new environment and we become distracted from the natural environment. Some academics argue this disconnect has created a

PAGE 11

A Theoretical Approach to Landscape Literacy 11 barrier, or loss of communication with the landscapes natural language (Thayer, 1994 & Spirn, 2008). Anne Spirn (2008) best describes a language of the landscape as an inherent ability of humans to understand embedded information in rivers, streams, forests, and prairies. and unnatural inputs. It is believed that the natural language with the landscape extends to early human existence as welfare (Spirn, 2008; Thayer, 1994). Our natural language with the landscape has become a visual representation of dialogues, with story lines that connect a place and those who live there, (Spirn, 2008, page 53). In essence, the landscape in which we live becomes a reactionary vernacular of anthropogenic line of existence to future generations. The story line of our existence and culture evolves into the vernacular character of our landscape. As we enter the new frontier of electronic detachment, it is believed that the language of the landscape has become lost and our communities have become detached in place-based meaning. Community With the continual evolution of technology, Robert Thayer (1994) discusses a triangle of topophila, technophilia, and technophobia (Figure 1.1). The relationship triangle concerns itself with our passion and love for the landscape and technologies, but technophobia is the expressed guilt as an unnatural existence? No. Just as hunter-gathers developed tools for hunting and surviving, our evolution towards technology can be expressed as increasing our ability to survive. Technology has become a natural process in evolution towards mans desire for a utopian utilitarian society. Accompanying the separation society has from the landscape, technology is beginning to negatively impact our landscape quality. Lauer (1985) and Smith et al., (2008) discuss how the unity of elements create balance, but when the pattern is disrupted unity becomes disjointed. Furthermore, the landscape is a unique blend of interconnected elements that evolved harmoniously together over millions of years. Contextually with the landscapes associated with technologies, such as mining, wastewater, and deforestation can overwhelm ecological systems and the services they provide. Typical development typologies across the United States and other developed countries express dominance over the landscape; continuing the thoughts of Louvs electronic detachment, technophilia is perpetuating itself further from topophilia and technophobia. Our places and communities have been usurped by machines, sprawled out by the automobile, homogenized by consumer culture, seduced by globalizing economy, trivialized by television, and of the electronic superhighway, (Thayer, 2003, page 3) In essence, the development of technology is a natural

PAGE 12

process, but overabundance of technology further separates us from nature and disconnects ourselves to identity and purpose of community (Thayer, 1994 & 2003; Louv, 2008). 1.2.3 :: Finding the Transparent Landscape The landscape is a diverse mechanism constructed landscape into two separate pieces: surface and core. The landscape surface is a vernacular faade constructed by anthropogenic inputs, ultimately adopting an aesthetic quality without meaning or substance. The surface becomes a mask that hides the core of the landscape, disguising embedded ecological information and characteristics of the landscape (Hardison, 1989). In a culture of environmental disassociation thats caused by electronic detachment, the core principles and understanding of the landscape are being lost (Louv, 2008). A language once apparent with the core of the environment is mask the core of the landscape. Developing and unearthing accessible and visible properties helps lead to transparent landscapes (Thayer, 1994; Beatley & Manning, 1997). The best described by Aldo Leopald (1949, page 216), land, through a circuit of soils, plants, and animals. Our interactions with the landscape can dramatically changes, masking core properties of the landscape and even negatively impacting the structure and cores evolutionary structure. By creating a transparent landscape, we have the ability to identify the inner-workings and changing ecological detail of the landscape. Enabling ourselves to participate with a transparent landscape would allow us to make necessary changes to our environments dynamic system. The feedback of experiences between habitat and organism which guides environmental behavior is a cornerstone of ecology. In transparent landscapes, a visual ecology, where we are able to assess the conditions affecting us and make cogent environmental decisions, is both possible and necessary. (Thayer, 2003, Page 331). 1.2.4 :: Reintroducing a Language with the Landscape Figure 1.1 :: Robert Thayers triangle of topophila, technophilia, and tech nophobia are adapted from the soil composition triangle to identify poten tial landscape relationships.

PAGE 13

A Theoretical Approach to Landscape Literacy 13 Embedded in the landscape is a cultural imprint that the loss of a landscape language due to technology, the affects of technology on the landscape and community, and identifying a need for a transparent landscape, reintroducing a language with the landscape as, products of both nature and culture [that could] inspire [communities] to envision new landscapes that restore nature and honor culture, (Spirn, 2008, page 44) becomes inevitable. Not only does Unfortunately, the majority of us (as humans) have lost the language of the environment, and misunderstand our As described by Robert Thayer (1994) and Yi-Fu Tuan (1989), creating a transparent landscape where of the environment can help restore cultural identity and a more harmonious relationship with the environment. Transparent landscapes can encourage landscape literacy, and rebuilding landscape literacy becomes a great tool for community development. According to Anne Sprin (2009), identifying a landscape language enables and allows communities to read embedded information of environmental quality, social, economic, and political strata in the landscape. Embedded environmental information can be Recognizing patterns in the landscape, as described by Sprin (2009), Thayer (2003), and Alexander et al., (1997), help localize problems with environmental issues. According to Thayer (2003, page 165) as he references Alexander et al., (1977), Alexanders method is elegant, instructive and useful, for it presumes that the seeds of the solution to a problem can be found in the nature of the problem itself and the most environmental planning and design problems lead to generalized patterns of solutions that can be tailored to particular circumstances. 1.3 :: Floridas Landscape Language Our cultures imprint has become embedded in the landscape, and land use decisions and development affects the character of our environment. Floridas landscape has been impacted by land use changes, development, and environmental disassociation. The expansion of Floridas urban centers, suburban developments, and rising demand of agriculture has led to unseen ecological issues that have negatively impacted Floridas landscape. Even with the rise of environmental awareness, ecological health and biodiversity began to decline from the impacts of land use changes point. As technology became integrated with our culture, the perceived natural environment consisted of condos, clubs, and computers, and the connection with the native landscape was lost (Smith, 1984). Miami and the Everglades are a prime example of Floridas land use change and its long-term effects on ecological health, but other parts of Floridas landscape Bill Clinton in 1998 due to its historical, cultural, and ecological

PAGE 14

L e g e n d S t Jo h n s R i ve r M a j o r W a t e r b o d i e s M a j o r F l o ri d a L a k e s a n d R i v e rs S a i n t J o h n s R i v e r W a t e r s h e d U r b a n B o u n d a r i e s F l o r i d a C o u n t y B o u n d a r i e s I n t e r st a t e s 0 4 0 8 0 1 2 0 2 0M i l e s Figure 1.2 :: The map of Florida shows the context and extents of Saint Johns River Watershed, including the close proximity and density of urbanization. the Saint Johns River suffers from the continual spread of development and its associated landscape alterations. (Figure 1.2) Similar to Miami and the Everglades, electronic detachment and the negative implications of technology on the landscape are apparent with The Saint Johns River watershed. Riparian corridors terminating into the Saint Johns River are surrounded by natural, urban, and agricultural land uses, resulting in associative characteristics with pollutants. To combat threats to Floridas water resources, government organizations such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and Saint Johns Water Management District continually monitor and generate policies to protect the Saint Johns River. The development of top-down policies from historically limited community involvement and public participation (John 1994). Coexisting with the trend of and lacking transparency. In essence, landscape character is being affected by the entire populous, but landscape awareness of the Saint Johns Rivers core characteristics is limited to academia, professionals, researchers, policy makers, or those that who have lived in coexistence with Public participation and community involvement has the ability to counter-balance top-down policies by allowing empowering citizens. As discussed before, rebuilding the publics dialogue with the Saint Johns River could help In turn, by reengaging the community members with the landscape, community members create and recognize an imprinted cultural identity with their landscape that is both transparent and congruent (Spirn, 2008).

PAGE 15

A Theoretical Approach to Landscape Literacy 15 1.4 :: Research Intent Based on the introductory problems concerning landscape literacy, environmental detachment, and landscape transparency, accompanied with the Saint Johns River land development history, it is evident that Floridas riparian landscape integrity is threatened. Disassociating cultural trends that are catalyzed by development and technology threatens Floridas water resources. From the theoretical perspectives discussed by Robert Thayer, Bioregionalism serves as a concept for landscape unity. Bypassing natural boundaries, such as watersheds, policies derived in response to political boundaries can effectively mismanage certain aspects of the landscape. Embedded in the bioregional idea...people live as rooted, active participating members of a reasonable scaled, (Thayer, 2003, page 6). To achieve community landscape transparency, recognizing a reasonably managed natural scale of watersheds helps localize and identify ecological place. Utilizing community participatory and environmental engagement theories described by Beatley & Manning (1997), Thayer (1994, 2003), and Spirn, (2008), reinstituting community environmental involvement should ignite redevelopment within environmental contexts, support environmental identity, and result in restructuring a landscape language. Bridging gaps between environment and to Robert Thayer (2003), community participatory mapping complements top-down GIS-based research by validating and detailing unique characteristics. Furthermore, Environmental Planner, John Randolf (2004) compares community planning scaled mapping programs to GIS-based research as a tool to rapidly move forward with initial actions towards environmental protection and advocacy; whereas GIS-based planning allows for larger contexts and further detailing for more thorough analysis. Introducing the need of increasing landscape literacy, becomes a major hurdle for Planners, Landscape Architects, Designers, and Community Advocacy groups is the disassociation that exists between our culture and landscape. I believe the existence of landscape literacy does not require the introduction of technology could create a transparent landscape, serving as a transitional element into a new fourth frontier. Technology can become a tool for Landscape Architects, Planners, Designers, Community Activists, or any other community member to reconstruct landscape literacy. By pursuing theoretical foundations of Bioregionalism and Civic Environmentalism, could a community application help rebuild landscape literacy? For my research I will be asking this question and testing FABS with community members residing in the Saint Johns River Watershed. If successful, future research will allow for the creation of an assessment tool supported by an open-database of information to help support community engagement and landscape meaning (Appendix I). Although FABS is targeted for Floridas blackwater ecosystems, which are streams fed by organic runoff from be tailored to potentially incorporate all streams, rivers, and

PAGE 16

Johns River watershed. As the study progresses, methodology and hypotheses success should indicate plausibility of utilizing on other stream systems.

PAGE 17

chapter 2 Literature Review the landscape of a major urban region. We can see how the movement of water ties this region to the larger landscape of which it is a part and to a smaller landscape that is, in turn, an integral part of the region. We can also see how landscape design at these three scales interlocked. We will also, incidentally, see an exam relying on imported resources. -John LyleDesign for Human Ecosystems Rebuilding a Language with the LandscapeA Saint Johns River Blackwater Assessment Program

PAGE 18

2.1:: Overview John Lyles quote from Design for Human Ecosystems is an excellent prefacing excerpt for the literature review. The excerpts depth becomes an integral aspect to the overall research. Responding to the excerpt, it becomes evident landscapes together at various scales. Whether a small mountainous spring, headwaters to larger rivers such as the Mississippi or Colorado River, streams transect and connect waterways. Due to the interlocking relationships of different water system scales, a continuous gradient of information is embedded into those systems. Watersheds at varying scales are characterized by natural geographic landscape patterns, and linking a creeks, and rivers. According to Thayer (1997, 2003) and Beatley & Manning (1997), watersheds are environmentally characterized by an input of information whether nonaccumulates along its path to the seas, it stores gathered information and communicates a storyline. The storyline primarily portrays environmental health conditions, but Wohl states in her book Disconnected Rivers: Linking Rivers to Landscapes (2004, pp 2), The physical forms of rivers and river ecosystems are our historical archives, yet these archives are challenging to interpret, (Figure 2.1). Stream systems storylines can be represented through an analogy of the human body. Just as a stream links and connects different watersheds, a human body is connected and linked together by blood vessels. Through the blood vessels, blood pathogens and information are transferred to different areas of the body, communicating a sense of wellbeing or despair. Similarly to blood vessels, stream systems have the ability to transfer and transport pathogens or information throughout a larger system; just like a human body, streams have the ability to communicate a sense of wellbeing or despair. Not only do rivers contain information characterizing generalized stream health, but also waterways are interconnected entities in a global network. A landscape and waterway are connected at various scales and fundamental environmental occurrences develop certain ecosystems. Just as a soil type is determined by parent material, climate, topography, etc., a waterways characteristics are determined by a multitude of factors. If a factor becomes disrupted, the entire natural system becomes imbalanced (Wohl, 2004). This same reasoning is why the thesis primarily focuses on one major water ecosystem exhibited with the Saint Johns River, blackwater ecosystems. Knowing the importance and grandiose abilities of a stream systems ability to portray information; as well the importance of understanding the interconnected relationships that determine ecosystem development, health, but also creates potential complimentary foundation to bottom-up policy reform and redevelopment of community. Studying the Saint Johns River and its blackwater tributaries becomes important because of its environmental

PAGE 19

19 theoretical and fact-based foundation for the research. As part of the literature review, the importance of stream water resources, the threats to Floridas water resources, existing top-down policies from national to local levels of governance, community participatory planning, and landscape patterns. Subsequently, the compiled information creates a synthesis of literature to help structure the research intent and methodology development. L e g e n dS a i n t J o h n s R i v e r W a t e r s h e d H U C 4 W a t e rs h e d s S t a t e B o u n d a r i e s0 2 5 0 5 0 0 7 5 0 1 2 5M i l e s L e g e n d S a i n t J o h n s R i v e r W a t e r s h e d H U C 4 W a t e rs h e d s S t a t e B o u n d a r i e s 0 2 5 0 5 0 0 7 5 0 1 2 5M i l e s Figure 2.1 :: The map of the United States of America illustrates the natural geographic watershed patterns in their Hydrological Unit Code format code four (HUC4). At larger scales multiple watersheds form a larger watershed, and each HUC4 watershed has the ability to fragment into smaller sizes. This illustrates

PAGE 20

2.2 :: Floridas Water Resources and Development 2.2.1 :: Introduction Floridas water resources are not only iconic due to culture. Extending beyond Floridas water resources, nationally, water resources have characterized early development patterns in the United States because of their ability to transport goods for industry and encourage migration. Accompanying development patterns, the early use of waterways began to dictate and direct future impacts of water resources. Understanding concepts of pattern a conversation stating the importance of Floridas water resources becomes apparent. Initial expansion to North America of humans during the Pre-Columbian era occurred approximately 13,000 years ago across the Bering Strait (Wohl, 2004). During that time Hunter-Gathers migrated following food sources, but with the advent of agriculture, agrarian communities appeared across the landscape. Adapting to agricultural societies, land management practices and village locations went hand-inhand. Prime agriculture created abundance and supported adequate resources for community development occurring primarily around waterways. With sediment deposition along and had accessibility to abundant water resources. (Wohl, 2004 & Francis, 2013). Understanding the importance of waterways and riparian corridors on health and development of Pre-Columbian villages, early irrigation and land manipulation practices, such-as slash and burn, propagated agriculture across primarily wooded areas of the Americas (Wohl, 2004 & Francis, 2013). the Pre-Columbian era for agriculture, but also trade, transit, and food sources. It is commonly recognized that paddle craft have originated from Native American Tribes; such as, canoes and kayaks (FDEP, 2003b). These vehicles have shown that waterways are critical for existence of tribes. Even early importance of transit and trade, Frederick Jackson Turner is quoted in his novel The frontier in American history (1920, pp of travel, and thought. It takes him from the railroad car and puts him in the birch canoe. It strips off the garments of civilization and arrays him in the hunting shirt and the moccasin. It puts him in the log cabin of the Cherokee and Iroquois and runs an Indian palisade around him. amount of population was dispersed amongst coastal cities and riparian corridors. Upon entering the western edge of the Appalachian Mountains, the Mississippi basin became an immaculate source for movement amongst the frontier (U.S. Department of State, 2012). With the expanding frontier in transportation of people and goods. Prior to the explosion of railway development in the United States, riparian cities became major hubs of industry and trade. By examining the population distribution of the United States most populous cities, assumptions can be made that the rise-and-fall of population dispersal. Especially noting, the largest cities in the United States in the early 1850s to 1900s existed along major river ways. These major ports of trade include Cincinnati, OH.; Louisville, KY.; St Louis, MO.; Chicago, IL.; and New Orleans, LA., (Figure 2.2)(Appendix 5).

PAGE 21

21 With further expansion of technologies and the rise of the Industrial Revolution, the railroad began to shape well the conditions of the nations waterways. According to Benke, A. & Cushing, C. (2005, page 2), Although humans have been attracted to rivers throughout North America for more than 12,000 years, it has been until the past 100 years that industrialization has caused a radical transformation of most rivers. Accompanied with the Western-European religious desires to conquer the land, industrialization began to harness river ways energy. development became an integral proponent to the development of Florida and the rise of one of Americas (Cumming, J.B., 2006). k j k j k j k j k j k j k j k j k j k j k j k j k j k j k j k j k j k j k j k j k j 0 2 5 0 5 0 0 7 5 0 1 2 5M i l e sL e g e n dk jM o s t Po p u la t e d C i t i e s o f 1 8 0 0 s M a jo r T ra n s it R iv e rs St a t e B o u n d a rie s k j k j k j k j k j k j k j k j k j k j k j k j k j k j k j k j k j k j k j k j k j 0 2 5 0 5 0 0 7 5 0 1 2 5M i l e sL e g e n dk jM o s t Po p u la t e d C i t i e s o f 1 8 0 0 s M a jo r T ra n s it R iv e rs St a t e B o u n d a rie s Figure 2.2 :: During the 1800s, the most populous cities in the United States resided along major water corridors or water bodies. This occured primarily because of the common mode of transit and ease of transporting goods and people across the United States.

PAGE 22

Development Floridas occupancy and ownership continually shifted and changed throughout the 16th and 19th centuries. As Spanish, Florida development was sporadic. As the preAmerican territory, Florida experienced development of major cities such as Tallahassee, Saint Augustine, Gainesville, Palatka, and Pensacola by the Spanish. After transitional periods between the French and English, when Florida development boom along the Saint Johns River and into Saint Augustine (Cumming, 2006). It wasnt until 1821 that Florida became a territory of the United States from the Spanish towards the end of the Napoleonic War with the Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819 (Adams & Ots Treaty, 1819; Cumming, 2006; & Division of Historical Resources, 2012). As a territory of the United States, Floridas introduction into the industrial revolution occurred in 1827 with the arrival of the Steamboat on the Apalachicola River. Becoming a created a new prospect of moving materials and people insuch as Andrew Jacksons dispersal of Seminole Indians, Civil War, and Spanish-American War of 1898 constrained southern expansion into Florida by limiting shipping and transportation (Cumming, 1993; Spanish-American War, 2013). Concluding the end of the Civil War, expansion of development merged into the south via railways and river corridors. Images of Floridas pristine ecosystem and tropical environments encouraged rapid migration and tourism southward. Allen Andrewss (1950) personnel memoirs south and participating in the rapid expansion of south Florida. First arriving on rail along the states gulf coast in Punta Gorda, Florida, Andrews continued inwards along riparian corridors to development sites. Andrews (1950, page 6) describes the landscape stating, as we progressed upstream the swamp land gave way to high pines with a scattering ground cover of saw palmettoes, followed by still higher terrain with dense scrub oak and palmetto growth. Rounding a sharp bend in the river, we came suddenly on a little cottage perched high on the river bank and almost hidden from view by a dense growth of lime, orange and mango trees... Tourism in Florida began along the Saint Johns River with the steamboat movement between Palatka and Silver Springs in 1869 (Figure 2.3). Palatka was the southernmost point on the St. Johns River that was navigable by large ships. Tourists traveled from Palatka aboard wet-tail steamers traveled 25 miles south along the broad St. Johns River, 100 miles along the meandering Oklawaha River, and 9 miles along the crystal-clear Silver River to Silver Springs, near Ocala, (Cumming, 1993, page 3). Other accounts of tourism began to exemplify the ability for steamboat captains to maneuver the tight, meandering streams of central Florida for tourism purposes. Fort Myers to Kissimmee in 53 days.... Thats how long it took riverboat Capt. Benjamin Hall to maneuver the Bertha Lee from Fort Myers, through the narrow Caloosahatchee River, Lake Okeechobee and the Kissimmee

PAGE 23

23 River to the Tropical Hotel on Lake Tohopekaliga, in 1883 (Robinson, 1993). With the advent of the automobile and further development of railroads, the necessity of steamboats the manifested around Floridas water resources still gained tropical lure of development and expansion. According to Wendy King (2004), The nineteenth-century travelers, who had the time and could afford to travel to Florida in art canon to frame their experience and the Silver Springs steamboat tour as a sublime spiritual journey. During the late 19th century to mid-20th century, Silver Springs was the tourist culture, expansion, and exploitation of water resources. 2.2.4 :: A Land of Abundance and Floridas Development in the 20th Century Florida became recognized as a land of abundance. The crystal clear waters and ever-winding streams created an allure of economy, tourism, and development. Unbeknownst to early pioneers and settlers of Floridas exploitation of Floridas water resources. The epitomized natural wonders of tropical Florida was characterized in early Florida development pamphlets and media, encouraging Americans to stake a claim in the abundant landscape. Development boom slowed during the great depression and into World War II, but concluding WWII, new development techniques and technologies allowed for massive development for the growing demand of returning GIs (Rome, 2009). Photographer William Garnett showcased Americas rise in development technologies through a series of images showcasing the quick process of transferring natural land into a series of neighborhoods and houses (Figure 2.4). New development techniques, accompanied by the existing draw of consumers to Floridas landscape and highway systems, greatly increased development in Florida cities; such as, Miami, Orlando, Saint Petersburg, Tampa, catalyst for the development of Florida was Eisenhowers Interstate Highway Bill of 1956, which created a nationwide highway network of 47,000 miles...The interstate system had a similar impact in the second half of the 1900s as the railroads and speed of transportation, (Cumming, 1993, page 25). Figure 2.3 :: The Metamora was one of the common steamboats connecting Silver Springs and Palatka along the Oklawaha River. steamboat-1902.html

PAGE 24

Figure 2.4 :: William Garnetts, once reveared photographs depicted American ingenuity and ability to mass produce houses. The advent of the bulldozer

PAGE 25

25 As development occurred across Florida, one-third of prime agriculture gave way to development between 1950s to the early 80s, and real estate along Floridas Water Resources and the Saint Johns were highly sought after. The swift movement of development didnt occur without additional costs. According to Adam Rome (2001, page 3), The adoption of mass production techniques greatly in environmentally sensitive areas, including wetlands, steep an ideal of Futurama in American development during the 50s-70s, but development spurred an increase in threats to Floridas water resources (Leinberger,2009). 2.3 :: Threats to Floridas Water Resources 2.3.1 :: Introduction The advent of new development technologies allowed for sprawling development across the United States. The bulldozer, septic tanks, and the automobile encouraged the populous to move from large urban centers for a middleclass establishment of opportunity and land (Rome, 2001). Opportunities presented to migrating Americans during the 50s-70s included a myriad of luring characteristics: owning a large tract of land, lower costs, lower taxes, improved schooling, privacy, safety, and plenty of parking (Leinberger, 2009). With development, came industry and commercialization. As the bulldozer paved-way to suburban sprawl, industrialization created opportunities for jobs and economies in the vast suburban and exurbia of urban cities; cities no longer had edges. Concluding the 1970s, development and real estate hit an all-time high in the 1980s. After a small recession a high-rate of vacancies, a similar recession occurred once again in the early 1990s (Leinberger, 2009). Development and landscape altercations continued heavily throughout the 20th Century, the vehicle became and excellent driver of modernization. Unfortunately, the progression of Americas Futurama didnt come without a cost; most considerably the costs associated with degradation. The pavement and buildings of drivable sub-urban development cover a lot of ground, and that impervious surface keeps rainwater from soaking into the soil. Instead, rainwater runs across the pavement, picking up trash, directly into streams. A U.S. Environmental protection Agency analysis comparing runoff from a subdivision of eight houses on one-acre lots to eight houses on quarter-acre lots found that the large-lot subdivision generated more than 18,000 cubic feet of polluted runoff per year, three times the runoff from the more compact development. The surge in runoff Not only was development negatively impacting the nations water resources, but also anthropogenic inputs associated with industry, septic systems, agriculture, and other commercialized operations. As land-consumptive development patterns of commercialization and residential expansion characterize the United States landscape, a Nash (1995), elaborates on the evolution of urbanization as a

PAGE 26

and agricultural inputs. Water pollution associated to development patterns and suburbanization of the American landscape is commonly recognized as a modern public health issue. According to Jones, et al., (1997, page 1), Environmental quality affects our health, our quality of life, the sustainability of our economies, and the futures of our children. Yet pressures from an increasing population coupled with the need for economic development and an improved standard of living often have multiple effects on our natural resources. With continual development and expansion into Florida, the states coveted water resources suffer from a affect sedimentation loading, nutrient enrichment, and contamination levels within watersheds and stream systems (Correll 1983; Correll et al. 1992, 1997; Dauer et al., 2000; Hinga et al., 1991; Lajtha et al., 1995; Jordan et al., 1997). Due to linked (Swihart, 2011). Therefore, development, expansion, and exploitation of Floridas water resources directly impact stream systems. Knowing existing threats of Floridas water resources from polluters, it is important to understand the categorizing methods of pollutants and their threats that contribute to negatively impacting stream ways. Most people identify water pollution as sludge from factories and industry sources as Nonpoint-Source Pollution and Point Source Pollution. Nonpoint-Source Pollution is primarily pollution from from a region or area; whereas Point-Source Pollution is what is monitored from factories and other industries (Denver Water Quality Program, 2013; United States Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA], 2013a). 2.3.2 :: Point-Source Pollutants Point-source pollutants are described by USEPA (2013b) as, discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made waterways. Primarily, point-source pollutants are recognized amendments of the Clean Water Act, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requires states to create management systems and regulations of point-source pollutant contributors (Figure 2.5). Due to extensive regulations and policies set-forth by national and state-level government for the control of pointsource pollutants, many strides and standards for wastewater the NPDES program, the Clean Water Act orchestrates the appointment of states to delineate water quality standards. regulation purposes. Each state shall identify those waters by section 301(b)(1)(A) and section 301(b)(1)(B) are not stringent enough to implement any water quality standard

PAGE 27

27 applicable to such waters. The state shall establish a priority ranking for such waters, taking into account the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of such waters, [United States Senate, 2012, Sec 303(d)(1)(a)]. Subsequently, as part of the Clean Water Act, under Section 303(d)(4), outlines standards are not met and the necessary actions required by the state to achieve water quality standards. as the primary polluter of waterways, pointsource polluters are bound and regulated by a dynamic system of water quality standards. The unconsolidated pollution source, nonpoint-source pollution. 2.3.3 :: Nonpoint-Source Pollutants antithesis of point-source pollution. Point-source easily monitored; whereas, nonpoint-source pollution is associated with pollutants and other into water resources via rainwater or snowmelt runoff (USEPA, 2013c). According to the USEPA (2013c), As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries depositing them into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and ground waters. L e g e n d Sa in t J o h n s R i v e r N P D E S S a i n t J o h n s R i v e r W a t e r s h e d S a i n t J o h n s R i v e r C o u n t y B o u n d a r y U r b a n B o u n d a r i e s M a j o r H i g h w a y s & I n t e r s t a t e s 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 5M i l e s Figure 2.5 :: The Saint Johns River Watershed is highly urbanized, yet has many natural areas. The map above exhibits all the registered NPDES, and theyre primarily concentrated around development.

PAGE 28

Identifying sources of nonpointsource pollution is not an unknown process, but rather, effectively quantifying the impacts the nonpointsource pollution is the inability and impracticality of monitoring and controlling the pollution and its sources; there are too many sources and variables to be considered and becomes economically infeasible. Nonpoint source pollution can typically be attributed to different land uses: agriculture, residential, commercial, land use alterations, and urban run-off. pollutants. The unmanageable pollutants associated with the different land uses enter waterways nearly undetected. The inability to regulate and quantify nonpoint-source pollution from legally setting restrictions similar to NPDES program. Fortunately, different governing agencies have the ability to affect policies and regulations to limit potential impacts of nonpoint-source pollutants. 2.3.3.1 :: Municipal nonpoint-source pollutants can be attributed to a wide variety of potentialities; some notable examples include air pollution, municipal waste, streets, and parking lots. Air pollution from municipal cities can be caused onto waterways and other water bodies (USEPA, 2009). Municipal waste often refers to settling ponds and other wastewater treatment activities whose byproducts include ultimately becoming a direct link to water systems. 2.3.3.2 :: Industrial pollutants that directly impact water resources include production facilities smoke stacks and gas stations, machine manufacturers, mining, and other fabricators. The multitude of possibilities of contamination occurring with industrial nonpoint-source pollutants is vast. Table 2.1 ::

PAGE 29

29 atmosphere, and through atmospheric deposition, 10% of total nitrates become integrated with water resources; affecting both water quality and riparian biodiversity (Baker, 1992). Lenntech (2013) also states, underground and above ground storage tanks holding petroleum products, acids, solvents, and chemicals can develop leaks from corrosion, defects, improper installation, or mechanical failure of the to water resources; even historic industry sites can have a resonating polluting effect. For example, Gainesville, Floridas, Cabot-Koppers Superfund Site is a vacant industrial site that is contaminated by mis-regulation and use of heavy metals and toxins, eventually threatening groundwater resources 2.3.3.3 :: Agricultural is considered the most prominent threat to water resources (Baker, 1992). Primarily the fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and animal waster are conveyed easily through run-off during storm events (LennTech, 2013). Nitrates and phosphorous, which can cause hypoxia and eutrophication, are the practices. As farmers try to produce healthier and more copious yields, fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides that contain nitrates, phosphorous, and other chemicals directly affect water resources (Baker, 1992). 2.3.3.4 :: Residential related nonpoint-source pollutants systems, and vehicular usage. Similarly to agriculture, many residences utilize fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides to produce healthy lawns. Concurrently, yard waste that pulses of anthropogenic inputs of nitrates and phosphates of pollutants impacting and threatening water resources. In areas where community members have limited access to municipal wastewater treatment facilities, septic systems resources. (Baker, 1992; Rome, 2011; Lenntech, 2013; & USEPA 2013e). According to USEPA (2013e), septic tanks are used in approximately 20 percent of all homes in the United States. An estimated 10 to 20 percent of these systems malfunction each year, causing pollution to the environment and creating a risk to public health. The excessive amounts of bacteria, viruses, nitrates, and other organic compounds created from from the residential populace are similar to smoke stacks of industrial facilities; nitrogen outputs from exhaust impact water resource through atmospheric deposition. 2.3.3.5 :: Land Use Changes are not directly associated with anthropogenic inputs of nitrates and phosphates; as do municipal, agricultural, industrial, and residential sources of nonpoint-source pollutants. Rather, land use changes could potentially directly impact ecosystem services that typically intercept and mitigate run-off and nonpoint-source pollutants (Atkinson et al., 2010; Baker et al., 2006; Karr, 1991; Kemp et al., 2005; & Lowrance et al., 1997). For example, a forest is clear-cut or wetland is drained for a new development, the preexisting ecosystem services are removed, causing a and silviculture as additional sources of nonpoint-source

PAGE 30

polluters associated with land use changes. Habitat alterations regard all developments that impact wetlands, streams, and riparian corridors by removing vegetation and causing erosion-which leads to high numbers of suspended to the affects of sedimentation and erosion issues caused with channelization, hydroelectric, dredging, or streambank but land use changes still exhibit erosion and suspended sediments in water resources when clear-cutting, thinning, or 2.3.4 :: Impacts of Pollutants Pollutant impacts can cause major disparities amongst water quality and biodiversity health. Historically, prior to the Clean Water Act and the creation of NPDES program, agriculture run-off. Most notably, the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio, became known as one of the most polluted rivers in the United States. Due to heavy industrial waste from becomes the precedent event leading the United States to set-forth regulations on point-source polluters with the Clean Water Act (Cleveland Historical, 2013)(Figure 2.6). Although point-source polluters are controlled and regulated by the Clean Water Act and NPDES, nonpointsource pollutants became a prominent, unseen impact on the nations water sources. Three of the most well-recognized and discussed effects of pollutants are eutrophication and algae blooms, impacts of suspended sedimentation, and 2.3.4.1 :: Eutrophication and algae blooms are the most prominent, publically recognized and studied result of nonpoint-source pollutants. Primarily caused by the anthropogenic inputs of nitrates and phosphates from agriculture and residential run-off to water resources, algae blooms generate anaerobic conditions in water. Essentially, eutrophication is a natural process that is accelerated by human inputs (Muir, 2013). As the nitrates and phosphates intermix with water resources, nutrients increase algae production, leading to four major potential issues: Figure 2.6 :: This photo from the 1948 Cuyahoga River Fire is was propagated across media outlets immediately following the Cuyahoga

PAGE 31

31 1 :: Limited light penetration into water systems 2 :: Dissolved oxygen levels become depleted, causing hypoxia 3 :: Hypoxia leads to higher rates of benthic and vertebrate mortality 4 :: Some algae types produce toxins, further contaminating water resources Some of the most notorious cases of eutrophication have been directly linked to nonpoint-source pollution; unfortunately, as stated before, the Clean Water Act has not suitably been able to adequately address control methods (Muir, 2013). At varying scales, the Chesapeake Bay, Mississippi Delta, and St. Johns River have all suffered from different patterns of eutrophication. The overview of each water system highlights exhibiting impairments and possibility for eutrophication. 2.3.4.1.1 :: Saint Johns River Algae Blooms: Typically occurring in the spring and summer, Floridas algae blooms are seasonal pulses of cyanobacteria. Unfortunately, anthropogenic inputs of nitrates and phosphates contribute to larger and more copious amounts of toxic variants. Floridas diverse freshwater, brackish, and marine environments support a wide variety of cyanobacteria blooms. Like other [Hazerdous Algae Blooms], cyanobacteria can affect water quality, and more importantly, those that produce cyanotoxins can pose a threat to public health, (Abbott et al., 2009, page 14). (Figure 2.7). Due to the season nature of algae blooms in the anthropogenic sources associated with the algae blooms are run-off from agriculture, residential, and urban areas. 2.3.4.1.2 :: Mississippi River Delta: Throughout the mid-west, or commonly referred to as Americas Breadbasket, an area of rich soil fertility drive American agriculture production. Coring through the middle of the agriculture region is the Mississippi River. During the periods of late spring through the summer, a combination of fertilizers and run-off from upstream watersheds feed algae production in the Gulf of Mexico. The warmer, lighter river water spreads out over the heavier salt water, and, since the river water is so enriched with nitrogen and other nutrients, it feeds massive blooms of algae near the surface, (Muir, 2013). Once an alga begins to die, decomposers breakdown algae and consume high levels of oxygen, leading to hypoxia and detrimental mortality rates among aquatic and marine life. Subsequently, the mortality rates of aquatic species supplementary negatively impact water quality and ecosystem health. 2.3.4.1.3 :: Chesapeake Bay Eutrophication:Studies and research conducted on Chesapeake Bays ongoing mitigation efforts highlight impairments and mediating efforts of substantial eutrophication. Fed by major urban areas, Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, MD, accompanied with agriculture and landuse of nonpoint-source pollutants have caused major implications on water resources for both public and environmental health (Baker et al., 2006; Dauer, et al., 2000; Jones et al., 1997; Kemp et al., 2005; & Lowrance et al., 1997). But research from Jones et al. (1997) in conjunction with the USEPA developed the

PAGE 32

Figure 2.7 :: During 2004, the Saint Johns River suffered from a devastating algae bloom that was attributed to excess of anthropogenic runoff from lawns and agriculture. Some people who contacted the contaminated water fell ill or even died.

PAGE 33

33 four environmental factors associated with suspended sediments, there would be little impact on water resources. The amount of suspended sediments in water resources dramatically effect light penetration into water sources by Thomas, R. & Meybeck, M., 1992; & USEPAf, 2013). Commonly referred to as turbidity, the light clarity of a water resource has the ability to communicate visual characteristics of suspended solids. By utilizing a secchi disk or transparency tube, water depth clarity directly correlates with suspended sediments, leading to defensible assumptions on water quality. Turbidity measurements are temporary and very changing systems. For accuracy of turbidity measurements, evenly spaced time-intervals and turbidity records need to be compared for the sake of recognizing discernable patterns. Turbidity measurements of suspended sediments directly relate to light penetration and correlate to water quality. Similarly to eutrophication, according to USEPA (2013f), Higher turbidity increases water temperatures because suspended particles absorb more heat. This, in turn, reduces the concentration of dissolved oxygen because warm water holds less dissolved oxygen than cold. Higher turbidity also reduces the amount of light penetrating the water, which reduces photosynthesis and the production of dissolved oxygen. In turn, because of the effects of dissolved oxygen, aquatic habitat and water quality become negatively impaired. environmental stressor related to land use changes and environmental quality (Konrad, 2013; Tang et al., 2005). Assessment of the United States Region: A Landscape Atlas an introductory and theoretical approach of utilizing spatial analysis tools for landuse planning for nonpoint-source pollutions. Just as we now watch broad-scale weather patterns to get an idea of whether it will rain in the next few days, we can develop a better assessment of current environmental condition by combining regional and localscale information, (Jones et al., 1997, page 1). 2.3.4.2 :: Suspended Sedimentation as Water Pollutants anthropogenic compounds and nonpoint-source pollutants. Natural sedimentation formed during weathering processes deposition by chemicals of anthropogenic orgin, (Thomas, R. & Meybeck, M., 1992, page 136). Due to sedimentation caused by erosion, waste discharge, urban run-off, and excessive algae growth, physical, chemical, and biological alterations can negatively impair water systems (USEPAf, 2013). Bilotta, G. & Brazier, R. (2008), discuss the given data that sedimentation and suspended solids in water resources management costs, aquatic ecosystems, and ecological degradation. Suspended sediments in water resources are the direct result of run-off and erosion. But according to Bilotta, G. & Brazier, R., (2008) the effects of suspended sediments a high concentration of the suspended sediments 2) Time of suspended sediments must be elongated 3) Chemical composition 4) Particle distribution and size. Without these

PAGE 34

geographic watersheds. When landscapes are maintained as undeveloped vegetated landscapes, plant materials intercept much of the storm run-off and slow conveyance frequencies increase (Konrad, 2013; Tang et al, 2005). To help This, in turn, creates two major changes: an increase in nonpoint-source pollutants, and dramatic shifts in ecosystem quality and hydraulic conditions. As urbanization increases and engineering projects described in suspended sediments, urban run-off increases potential impact on riparian systems. As urbanization occurs, stormwater conveyances primary goal is to transport stormwater quickly to riparian systems via storm drains. By limiting the potential impact natural vegetation would become more frequent with higher discharge. With increased discharge and frequency, stream bank erosion occurs at higher rates, channelizes streams through incisions, and and-lows (Konrad, 2013). In effect with stream bank erosion and incised channelization from higher rates of storm runoff and discharge, riparian ecosystems begin to dramatically degrade from the anthropogenic land use changes; most According to Kroes, D.E. & Hupp, C.R. (2010), the negative bisected the correlating relationships between streams and The reduction in sedimentation storage capacity and and elimination (Kroes, D.E. & Hupp, C.R., 2010). Riverine (Kroes, D.E. & Hupp C.R., 2010, page 698). nonpoint-source pollutants further increase the probability and effects of turbidity and eutrophication. Baker, L.A., (1992) concerning United States water resource inventory states, Nonpoint-source pollution has water impairment. In estuaries, lakes, and rivers, nonpointsource pollution attributes to an average of 62% impairment causing pollutions; 45% in estuaries, 76% in lakes, and 65% in rivers (Baker, 1992). Data collected from Baker (1992) stems from the biennial National Water Quality Inventory report from 1986, since stricter regulations and policies emerged, the data shows minor changes (Table 2.2). Although not too

PAGE 35

35 changes occurred: 2 :: Increased regulations on building types and development 3 :: Best Management Practices for agriculture and the built environment 4 :: Limitations and education for fertilizer use Act, each state is required to complete a biennial water qual ity analysis. In 2012, Florida released their most recent results of the water quality analysis studying rivers, streams, large lakes, and small lakes from select locations throughout the state. Floridas water quality analysis and inventory standards de rived themselves from the following state codes: Section 62-520.420, FAC :: Standards for Class G-I and Class or standards pertaining dissolved oxygen, un-ionized fecal coliform, and heavy metals. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) (2012) state the importance standards, due to the difference in Floridas aquatic ecosystems. It is important to note that the diversity of Floridas aquatic ecosystems also means there is a large natural variation in some water quality parameters. For example, surface waters that are dominated by ground [dissolved oxygen] levels, (FDEP, 2012, page 60). Previous discussions on sedimentation and the longthe state agency, FDEP. As part of the states water quality assessment, 3,927 miles of rivers were studied at 119 sample sites and 16,861 miles of streams were studied at 90 sample sites. From the analyzed data, clearly evident stream degradation is associated with nonpoint-source pollutants and sedimentation, causing a large spike in certain river impairments (Table 2.3a,b). Most notably seen in the impairment lists, dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform is a substantive contributor to degraded stream quality, whereas rivers are primarily impaired by dissolved oxygen and chlorophyll-a. The reason in streams is because the close proximity of septic systems and livestock around stream systems. Once an impaired stream converges with another stream, the fecal coliform Table 2.2 :: I llustrates the percent of impairment from nonpoint source pollution on Estuaries, Streams, and Lakes. All data was derived from the 2004 National Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress (2009).

PAGE 36

levels dissipate. Dissolved oxygen affects both streams and rivers due to nonpoint-source pollutant contributors and sedimentation from erosion and land use changes. Chlorophyll-a, the technical term associated with algae blooms, spikes in rivers for various possible reasons: an increased amount of agriculture and residential nonpointsource pollutants on rivers, and natural delay with nonpointsource pollutants and algae bloom production. develops biennial water quality assessment reports for the manage and analyze watersheds and sub-basins. The Saint essential asset in the management of the Saint Johns River and its tributaries. Broken into four separate assessment reports, the Upper Saint Johns River Basin, Middle Saint Johns River Basin, Lower Saint Johns River Basin, and Ocklawaha River Basin assessments highlight, analyze, and prioritize 2.3.5.1 :: The Upper Saint Johns River Basin is the southern-most point and headwaters of the Saint Johns River. Comprising of 1,888 square miles of south-central Florida, the Upper Saint Johns Basin is prominently characterized with improved agriculture, rangeland, upland forests, and wetlands (FDEP, 2003a). Historically, the Upper St Johns was dominated by marshes and wetlands; but with Florida development in the 1950s, dikes drained the landscape for agriculture purposes. Unbeknownst to developers and degraded landscape and water quality. By the early 1970s, about 62 percent of the historical marshlands had been 2003a, page 39). triggered interest in restoring and protecting the Upper Saint Johns Basin. With the advent of the Upper Saint Johns River Basin Project in 1988, the state and Saint Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) focused on restoring 150,000 acres of wetlands, rivers, uplands, and lakes (FDEP, 2003a). The upper basin project primarily strived itself to manage from agriculture practices. Integrating different landscape water quality and landscape vitality, but continuous research and development is still under way with the Upper St Johns Basin Project (Tom Bartol of SJRWMD, Personal Interview March 20, 2013). research of the Upper Basin of the Saint Johns River, nonpointsource pollutants still impair water systems with accumulation of nitrogen, phosphorous, sediments, and decreased dissolved oxygen levels (FDEP, 2003a). Appendix 6 provides a complete list and map of impaired waters in the Upper Saint Johns River Basin. After analyzing the impairments, the Upper Saint Johns River Basin is prominently impaired by heavy metals and dissolved oxygen. 2.3.5.2 :: The Middle Saint Johns River Basin is the central portion of the Saint Johns River and includes parts of Seminole, Osceola, Orange, Lake, Marion, Volusia, and

PAGE 37

37 Putnam counties. One of the most unique basin areas of the Saint Johns River, the landscape comprises of a wide breadth of different land use types. From urbanized areas of Orange County to heavily forested areas of the Ocala National Forest, the tributaries and water resources of the Saint Johns River interconnect various eco-regions of central Florida (Table 2.4). Due to varying sprawling intensities of anthropogenic land uses, commercialization, industrialization, residential communities, and agriculture coupled with anticipated nonpoint-source pollutants associated from the urban growth and agriculture show prominent impairments throughout the basin. In the planning units of Middle Saint Johns Florida, 13.8 percent of the total stream segments are considered impaired. Of the total impairments, 45% of impairments are nutrient based, 16% are associated with dissolved oxygen, 11% are associated with fecal coliform, and the remaining are other coliforms and heavy metal types. Appendix 7 directly correlates impairments associated with urbanization and agriculture of central Florida. 2.3.5.3 :: The Lower Saint Johns River Basin i s a highly urbanized. Running north from Lake George to the Atlantic Ocean, the lower basin transects Palatka, Orange Park, Green Cove Springs, and Jacksonville. Although the basin is primarily upland forest and pine plantations, the 16.1% different nonpoint-source pollutants. Throughout the regions history, deep-water ports of WWII, industry, and urbanization grew across the landscape. Concurrently, in the 21st century, Table 2.3a :: highlights the analyte impairments of Floridas river systems. Adapted from FDEP, 2012. Table 2.3b :: highlights the analyte impairments of Floridas stream systems. Adapted from FDEP, 2012.

PAGE 38

similar land use patterns continue to exist: along the northwest edge of the basin and other areas of Putnam County, mining scours the landscape; Industries of Jacksonville litter the waters edge; heavy residential expansion in Duval, St Johns, and Clay County; stormwater runoff from Jacksonville; and Johns River Basin developed long-term goals in conjuncture with FDEP, to help manage and regulate water resource quality. Known as SWIM (Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan), the purpose is to help mitigate and manage run-off from urbanized and agriculture sub-basins to a determined water quality standard (Table 2.5). report of the Lower Saint Johns Basin, majority of impaired streams suffer from high levels of nutrients, dissolved oxygen, and fecal coliform. Appendix 8 highlights the prioritized water bodies for further monitoring and total maximum daily load (TMDL) indices. 2.3.5.4 :: The Ocklawaha River Basin is the largest subin early economic and cultural development of Central Florida (FDEP, 2003b). Navigation was an important early function of the Ocklawaha River. Steamboats transported citrus, lumber, sea island cotton, sugar, and other agricultural commodities to ports on the St. Johns River. They also brought tourists and helped make the basin a tourist mecca by the late nineteenth century. (FDEP, 2003b, page 28). Due to the raise in popularity, agriculture and urbanization grew rapidly throughout the Ocklawaha Region; primarily in the headwaters of the Ocklawaha River, Lake County. To pave way for agriculture and development, similar to the headwaters of the St. Johns River, wetlands were drained to provide more land for citrus production and canals helped move water to lower portions of the region (FDEP, 2003b). As time progressed, Central Florida became the center of the worlds citrus production, and miles of agriculture covered the landscape. As population agriculture from the Tri-County Agriculture Area, Black Creek Dairies, and nurseries all directly impact the water quality of the Saint Johns River (FDEP, 2004). Even with the anticipated growth of urbanization, industrialization, and agriculture, regulations have shown limited impact protecting the Saint Johns River from pollutants. After three decades of developing and implementing water quality improvements, the Lower Saint Johns River still has a nutrient problem, evidenced by periodic growth has fueled continuing water quality problems, (FDEP, 2004, page 63). Due to the growing threats, the Lower Saint Table 2.4 :: Table 2.4 is adapted from FDEPs 2005 Water Quality Assessment The Upland Forest from Ocala National Forest comprises majority of the undeveloped lands and water resources.

PAGE 39

39 increased through the 20th century, increased demands development evolution, nonpoint-source pollutants played with nutrient loading, fecal coliform, and low dissolved oxygen levels. Even in the midst of heavy nutrient loading from residential and agriculture landscapes, new strives are being taken to help remedy water quality issues. to other basins of the Saint Johns River exists. Being the major impairments are associated with nutrient loading, coliforms, and low dissolved oxygen levels, most of the water bodies in close connection to major development issues arise with nutrient levels in spring sheds. According to are Central Floridas springs. From historic nutrients that percolated through the soil substrate, springs are expelling nutrient enriched water, causing algal blooms, low 2.4 :: Water Policy :: An examination of implications and limitations of water policy The existence of traditional water policy has shown nonpoint-source pollutants. Since the advent of the Clean Water Act in 1948 and major amendments in 1972, a wave of water regulations helped set precedence and regulations for future growth and strived to protect water landscape scale and localized pollutant issues led to a planning hierarchy consisting of national, state, and regional regulations. At the varying scales, stemming from the Clean Water Act, states had the ability to regulate and delegate water resource policies. down policies have on water regulations is very important. Although successful, limitations and implications still exist. According to Doppelt et al. (1993, page 33), The growing nationwide riverine crisis, combined with the failures of existing conservation approaches and policies to arrest the problems, leads to the inescapable conclusions that a new approach is needed to protect and restore Americas riverine Table 2.5 is adapted from FDEP (2004) and displays the goals and objectives of the regions SWIM plan to help manage nonpoint-source pollutants from urbanized and agriculture threats.

PAGE 40

systems and biodiversity. To best approach an analysis of future water policy, understanding existing water policies becomes necessary in order to recommend new theoretical approaches to water management. National Water Resource policies stem back to early American history with the Prior Appropriation Law and Riparian Water Rights to help regulate water usage among Americans. But it wasnt until 1948 when the Federal Water riparian interstates of the United States from pollutants by water resources (US Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], 2013). Concluding the advent of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, major addendums were created in 1972 to further strengthen and reestablish a commitment to water resource integrity and became what is commonly referred to as the major strives towards water quality and protection including Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, and Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. Land and Water Conservation Act was developed in 1965 to help fund and develop the necessary resources needed planning and acquisition of public lands for the, purposes of...assisting[ing] in preserving, developing, and assuring accessibility to all citizens of the United States of America of present and future generations and visitors who are lawfully present within the boundaries of the United States of America such quality and quantity of outdoor recreation resources as may be available and are necessary and desirable for individual active participation in such recreation and to strengthen the health and vitality of the citizens of the United States...(National Park Service [NPS], 1965, page 1). Beyond helping provide necessary funding for public land acquisition, the Land and Water Conservation Fund desires to maintain and create high-quality public outdoor recreation options. In turn, funding and grants help protect environmental quality from different pollutant types and unnecessary land use changes. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 primarily strives to become an administrative tool to preserve and protect States Congress [USC], 1968). The development of the act was in response to inexorable loss of the nations rivers from devastation caused by industry, transit, and other pollutant and destructive qualities (Haubert, 1998). By allowing for the protection of the nations scenic waterways, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act enables governmental agencies to participate in the controlling of unnecessary pollutants on the designated rivers. Section 12(c) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (USC, 1968) states, The head of any agency administering a component of the national wild and scenic rivers system shall cooperate with the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency and with the appropriate State water pollution control agencies for the purpose of eliminating or diminishing the pollution of waters of the river. The creation of baseline measurements for administrative purposes allow for continual monitoring of stream quality. threats to water quality, the Safe Drinking Water Act becomes

PAGE 41

41 a prominent act setting a national drinking water standard. Creating and setting standards for contaminant limits to water resources, the Safe Drinking Water Act primarily strives impacting human health (United States Senate, 2002b). By delegating states and localities to create and further establish standards for drinking water, the USEPA becomes the administrative entity overseeing progress of water standards (United States Senate, 2002b). The establishment of the Safe resource quality. By designating water quality limits, nonanthropogenic and anthropogenic water resource threats quality. Clean Water Act of 1972 amendments becomes protections from the national scale. Other acts associated with water resources primarily focus on water chemistry water resource importance, and funding resources for land acquisition and protection; whereas, the Clean Water Act focuses on the broad perspective of environmental conditions impacting water resources and the necessary regulations needed for water quality protection. Similarly to the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act of 1972, created the need to set pollutant limitations but also, stipulate broad national objectives to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nations waters, (USFWS, 2013). Concurrently, the Clean Water Act required states to set pollutant limitations to water resources and identify necessary remedial processes to protect potable water supplies, aquatic stability, recreation, agriculture, and industrial uses (USFWS, 2013). Sections 303 and 305 of the Clean Water Act are the most required by each state (Appendix 10): Section 303(d)(1)(A) : Each state shall identify those waters by section 301(b)(1)(A) and section 301(b)(1)(B) are not stringent enough to implement any water quality standard applicable to such waters. The State shall establish a priority ranking for such waters, taking into account the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of such waters. Section 305(b)(1)(A): Each State shall prepare and submit to the Administrator by April 1, 1975, and shall bring up to date by April 1, 1976, and biennially thereafter, a report shall include.... The establishment of state requirements for analyzing, assessing, categorizing, managing water resources, and creating biennial reports becomes an essential element in continual analyzing long-term effects of government regulations on water resources. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) calculations for impaired water bodies. maximum amount of pollutants a water body can withstand and still maintain environmental integrity. TMDLs become control methods for meeting water quality standards of impaired waters. In effect, Figure 2.8, USEPA has created

PAGE 42

cyclical structure for states to best utilize TMDL development and achieve water quality goals. Primarily Section 303(d) addresses the continual evaluation of nonpoint-source pollutants on water resources, but Section 402 of the Clean Water Act addresses the impacts of point-source pollutants with the development of the National Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) (USEPA, 2013h). As TMDL calculations help manage and identify the impacts of nonpoint-source pollutants on public waters, the NPDES manages the point-source polluters from contaminating water systems; such as, industrial facilities, municipal wastewater facilities, and construction management. 2.4.2 :: Abiding by the template provided by the USEPA for development and regulation pertaining water standards and protection of water resources, Floridas Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) have made continual strives towards managing the states water resources. As part of FDEPs collaboration with the Clean Water Act, the resource to help stream line water quality assessments (Table 2.6). According to Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C) 62the degree of protection required, with Class I water having generally the most stringent water quality criteria and Class V the least. However, Class I, II, and III surface waters share recreation, and the propagation and maintenance of a Historically, Florida believed in the consumption and drainage of wetlands and swamps for development and agriculture. For instance, the federal Swamp Lands Act of 1850 led to Floridas extensive dredging and land alterations to create a more productive landscape (Swihart, 2011). This of Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades, and John Gifford to introduce the widely invasive Melaleuca Tree ( Malaleuca quinquenervia ) to help naturally drain the area (Swihart, 2011). draining the Everglades and Lake Okeechobee, Floridians This threat created uproar from community members, and resulted in what is referred to as the Disston Era; the state committee on Water Resources advocated the creation of Figure 2.8 :: The above graphic, adopted from USEPA, highlights the cyclical process for adopting TMDLs.

PAGE 43

43 planning, promoting, and protective work, relating to fresh water resources and problems, (Swihart, 2011, page 24). Immediately the states House of Representatives passed the Water Resources Act of 1957 and Florida began its transition into a water resource conscious state. With the advent of Florida water policy and regulation, the year of 1972 became known as the Year of the of Floridas water and natural resources, politicians and reformers with the help of Reubin Askew and Bob Graham passed the Environmental Land and Water Act, State Comprehensive Planning Act, Land Conservation Act, and further reformed the states Water Resources Act. The states 1972 reforms to the Water Resources Act enacted Frank Maloneys A Model Water Code to help bring Floridas water resources under regulatory control and established three major goals (Carriker & Borisova, 2009; Swihart, 2011): 1. Establish state water regulatory agency and water management districts. 2. Water Planning Requirements 3. Effective use of permitting systems for the states water resources. Funding of the states water management districts Water Resources Act, so Governor Askew proposed an ad valorem tax structuring to help levy funding towards the districts (Swihart, 2011; Carriker & Borisova, 2009; & Cristalki, 1996). The development of the states water management at 11:59 PM on December 31, 1976 (Figure 2.9). According to Swihart (2011, page 32), In the relatively short period of 1971-1975, Florida has experienced a major drought, rewrote the fundamental water law of the state, created a statewide system of water management districts, and had given the new institutions a stable source of funding. 2.4.2.1 :: Florida Water Resources Act of 1972 is the most prominent water policy in the state of Florida. Currently, the Water Resources Act is enacted policy under Florida Statue 373 and elaborates on the states water resource plan; permitting of consumptive uses; well regulation; taxation; miscellaneous provisions; and water supply policy, planning, production, and funding. As enacted by the federal government, the states Department of Environmental policies and regulations required by those of the Clean Water Acts sections 303(d), 305(b) and 402. Concurrently, Table 2.6 :: evaluation processes of assessing Floridas water bodies under Clean Water Acts 303(d) and 305(b).

PAGE 44

the Water Resources Act to work in conjuncture with other land acts that help protect and promote water resource water resource degradation and how in conjuncture with the Florida Forever Act, help further success of water management, over the years, the Legislature has created numerous programs and funded several initiatives intended to restore, conserve, protect, and manage Floridas water resources and the lands and ecosystem associated with them. Although these programs and initiatives yielded individual successes, the overall quality of Floridas water resources continues to degrade; natural systems associated with surface waters continue to be altered or have been systems remain doubtful, (Water Resources, Florida Statute 373.199(1)). The Saint Johns River Water Management District is the Floridas Water Resources Act of 1972. Primarily the water management district becomes the interface of research and community outreach for the establishment, carrying Department of Environmental Protection. Also, as sanctioned include: Regulatory Delegations, Land Management/ Acquisition Delegations, Procurement Delegations, Water Control Plans and Amendments, Time Sensitive Actions, Loaning of District Equipment, Volunteer Service Agreements, Petitions for Administrative Hearings, Statement of Agency Organization and Operation, Workforce and Workplace Management, and Execution of Documents (SJRWMD, 2013). Figure 2.9 :: As determined by Florida Statute 373.069, the creation of the Water Management Districts helped better execute water resource guide.com

PAGE 45

45 By overviewing and understanding the hierarchical structure from Federal, State, and District public policy and delegated appointments, water resource management has in the midst of strengthening policies and regulations, Florida Statute 373.199(1) begins to address the issues with existing top-down public policy by stating Floridas water resources continual degrade, environmental quality declines, and the future prospect of adequate water quality for environmental stability and human consumption remains doubtful. as top-down command-and-control regulation. Federal government agencies and entities created a precedent of environmental policy characterized by pushing powers to state and local governments, fragmentation of authorities, and strict ambitions. Essentially, the disconnected authorities and state control of environmental requirements limit hierarchy of power by granting states majority of the power. Congruently, with the urgency of the USEPAs foundation and ambitious early endeavors, disarray caused for protests and congressional oversight. Most importantly, the command-and-control regulation of environmental policy was fragmented. Richard Nixon is quoted on his argument for the USEPA as pollutants being in an interrelated system that inexhaustibly transfers from water, air, soil, and wildlife; being a strong argument, why is permitting for water wells, air pollution, septic systems, agriculture, and development all separated (John, 1994)? William Shutkin (2001) quotes Mark Dowies Losing Ground: American Environmentalism at the Close of the 20th Century stating, If the overriding objective of environmental activism is protection of the entire environment, the traditional environmental movement was no more than half a movement. Limited from the start, it was almost obsessively oriented towards wilderness, public land, and natural resources conservation, (Dowie, page xiii). This approach completely negates localized environmental issues that directly impact public health and other environmental problems endemic to many American communities, (Shutkin, 2001). Continuing forward into a modern age of environmentalism for public policy, command-and-control practices including local support. Existing top-down policies havent avoided detrimental environmental catastrophe to the Nations water resources, but merely lessened the degree of environmental decline. foreshortening horizon and limitations to existing top-down policies. Researchers and theorists, such as Robert Thayer (2003) and Doppelt et al (1993), argue for complimentary approach to existing policies by integrating a stronger bottom-up approach to water resource planning. According to Doppelt et al (1993) and John (1994), strategic policy reforms need to incentivize community participatory engagement in active restoration events and jobs. Currently, USEPA requires states to engage in community participation; but the required interactions are limited and sparse, limiting education value. One of the most basic reasons is that through a channel. This view fails to appreciate the actual

PAGE 46

in failed policies, (Doppelt et al., 1993, page 7). Therefore Doppelt et al. (1993) propose a new strategy to approach water resource planning and protection as a watershed approach, utilizing the dynamics, biology, and function of the environment through programs that educate, empower, and reconnect community members back to their environment. Existing top down environmental policies have compartmentalized humans capacity of understanding our bioregional locations. The incongruity between our culturally constructed districts, zones, and networks and the natural abiotic and biotic tendencies of the lands upon which we live can be traced to the ways in which we understand where we are. To a great extent, we have forgotten where we live because we have ignored the natural dimension of the land, (Thayer, 2003, page 8). Political boundaries are unrepresentative of natural boundaries; even Saint Johns River Water Management District isnt a direct representation of the natural drainage basin of the Saint Johns River. Therefore, in congruency with Doppelt et al., (1993) and Thayer (2003), a new policy system incorporating the natural dimension of the land and community engagement, reparticipatory planning. 2.5 :: Community Engagement and Civic Environmentalism The attachment and understanding of environmental cognition becomes a pivotal role in place-based planning. Jane Jacobs (1961) book entitled Death and Life of Great American Cities and Herbert Gans (1968) People and Plans: awareness to theoretical approaches of community dynamics in American planning. Furthermore, Manzo and Perkins (2006) state how Jacobs and Gans work explores the relevancy of place-based planning, but, planning literature has largely neglected exploration of these critical connections, to environmental cognition, (Manzo & Perkins, 2006, page 336). Typical approaches to environmental planning focus dynamics between community and government agencies (Manzo & Perkins, 2006). But Shutkin (2001), Robert Thayer (2003), and Manzo & Perkins (2006) introduce the importance of what is described as the intra-psychic phenomena and linking our community perceptions of place towards a grounded approach to ecological community planning and engagement. The three existential questions, Who am I? Where am I? and What am I supposed to do? are directly related to the grounded theory of participatory action (Thayer, 2003). The existence of place, the social a space, disputatiously has the ability to answer the existential questions and create a stronger sense of community and empowerment. Manzo & Perkins (2006) relate the relevancy of grounding to a stronger sense of community by generating trust, social connections, shared concerns, and community values for the advent of cohesive community participation of environmental planning. Unfortunately the theoretical structure of instigating community participation planning for environmental concerns is merely theoretical, with limited large-scale practice. The approach of participatory planning is an extensive tenure and investment of time, requiring the near

PAGE 47

47 alignment of community beliefs and values. Currently local clubs, organizations, and other interest groups are continually advocating for their interest, but limited coordination occurs with governing agencies. For successful foundations of community engagement towards complementary bottom-up environmental protection, grounding and place recognition in conjuncture with processes of public engagement must be enacted. 2.5.1 :: Grounding and Place Recognition: An approach to Bioregionalism An ecosystem perspective is interdisciplinary and holistic, recognizing the interconnections among ecosystem components. Because social and economic activities affect the environment as a whole, the ecosystem approach incorporates environmental, social, and economic elements easier said then done, to best understand the environmental interconnectedness for community engagement to make environmental planning successful, it must bring the community back into the place in which they live. As stated earlier, we have lost the ability to recognize the natural dimension of the landscape because we have exhumed ourselves from a relationship and connectedness to where we live. Through education and involvement in our natural contexts, we not only identify ourselves with the landscape, but also incorporate the environment back into our community. Robert Thayers theory on Bioregionalism is the multifaceted account of identifying the relationship we have are where we are grounded; the bioregion becomes the 2003.) Parent material, climate, sunlight availability, soil its attributes, and being able to recognize physiographic the landscape. Recognizing the landscape as being a living entity comprised of millions of interconnected relationships of both biotic and abiotic interdependencies, it is of utmost most importance for community members to realize the life outside themselves and their political realms. Our community isnt just politically drawn lines from years ago; but rather, our communities should be the entire aggregate of life within our bioregion (Beatley & Manning, 1997). Structure, stability, and vitality reside in our ability to inexhaustibly understand our home. Understanding our landscapes and recognizing our natural communities are an evolutionary guide to human distribution, for example, Native American clans were part of their environment: religion, culture, art, resources, were all By disassociating ourselves with nature through technological detachment, as described by Louv (2005) and Thayer (1994, 2003), our communities have lost the inherent linkage and language to the landscape. Machines plowed and fossil fuels have been burned, strictly for the desires of manifest destiny, which supplanted the environment with consumerism and greed. Our culture has become a parasitic phenomenon focusing on the development of our own society and life. Although our actions today can enable

PAGE 48

temporary comfort and relief through possessiveness, our widening disassociation with the environment destroys our communities by neglecting the fragilities of life necessary to live. As time passed, technological dependencies continually furthered us into a new frontier of technological detachment from nature (Louv, 2005). Needless to say, technological detachment hasnt completely disassociated us with the environment. If that were so, effort exhibited by literature, research, and public policy would not be trying to reinstitute communities with environmental consciousness and community involvement. The existence of public participation and community involvement stems from shortcomings of federal environmental policy and advocacy groups. Unfortunately the existing models of public participation are limited in approach. Therefore education paradigms and community empowerment are needed to further allow community stakeholders to understand their bioregion and interconnected relationships with the environment and our LifePlace (Thayer, 2003). 2.5.2 :: Education and empowerment are closely related to the direct response community members can have with civic environmentalism. Awareness becomes necessary for community members to fully identify themselves within the region they live. In Thomas Riedelsheimers documentary Rivers and Tides, artist Andy Goldsworthy explicitly suggests the necessity of learning ones place: I lived in places for time; it really is not enough time to understand the changes (2003) approach of bioregionalism and education by stating that we never fully understand our region, but with time we begin to learn about the landscape and environment, our LifePlace. Needless to say, the process of engaging community participatory planning should inexhaustibly continue to educate community members to better understand the landscape. Unfortunately, typical education paradigms of sender-receiver have began to fail and according to Walters and Cil (2011), more interactive approaches allow for better community engagement in education of the environment. Successful education paradigms should primarily focus on reinhabiting our communitys environment and science education as a tool for place-based participation. community members to reinhabiting our bioregion. Due to globalization weve become separated from our environment, and reeducating communities about foundation of successful community participatory action. Although it takes time and adequate nurturing, the values, and identities (Manzo & Perkins, 2006). A life-place culture, then, is an alternative mode for contemporary humanity that recognizes the limitations and potentials of the immediate regions in which people live, striving to re-localize the affections and actions of inhabitants in a manner that is socially inclusive, ecologically regenerative, economically

PAGE 49

49 The complimentary education approach to Robert Thayers Bioregional reinhabiting the ecosystem is the applied and attachment (Roth & Lee, 2003). Understanding that receiver conditions described by Walkters & Cil (2011), Roth & Lee (2003) challenge a new holistic approach to to place-based issues successfully accomplish two goals: Northwests Henderson Creek and Oceanside attracted community members to participate with the schools science projects, concurrently removing children from the classroom and introducing them to community. The approach of reinhabiting our environment and modern foundation to environmental awareness, placebased engagement, and bioregion attachment. The collective place-based awareness of community members social capital is the manifestation of shared values associated with place and further strengthen social relationships and collective community action, (Manzo & Perkins, 2006, page 344). In turn, the combination of place attachment, social capital, and community engagement develop community empowerment towards an ecological perspective on community planning and development (John, 1998; Shutkin, 2001; Thayer, 2003; and Manzo & Perkins, 2006). Engaging public unity and awareness for participatory action is a dynamic system of involvement, incentives, and most importantly, ownership. Allowing community members to understand a transparent system of government regulations, in conjuncture with orchestrating entities, helps develop a system of civic environmentalism. According to John (1994, page 45), Civic environmentalism ties these business of nonpoint pollution, prevention, and ecosystems. It uses a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory tools. It links the divergent worlds of economic development and environmental policy. And it engages citizens and experts in dialogues and learning about the relationships between our environment and our economy. Civic environmentalism openly creates a communication method for community members to be actively involved with governmental policy development (John, 1994 & Shutkin, 2001). The advent of civic environmentalism can effectively incorporate bottom-up policy endorsement needed to complimentary command-and-control government regulation. By creating a process of public engagement towards civic environmentalism, three changes to a communitys business occur (John, 1994): 1 :: Shows the ability state and federal government policies can effectively solve public issues with environmental concerns. 2 :: Increases transparency of government operations, creating an information-based society.

PAGE 50

3 :: Develops community discussions of politics jointly with sustainable LifePlace living. Unfortunately the process of effectively developing public engagement towards civic environmentalism is members towards civic environmentalism primarily targets environmental toxins and pollutants in local origins. Shutkin (2001) discusses that we are globally overwhelmed by statistics at a large scale. Global air quality has improved, endangered species have rebounded from the brink of extinction, water quality has improved; but in actuality, environmental concerns diminish in one area, but subsequently get worse in another. Rather than broad-scaled environmental policy, creating a network of bottom-up engagement increases the feasibility of approaching local environmental quality concerns. Expecting civic environmentalism to naturally occur within communities becomes only evident when environmental catastrophe occurs; for example Cuyahoga River Fire, Exxon Valdez catastrophe, Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill, and The Dust Bowl. Civic environmentalism is expected to become a tool to reduce the potential severity of catastrophes prior to their occurrence. To help orchestrate civic environmentalism efforts to work, top-down interaction is required. John (1994) mentions that top-down support to bottom-up community engagement creates an alliance and communication system between government and communities. For civic environmentalism to be successful in conjuncture with federal policies, federal and state governments must support such programs, funding, and transparencies. The success of civic environmentalism primarily relies on multiple facets, primarily education, creation of a coordinating entity, involvement, and incentives. Education as discussed in the prior section, is an essential tool for empowering community members to jointly act on environmental disparities. Education is a central component of civic environmentalism because it helps enforce the notion that environmental and social conditions are mutually reinforcing and that local communities possess the power to change their circumstances, (Shutkin, 2001, page 135). Concurrently, the limited knowledge required for understanding landscape literacy allows community members to jointly work together on monitoring local environmental conditions. With support of government involvement for development of civic environmentalism programs and funding, the creation of coordinating entities helps develop a foundation of strong bottom-up policy development. The coordinating entity becomes the mediating force, joining community members through the community engagement process. The importance of the coordinating entity creates policy transparency, works with community members with environmental education program initiatives, coordinates monitoring programs, and becomes a mediating entity of different public interest groups for the development of social capital. Beyond the coordinating entity, community involvement becomes just as important as education. Whether through community volunteer events, environmental touring, education seminars, public meetings, decision-

PAGE 51

51 making processes, and goal generating operations; community member involvement bridges gaps between interest groups, helping unify social capital. A case study on USEPAs Community Engagement Initiative: Implementation Plan 1.0 from May 2010, shows little promise in the realm of existing community engagement. Rather than describing community involvement initiatives and processes that can be taken by government entities for stakeholder participation, the Community Engagement Initiative primarily develops process of government communication methods and roundtable discussions. Little from USEPAs Community Engagement Initiative supports education and awareness. Community involvement and engagement needs to involve placebased initiatives that empower community members through education paradigms for the creation and development of locally oriented environmental goals. Through successful education paradigms and community engagement principles, civic environmentalism has the potential to become a successful and complimentary bottom-up policy tool for environmental policy. Although the principles of successful community engagement exist, incentivizing programs help rapidly stir community awareness. public engagement towards civic environmentalism exhibits remarkable strength. Public engagement towards civic environmentalism introduces a multi-directional approach of engaging community members, developers, politicians, doctors, planners, youth, and adults for successful environmental engaging community members in a dialogue to compliment community and sustainable development (John, 1994). Successes of public participatory engagement institutes ending disenfranchised public by actively striving to connect community members to a community-wide conversation, discussing community-wide issues. Civic environmentalism also demands an awareness of the distributive aspects of environmental protection and a commitment to democratic justice. It holds that democracy works best when everyone lives, works, and plays in a safe, healthy environment and that social justice implies environmental health for all, (Shutkin, 2001, page 139). environmentalism towards environmental policies far surpass typical top-down environmental policy development, by considering a wide-breadth of backgrounds and educations in an applied fashion (John, 1994; Shutkin, 2001; and Manzo & Perkins, 2006). From individual, group, community, or region, varying scales of community planning can directly turn, civic environmentalism generates higher quality policy development by incorporating an entire community at different scales to mediate local environmental issues (John, 1994, Shutkin, 2001, and Roberts, 2006). Also, according to Nancy Roberts (2006), public participation successfully educates the community, becomes therapeutic, legitimizing, protective of freedom, and innovative. Although civic environmentalism has shown success

PAGE 52

through case studies from John (1994) and Shutkin (2001), limitations still exist. With public participations goal to engage disenfranchised community members, democracy still has the ability to alienate a minorities opinion on environmental policy development. Additionally, according to Abel and Stephan (2000), civic environmentalism has the ability to work environmentalism occur with the time needed to identify common ground amongst the minorities and varying opinions (Abel & Stephen, 2000 and Roberts, 2006). Overall the conditions and quality of civic environmentalism outweighs the limitations. Through education and empowerment, community members have the ability to actively participate in local environmental concerns regarding their environment. Place attachment, place identity, and sense of community can provide a greater understanding how neighborhood spaces can motivate ordinary residents to act collectively to preserve, protect, or improve their community and participate in local planning processes, (Manzo & Perkins, 2006, page 347). Even if alienation possibly occurs through cultural differences and democracy, engaging community through an introspected approach to reinhabiting their bioregion develops a reconnect and understanding of their landscape. 2.6 :: Reading the Landscape Richard Louv (2005), Robert Thayer Jr. (2003), and Silbernagel (2005) discuss the discontinuity of social behaviors and environmental meaning by electronic detachment. Currently in a frontier of electronic detachment, the development of technology has greatly improved the standard of living throughout the entire world. Unfortunately technological development has become the new environment and we have lost connection to the natural environment. Some argue that this disconnection has created a barrier, or loss of communication with landscapes natural pattern language. The very essence of a landscapes vernacular is a combination of patterns explicitly detailing natural and anthropogenic interactions. Bioregional Patterns, as described by Thayer (2003) is founded on the principles of A Pattern Language Each pattern describes a problem which occurs over and over again in our environment, and then describes the core of the solution to that problem, in such a way that you can use this solution a million times over, without ever doing it the same way twice. Although limiting, Robert Thayer (2003) believes Bioregional Planning recognizes Bioregional principles. Just as a word expresses an individually unique literature, art, science, and expression; patterns in a landscape express a meaning, but when combined form a the landscape as an inherent ability of humans to understand embedded information in rivers, streams, forests, and prairies. A combination of shapes, smells, structure, materials, and explicitly speak a language.

PAGE 53

53 Unfortunately, Robert Thayers approach to understanding a landscapes language is limiting. By vaguely deciphering approaches to comprehending the landscape, Thayer merely suggests limitations and discovering innovative solutions (Silbernagel, 2005). On the other hand, Lewis (1996) believes the landscapes pattern language indicates deeper meaning to ecological structure by deciphering landscape patterns as indicators of health or despair. Through Silbernagel (2005, page 111) suggests it can, Link cognitive/ symbol maps to environmental data; connect sequences of symbols and patterns in place and time; give spatial form to future landscapes; and achieve ecological and cultur[al] sustainability. Primarily Lewis (1996), Thayer (2003), and Silbernagel (2005) approach landscape language from a broad, regional perspective, whereas Spirn (1998) and Alexander (1997) believe in a language occurring at an individual level. The following approach in reading the landscape, primarily introduces methods and concepts of thinking regionally, but environmental conditions. By recognizing localized and small pattern languages, someone should be able to interpret larger, regional pattern languages. 2.6.1 :: Speaking a Landscapes Language to Understand Generalized Health Typically, in the realm of landscape architecture, planning, engineering, etc, Ian McHargs premise of Design with Nature guided a sophisticated overlay system of various environmental factors. Achieving environmentally sensitive goals would help preserve and protect sensitive open space (Rome, 2001). A system of values and principles, according to McHarg, should guide positive environmental growth and patterns. From early development of McHargs overlay analysis, the foundations of ArcGIS as an environmental planning and mapping tool became an integral proponent to combining, assessing, and analyzing landscape patterns (Randolf, 2004). Through ArcGIS applications and other digital mapping programs, great strides have been made in the professional world of environmental planning. Unfortunately, mapping programs are very limited because of cost, accessibility, and training. Therefore, with the limiting conditions of ArcGIS and other mapping programs, rapid assessment models Randolf (2004, page 276), takes a quick look at problems and available information and tries to move quickly to initial action. The necessity of using localized landscape characteristics through rapid assessment models helps rapid assessment models have the potentiality in engaging community members in collective action of understand and learning their landscape, for the complimentary approach of bottom-up policies.

PAGE 54

Across the landscape, patterns communicate regional problems; being most evident with riparian corridors. As pollutants and landuse changes impact morphology, water quality, and ecosystem stability-as described in Chapter 2s Impacts of Pollutants, landscape indicators and patterns help articulate the landscapes ability to communicate a regional language. In conjuncture with Lewis (1996) and Thayer (2003), the landscapes language communicates both health or disparities and solutions to landscape issues. Thayer (2003, page 165) best states, seeds of the solution of a problem can be found in the nature of the problem itself. To best understand and recognize landscape patterns for stream health, states have funded programs that rapidly assess riparian corridors and water resources by recognizing was developed by United States Department of Agriculture in conjuncture with Natural Resources Conservation Service, called Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (SVAP). According to USDA (2009, page i), the purpose of the SVAP is to evaluate the condition of aquatic ecosystems associated with streams. The SVAP model was primarily utilized as a model for states to develop their own systems that are Application methods of SVAP with different states have become a successful method of binding landscape pattern language to generalized stream health. Brief case studies of different state programs create critical reviews of future possibilities of utilizing assessment programs to understand a landscapes language: Vermonts Rapid Stream Assessment Stacy et al., (2006), and Floridas program. 2.6.2 :: Progression and Assessment for Future Landscape Language Tools 2.6.2.1 :: Vermont Stream Geomorphic Assessment (VSGA) is part of Vermonts Watershed Management Division and Stacy et al.s (2006) stream assessment program for Utah SVAP system. The major criticisms and limitations associated with both assessment programs include the following: limited to conduct surveys, and limited accessibility to required instruments needed for survey. The associated limitations severely limit the capability of utilizing public participation in studying generalized stream health. Utilizing these existing systems for public engagement and participation towards learning the language of the landscape is infeasible; currently usage is limited to government workers and university programs (Staci Pomeroy, personal interview, March 17th, 2013). According to Staci Pomeroy of Vermonts Watershed Management Division (personal interview, March 17th, 2013), the most limiting factors to majority of stream assessment programs are public involvement. The original intention was to include public involvement to increase usage and data instruments. Immediately the survey usage was greatly diminished to trained individuals that reported their data to an online database and to local advocacy groups. Although the stream survey systems have become stream assessments is documentation and coding for unique

PAGE 55

55 streams that differ from typical stream ecosystems in each changes that occurred to Vermonts streams during the 2004 hurricane season. As streams were adjudicated with yet further chemical analysis, benthic environment studies, Therefore, identifying possible ways for stream assessment systems that can adjust to dynamic environmental conditions for coding and documentation is important. 2.6.2.2 :: Floridas LakeWatch program is very similar to the preceding assessment programs but includes monthly public workshops to become volunteer monitors of lake conditions. Unlike Vermont and Stacey et al.s assessment programs to monitor stream health, LakeWatch strives from public participation and community engagement for results. Whereas the assessment programs from Vermont and Utah assess visual characteristics of streams, LakeWatch volunteers learn to properly collect lake samples to be sent off for utilizes volunteers for collecting water samples, a disconnect of landscape literacy is still apparent. Volunteers have the inability to understand lake quality without the need of chemists to test water samples. 2.6.2.3 :: Synthesizing a program to help understand landscape patterns for generalized stream health, a series of characteristics are required. 1 :: Easily accessible to community stakeholders 2 :: Minimal materials required for testing 3 :: Couples visual characteristics to assessment program 4 :: Limited background knowledge or education required 5 :: Educates public on the landscapes pattern languages 6 :: Encourages community engagement By incorporating these requirements into a streamassessment tool, community members should have the ability to understand the language of the landscapes, visual characteristics and their relationships to health and disparities, and implications of landuse effects on stream health.

PAGE 57

chapter 3 Methodologies This sounds simple: do we not already sing our love for and obligation to the land of the free and the home of the brave? Yes, but just what and whom do we love? Certainly not the soil, which we are sending helterbarges, and carry off sewage. Certainly not the plants, of which we exterminate whole communities without batting an eye. Certainly not the animals, of which we have already extirpated many of the largest and most beautiful species. A land ethic of course cannot prevent the alteration, management, and use of existence in a natural state. -Aldo LeopoldA Sand County Almanac Rebuilding a Language with the LandscapeA Saint Johns River Blackwater Assessment Program

PAGE 58

3.1 Methodology Intent and Introduction After reviewing literature to understand the cultural resources, threats exhibited against water resources, and the limitations of existing policies trying to protect water resources; in conjunction with the theories of community engagement and reading the landscape, the research intent becomes apparent. Environmental impacts associated with continual land-use changes and the threats of nonpointsource pollutants on vital water resources nearly require a new approach and support system involving stakeholder participation for water resource protection. Although Floridas water resource threats are unyielding, the general public perception remains unaware. In response, I have developed a survey instrument for health of the Saint Johns River. Through an individuals participation in the exercise I hypothesize that their ability to read the landscape will be enhanced. Developing a methodology and assessment survey that utilizes the principles of public engagement to relearn landscape literacy becomes reasonably acceptable. Therefore, to best support the idea of understanding the language of the landscape, is an assessment tool a feasible medium to engage community members to understand generalized health of Floridas blackwater ecosystems? The methodology development should be able to answer the primary research hypothesis, as well as the following questions: 1. Can the survey instrument feasibly be used by community members? that of the control? 3. Do the answers indicate landscape pattern recognition? 4. Does the survey instrument help educate users on environmental issues in the landscape? 5. Can the assessment be used to effectively aid support for water quality and watershed health monitoring? assessment tool, the survey has the ability to create a public database of generalized stream health for the support of local advocacy groups and private landowners, to better support land-use decisions policies. Although similar systems exist (discussed in literature review), the background and environmental education required for these systems limit users and potential participatory actions. Staci Pomeroy (Personal Communication, March 15, 2013) from Vermonts Watershed Protection Division states that Vermonts Rapid Assessment Survey was primarily developed for community stakeholders to utilize, but quickly realized its impracticality due to education barriers. Therefore, Vermonts assessment system became a tool for educated watershed volunteers to communicate back to local advocacy groups. The feasibility of the blackwater assessment tool relies that effectively portrays generalized stream health. Reason being, the support of public engagement and place-

PAGE 59

59 based education with advocacy groups, students, and other community stakeholders not only relies on accuracy of results, but engaging the populous in a conversation with the landscape. If the created blackwater assessment tool is incapable of reintroducing community members with the landscape, it then becomes no different than other rapid assessment surveys. The long-term goal of the survey goes beyond feasibility, extending to the monitored long-term effects of the years, are the affects associated with blackwater assessment tool directly correlate to potential community involvement and civic environmentalism? For the thesis methodology, I will be focusing on the assessment development and feasibility to hopefully create a foundation for future research (Figure 3.1) 3.2 :: Floridas Blackwater Assessment Development Process and Methodology The Florida Assessment of Blackwater Streams (FABS) survey was developed and tested following the standards created by McDaniel and Gates (2008) book, Marketing Research Essentials, precedent studies of Vermont and Utahs stream assessment protocols, and Floridas LakeWatch program. Questions and weighting systems for FABS were constructed by utilizing SVAP, Vermont, and Utahs stream assessment protocol to determine generalized stream health in combination with the community-involvement standards described by Floridas LakeWatch. Although the largest criticisms for the precedent studies included an inability to potentially involve all community members and limited understanding of public participation, FABS will become a tool that involves community members and increase education potentiality. Additionally, the precedent studies the major goals for FABS is to engage community members with their environment for civic environmentalism. Although participant result accuracy is incredibly important, with Addressing a major criticism from the precedent studies in Chapter 2, community members had the inability to utilize SVAP, Vermont, and Utahs stream assessment surveys because of the complexity and technical jargon that required extensive training. By utilizing McDaniel and Gates standards for creating questionnaires, the process of wording clarity, survey evaluating, and survey implementation were tailored to develop FABS and the methodology process. After all, according to McDaniel and Gates (2008), a survey and questionnaire is a set of questions designed to generate the data necessary to accomplish the objectives of the research project, (page 286). 3.2.1 :: Criteria for Effective Survey Development Three criteria are required for the development of a good questionnaire to produce relevant information appropriate for the researched hypothesis: (1) Does it provide the necessary decision-making information? (2) Does it consider the responder? (3) Does it meet editing, coding, and data processing requirements? (McDaniel and Gates, 2008) 3.2.1.1 :: Does it provide the necessary decision-making information? Primarily, tailoring a survey that effectively provides enough information that adequately allows the

PAGE 60

Future Research Considerations Watershed Prioritization Interviews TMDL Review (chemical analysis) Visual Assessment Precedent Studies Literature Review Visual Assessment Protocol Developmet Correlation Review of VA with existing TMDL and Watershed Data Apply Visual Assessment What worked? What didnt work? How & Why? Inconclusive Data:: Why didnt the visual analysis work? What factors led to the inconclusive data? How could the test be completed in the future? Conclusive Data:: Why did the analysis work? What factors led to the conclusive data? Prepare for survey testing with community volunteers. Community Volunteer Events Results and Analysis Conclusions Figure 3.1 :: Above illustrates the cyclical process of the FABS methodology. The process includes literature review, control methods, assessment are able to be considered.

PAGE 61

61 principle investigator to make necessary assumptions becomes important. For the FABS survey, the intent is to control (McDaniel & Gates, 2008). 3.2.1.2 :: Does it consider the responder? Considering a responder is incredibly important for developing a valid survey. Creating a survey or questionnaire that does not consider the user could result in invalid data. Criteria required for respondent consideration must include a reasonable length survey, short enough so respondents dont become uninterested in the survey but long enough to gather enough discernible data (McDaniel & Gates, 2008). Following these guidelines that consider responder will keep participants engaged, promote accomplishment, and further interest in participants ability to comfortably complete the survey (McDaniel & Gates, 2008). As the FABS survey development progressed, considering the respondent is very critical; many terms generally associated with rapid assessment programs are very technical, so simplifying terminology and creating visual models should help reinforce responses. 3.2.1.3 :: Does it meet editing, coding, and data processing requirements? For the success of a survey, having the ability to adequately edit, code, and process data is essential. As the questionnaire development progresses, enabling the potential of simplifying, editing, and analyzing effectively analyze the recorded information. 3.2.2 :: 10 Stages to Questionnaire Development After understanding the surprisingly basic, yet important survey criteria, McDaniel and Gates (2008) introduce a 10 Step process for survey development prior to implementation. Each step portrays an integral stage of development to help ensure satisfactory responses to the implemented survey, but for the FABS survey, majority of time spent was on the the 10-step process helped the evolution of the current FABS version 1.0. 3.2.2.1 :: Stage 1 :: Determine Survey Objectives. Prior to the surveys development, determining the objectives and goals expected through respondents surveys must be while analyzing data. In order to generate inferences and assumptions regarding the hypothesis, the surveys primary objective is to assess visual landscape patterns indicating generalized stream health of Floridas blackwater ecosystems. According to McDaniel and Gate (2008), with survey development become easier. 3.2.2.2 :: Stage 2 :: Determine Data Collection Method. Typical questionnaires and survey have the ability to be collected via Internet, mail-outs, personal communication, or polling interviews. Although utilizing common methods of conducting surveys and questionnaires are rather successful, in order to harness valuable results, deciding upon a collection method is highly dependent on the research intent and strengths-weaknesses of various collection methods (McDaniel & Gates, 2008). For the FABS survey, participants and the principal investigator are required to complete paper-formatted surveys on location. Although immediately

PAGE 62

the intended research concerning Thayers (2003) theory of Bioregionalism and Louvs (2005) argument of electronic detachment. Rather than creating a hypothetical stream assessment characteristics that seeks hypothesis plausibility, engaging community stakeholders with their environment immediately supports the embodied spirit and purpose of the research project. Concurrently, typical surveys and questionnaires give insight to broad perspectives, whereas the FABS survey localized region. This perspective immediately relates back to Manzo and Perkins (2006, page 347) quote in chapter 2, place attachment, place identity, and sense of community can provide a greater understanding how neighborhood spaces can motivate ordinary residents to act collectively to preserve, protect, or improve their community and participate in local planning process. 3.2.2.3 :: Stage 3 :: Determine the Question Response Format. Similarly to the studied existing stream assessment protocols, the question-response format will consist of closedended questions and open-ended questions. The closedended questions are the most prevalent, accounting for predetermined intervals recognized through literature and precedent studies. The FABS surveys open-ended questions require numeric responses. The remaining 10% consist of open-ended which seek responses pertaining to stream generalized health of Floridas blackwater ecosystems. 3.2.2.4 :: Stage 4 :: Decide on Question Wording. development by creating consistency and embedding willingness of participants to become fully engaged in creating reliable responses. According to McDaniel and Gates (2008), clear wording, avoiding biasedness, willingness to answer questions, and most importantly the respondents ability to adequately answer a question are important for success. Although each aspect of question wording is increasingly important, creating a survey allowing for respondents to adequately answer a question is of utmost importance. Adequately responding to the survey allows for three separate effects: quality of responses, learning from the survey, and creating willingness to continually participate in the survey. Being that the survey is targeting community stakeholders, the participants will range in backgrounds, education, age, value systems, etc...Therefore, questions must eliminate mottled obscurities and jargon that may 3.2.2.5 :: Stage 5 :: Establish Questionnaire Flow and exemplary procedure to allow respondents to easily respond to the survey. McDaniel and Gates (2008) introduce detailed guidelines to allow for readability and less-intimidating surveys. For the development of the FABS survey, questions Physical Structure, Vegetation and Stream Buffer Conditions,

PAGE 63

63 Structuring, as so, allowed for respondents to easily begin of the survey, an evaluation and preliminary peer-review was completed on FABS survey to further simplify and create feasibility potential of completing the survey with respondents (Appendix 1). 3.2.2.6 :: Stage 6 :: Evaluate Questionnaires. McDaniel and Gates (2008) express the redundancy of stage 6 due to the detailed amount of time spent on question development. Questionnaires need to be evaluated on a holistic approach examining question necessity, length of questionnaires and/ information. For the development of the FABS survey, evaluations were conducted on the survey questions to limit redundancies in question content, increase survey readability, measured in participants ability in recognizing landscape indicators. Similarly, evaluating FABS required a consistent questioning format; therefore multiple questions were canopy cover over stream, percentage of ground cover on etc...) to ensure ease of survey completion with respondents. 3.2.2.7 :: Stage 7 :: Obtain approval of all relevant parties is another critical role in the development of the survey. Both McDaniel and Gates (2008) and University of Floridas policy with the Institution Review Board state necessity of project approval. The primary purpose of stage seven is to receive critiques from project managers, advisory FABS, the principal investigator had to seek approval from three separate levels of hierarchy: (1) Thesis Committee, (2) University of Floridas Institutional Review Board, and (3) Floridas Forest Service. Each party that required approval was for separate reasons, the thesis committee acted as an advisory board reviewing the quality of survey questions, University of Floridas Institutional Review Board is a required process by university bylaws for any survey to be conducted with human subjects, and Floridas Forest Service required research permits for the actual community volunteer days during survey implementation. 3.2.2.8 :: Stage 8 :: Pretest & Revise was the most enjoyable aspect of the thesis project. This portion of the questionnaire is primarily for investigators to conduct the survey to identify any issues pertaining lack of continuity, poor skip patterns, additional alternatives for precoded and closed-ended questions, and general respondent reaction to the interview, (McDaniel & Gates, 2008, page 309). Although the FABS survey is developed for slightly different reasons targeted with McDaniel and Gates (2008) stages to questionnaire development, stage eight became the most crucial aspect in adjudicating feasibility of the survey. The following section of chapter three, concluding the stages of the survey development, fully details the adjudication process of FABS. This becomes especially 3.2.2.9 :: Stage 9 :: Prepare Final Questionnaire Copy. Completing the pretest and revisions, the principal

PAGE 64

coding, and other necessary adjustments needed before implementing the survey with community stakeholders on an 3.2.2.10 :: Stage 10 :: Implement the Survey. Stage ten became the phase of the survey and methodology development that begins to test the thesis projects hypotheses. The intention of McDaniel and Gates (2008) is to have all surveys and questionnaires fully realized and prepared to increase effectiveness of results and anticipated data collection. To further analyze and study the methodology process for conducting FABS on a Implementation Process (Stage 10). 3.3 :: FABS Survey Testing (Stage 8) In order to successfully test the feasibility of FABS survey to indicate generalized health of Floridas blackwater ecosystems, a series of testing was required. The process was relatively simple, but required nearly 50 hours and 30 paddled miles on various blackwater ecosystems. By developing stream selection criteria and control methods, the FABS survey underwent validation tests. 3.3.1:: Control Development Stream Criteria criteria: state water quality assessments, TMDL information (303[d]), similar geomorphic characteristics, accessibility, and navigability. To identify the control streams, each criterion data collected through FABS. By utilizing the states existing data for watershed prioritization and 303(d) TMDL information, impairments, restoration efforts, and streams regarded as relatively healthy. identifying stream controls. To do so, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservations Commissions Center for Spatial Analysis (FWC) (2008) generated a watershed approach to mapping threats of Floridas freshwater habitats by considering factors including nutrient loading, surface water withdrawal, road densities, land use characteristics, channelization, etc. Although limited watershed assessments have been conducted in Florida, according to FWC (2008), Randolf (2004), and Dr Brian Lee (Personal Communication, January 12, 2013), watershed assessment utilizes GIS practices to spatially recognize landscape patterns at various scales to gain a basic understanding of landscape conditions, in order to develop environmental planning, regional planning, or landscape impairment recognition. Therefore, watershed prioritization was conducted by geospatially identifying a varying range of conditions through FWCs (2008) Mapping Threats to Florida Freshwater Habitats. less threatened and 6 being the most threatened (Figure 3.2). After analyzing the stream conditions conducted by FWC, Creek, Little Econlockhatchee River, Econlockhatchee River, and McCoy Creek (Figure 3.3). in selecting control streams for the FABS survey. Concluding

PAGE 65

65 of South Fork of Black Creek (WBID 2415c), Orange Creek (WBID 2457), Little Econlockhatchee River (WBID 3001), Econlockhatchee River (WBID 2991A), and McCoy Creek (WBID 2257), TMDL review will prioritize streams based on varying conditions of impaired water assessments. To accomplish TMDL reviews, the principal investigator analyzed Florida Department of Environmental Protections Water Quality Status Reports (2003b, 2004, & 2005) for the Middle Saint Johns River Basin, Lower Saint Johns River Basin, and Ocklawaha River Basin. 3.3.1.3 :: Similar Geomorphic Characteristics to improve the accuracy of the survey with the control streams, similar geomorphic characteristics help limit landscape variables that could potentially negatively impact stream results. Therefore, identifying annual stream length for creating enough survey samples. 3.3.1.4 :: Accessibility and Navigability was the easily access and navigate the studied streams. After a series of reading online blogs, forums, and social media sites, previous paddling events and groups posted about paddling sections of each stream; therefore verifying accessibility and navigability for each stream. Figure 3.2 :: prioritization system. Orange Creeks watershed was ranked a 2.00, South Fork of Black Creek was ranked a 2.00, Econlockhatchee River was ranked 2.57, and Little Econlockhatchee River was ranked a 2.85. L e g e n dF W S W a t e r s h e d P r i o r i t i za t i o n 1 1 4 2 8 5 7 1 4 2 8 5 7 1 1 4 2 8 5 7 2 1 8 5 7 1 4 3 1 8 5 7 1 4 4 2 1 4 2 8 5 7 2 1 4 2 8 5 8 2 5 7 1 4 2 9 2 5 7 1 4 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 7 1 4 2 8 6 F l o r i d a C o u n t y B o u n d a r i e s 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 1 0M i l e s FWC Watershed Prioritization

PAGE 66

Concluding control selection, the FABS survey was to be tested. Testing the FABS survey was to verify its ability to accurately depict the generalized stream health indicated by the controls. This immediately became the most critical point of the thesis project. to those of the control, the thesis project would not have been able to move to the next stage of survey implementation. Indicated by the control selection, the selected controls were ranked based on FWCs prioritization and existing TMDL information from Floridas Department of Environmental Protection from most impaired to least impaired: Little Econlockhatchee River, Econlockhatchee River, South Fork of Black Creek, and Orange Creek. Testing the control streams required a methodology that would equally assess each stream with FABS. Testing FABS was conducted on four separate days that exhibited similar weather patterns during Floridas dry-season to make sure all streams were assessed on an equal basis. Transecting the streams in kayak or canoe along each stream segment, FABS was conducted 10 separate times at equally spaced distances. Each point was assessed in a 100-yard radius. Conducting multiple tests along a stream increased reliability of results that indicated the generalized stream health. Creek. On a sunny Saturday morning and due to L e g e n d M a j o r H i g h w a ys < a l l o t h e r va l u e s> E co n l o ckh a t ch e e R i ve r L i t t l e E co n l o ckh a t ch e e R i ve r O r a n g e C r e e k S o u t h F o r k B l a ck C r e e k S a i n t J o h n s R i v e r W a t e r s h e d S t Jo h n s R i ve r W a t e r sh e d M a j o r W a t e r b o d i e s C o u n t y B o u n d a r i e s 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 5M i l e s L e g e n dM a j o r H i g h w a ys < a l l o t h e r va l u e s> E co n l o ckh a t ch e e R i ve r L i t t l e E co n l o ckh a t ch e e R i ve r O r a n g e C r e e k S o u t h F o r k B l a ck C r e e k S a i n t J o h n s R i v e r W a t e r s h e d S t Jo h n s R i ve r W a t e r sh e d M a j o r W a t e r b o d i e s C o u n t y B o u n d a r i e s 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 5M i l e s S. Fork Black Creek Orange Creek Econlockhatchee Little Econ Figure 3.3 :: studied stream sections in the Saint Johns River Watershed.

PAGE 67

67 navigability issues and stream blockages, only seven points were collected with FABS. The put-in was on County Road 21 north of Orange Springs and continued to the Ocklawaha River. The following day, South Fork of Black Creek was assessed. Unlike Orange Creek, all ten points were conducted and put-in occurred at County Road 218 in Middleburg, Florida. The following weekend The Little Econlockhatchee River was assessed and completed all 10 points. The Little Econlockhatchee River assessment began at County Road 419 in Oviedo, Florida and headed upstream towards Orlando, Florida. The following week, Econlockhatchee River was assessed between County Road 419 and Snowhill Road in Oviedo, Florida. Concluding the control tests, the data was tabulated and analyzed to help verify the feasibility of FABS (Appendix 3). Utilizing an equal weighting method, the results of FABS accurately depicted the ranking system of the control Chart 3.1 :: The above is the calculated results from the testing phase of FABS on the selected control streams. Clearly a strong correlation is seen in stream health, as compared to the controls. The only disclaimer, FWS program prioritizes from 1 6 with 1 being the best; whereas FABS is 1 10 with 10 being the best. Table 3.1 :: The FABS control results the anticipated generalized stream health of each studied stream reach. With a low standard of error and standard deviation, the consistency of potentiality of depicting generalized stream health.

PAGE 68

streams with an average standard of error, 2.47% (Chart 3.1 & conditions create overlapping assessment values from each stream, the analyzed trends indicate feasibility of the FABS survey providing itself as a tool for assessing generalized stream health of Floridas blackwater ecosystems. 3.3.3 :: Final Revisions and Survey Adjustments Prior to introducing FABS survey for the implementation process, minor edits and revisions were created. Through personal use of FABS survey by the principal investigator, the and accuracy of responses. Most changes dealt with wording and formatting; concurrently, generic thumbnail images were added to help respondents gauge percentages and slopes of a streams geomorphic structure. 3.4 :: Survey Implementation Process (Stage 10) of FABS, McDaniel and Gates (2008) conclude that Stage 10 should begin the implementation process. Survey implementation will begin the stage of utilizing community volunteers to test the FABS on an indicated stream. This phase of the methodology is structured to allow the principal investigator to create assumptions and results towards answering the research hypothesis and auxiliary questions. 3.4.1 :: Preparing Community-Volunteer Events for FABS Implementation Prior to engaging community members with the survey implementation process, a series of tasks needed to be completed. These tasks included study stream selection, event advertisements, and control point selection. For the sake of simplicity and conducting the community event, Econlockhatchee River was selected as the community study stream due to its accessibility and navigability. Econlockhatchee River is a commonly paddled river in the Orlando area by families and weekenders; therefore the stream is relatively clear of debris, considered safe, and provides public infrastructure to support parking, put-ins, and take-outs. Additionally, the studied stream primarily bisects through Little Big Econ State Forest and this research does not require permitting; yet, to be on the safe side, a research permit was obtained through the Florida Forest Service. Concluding stream selection for the communityvolunteer event, planning and advertising were needed to provide enough volunteers in order to make accurate conclusions pertaining the hypotheses. For the communityvolunteer event two dates were selected, February 16th and March 9th, 2013, yielding a total of 16 community volunteers. The February 16th event collected only 5 complete datasets event disrupting points. Therefore the March 9th, 2013 event was scheduled to obtain further datasets to conceivably make assumptions about the hypotheses and yielded 11 participants. To help locate volunteers for the study, advertisement of the community-volunteer event utilized convenience and media-outlets to recruit volunteers. Convenience volunteers were those contacted via word-of-mouth, and media-outlet advertisements utilized Facebook, special interest groups,

PAGE 69

69 and Meetup.com. Luckily, special interest from Sierra Clubs Central Florida Chapter helped orchestrate volunteer recruitment for the March 9th volunteer event by providing an additional recruitment facilitation media. 3.4.2 :: Control Point Selection on Econlockhatchee River Similarly to the development process of the FABS survey, than using watershed prioritization and TMDL information, completion of FABS survey. The answers generated by the investigator would help cross-reference community-volunteer results in order to help identify the plausibility and accuracy of community stakeholders utilizing the assessment tool. Therefore, control point selection occurred the day prior to the event to allow the principal investigator to adequately complete the FABS survey. were selected and marked with surveying tape along the Econlockhatchee River, and a simple list of criteria helped locate control points: availability of participants to easily enter and exit canoes /kayaks, relatively similar characteristics on both sides of the stream, and straightened sections of the stream (Figure 3.6 :: Map of Survey Points on Econ). These criteria were selected to help encourage volunteers to interact and immerse themselves into the landscape, engagement of the volunteers. 3.4.3 :: Community-Volunteer Testing Methodology The testing methodology for the community-volunteers was conducted utilizing the same method used during FABS control studies on Orange Creek, South Fork of Black River, Econlockhatchee River, and Little Econlockhatchee River. Thanks to Boy Scouts of Americas North Florida Council, participants were able to transect the Econlockhatchee River in canoes rather than completing the surveys from shore. The community-volunteer event began with an introduction to explain the purpose of the study and what the participants will be expecting throughout the course of the event. Immediately following every participant completed a multiple-choice pre-questionnaire so the principal investigator would be able to have a baseline reading of participants understanding of landscape literacy. Once the prequestionnaire was completed, a FABS packet that included a survey, answer sheet, map, and pens were distributed amongst all the participants and a brief orientation on how to complete the survey was given. Immediately following participants began conducting the FABS on the Econlockhatchee River. As a precaution, the principal investigator did not paddle the river with the participants to The marked points along the river were conducted exactly like the principal investigator tested the FABS survey on the study streams. Each point was tested in a 100-yard ensure safety of all participants, boats were sent in groups and community-volunteers were paired up based on canoeing experience. As the participants concluded the surveys along and completed the multiple-choice post-questionnaire.

PAGE 70

Figure 3.4 :: The above map is the Econlockhatchee River in Oviedo, Florida, with the locations utilized during the community-volunteer event. starting point, the Little Econlockhatchee River merges with Econlockhatchee River, becoming a major deposition point of anthropogenic inputs. Snow Hill Road County Road 419 Geneva Drive

PAGE 71

71 The questionnaire was developed to help analyze the participants ability understand landscape indications before and after the assessment process. The purpose of the pre and post-assessment was to allow the principal investigator to recognize any indicators of participants ability in reading the landscape increasing while conducting the survey (Appendix 3).

PAGE 73

chapter 4 Results & Analysis Fresh beauty opens ones eyes wherever it is really seen, but the very abundance and completeness of the common beauty that besets our steps prevents its being absorbed and appreciated. It is a good thing, there fore, to make short excursions now and then to the bottom of the sea among dulse and coral, or up among the clouds on mountain-tops, or in balloons, or even to creep like worms into dark holes and caverns under ground, not only to learn something of what is going on in those out-of-the-way places, but to see better what the sun sees on our return to common everyday beauty -John MuirThe Mountains of California Rebuilding a Language with the LandscapeA Saint Johns River Blackwater Assessment Program

PAGE 74

4.1 :: Introduction A landscape has the unique ability to communicate a visual language, but with the environmental disconnect occurring within our culture, is it possible for people to relearn the language of the landscape? The development of the FABS survey was to help re-introduce the community with Floridas blackwater ecosystems for the sake of rebuilding, redeveloping, reeducating, and relearning the landscapes language. In turn, could the survey become an advocacy tool towards civic environmentalism enabling community empowerment and progress towards more sustainable land use regulations and practices? By completing community-volunteer events, the analyzed data and responses should help indicate the plausibility of FABS as a community-oriented tool for understanding the generalized health of stream systems. To effectively analyze and display the respondents surveys, the survey responses will be separated into the different sections from the survey and display the following information: 1. Questions 2. Correct/Incorrect percentages from each study point 3. If the *popular answer was consistent with the control 4. Analysis of sections results Following the analysis of each section in FABS, an overall discussion of results will be conducted. Concluding the analysis, an overview of the pre-post survey questionnaire knowledge gained from completing the event. 4.2 :: FABS Survey Analysis 4.2.1 :: Section I :: : Streams Physical Structure Question 1: What is the perceived angle of the stream bank? Question 2A: Bank Full Dimensioning Bank full dimensioning conditions were tested at each point and reavealed a consistent measurement of the control with a varience of 0.13. For consideration of accuracy, Bank full dimensioning needed to maintiain less than a 0.20 difference in participants bank full ratio to the control. (water depth/ Question 2B: Channelization characteristics / *Note DL denotes downstream left and DR denotes downstream right. n = 16 *Note DL denotes downstream left and DR denotes downstream right. n = 16 The popular answer is the most selected answer for each question. For example question 1 at control point 1, majority of the participants selected the correct response and in this instance was consistent with the control. But downstream rightside question 2 with control point 1 popular answer was not consistent with the control.

PAGE 75

75 Question 3: Are there any erosion issues? Question 4: What is the perceived soil type of the stream bank? Question 5: What is the approximate width of the area Question 6: Is there any noticeable agitation along the studied stream section? Question 7: Are there any areas of still water (pools) present within the studied stream? Section I Analysis: Section one of FABS survey focused on the geomorphic structure of the stream. Analyzing the geomorphic structure helped indicate erosion potentiality, existing channelization conditions, and habitat structure. is closely related through an interconnected relationship of independent-dependent variables. For example, bank / / / *Note DL denotes downstream left and DR denotes downstream right. n = 16 *Note DL denotes downstream left and DR denotes downstream right. n = 16 / *Note DL denotes downstream left and DR denotes downstream right. n = 16 n = 16 n = 16

PAGE 76

slope is closely related to channelization type, channelization banks slope. After analyzing each respondents results from each control point under section I of the FABS survey, the surveys averaged 53.13% correct responses. Although a low-indication, popular answer results amongst all the points under section I was 90.00% consistent with the control. The lowest percent of correct responses were recognizing existing erosion conditions in question three. The highest success rate was with question 5 which indicated recognition of because participant discussions concluding the recognition. Finally, section I responses did not indicate growth in landscape recognition as the survey progressed through each control point because of the variance in correct response rates. s 4.2.2 Section II: Vegetation and Stream Buffer Characteristics Question 1: What is the streambank vegetation? Question 2:What is the approximate vegetative stream buffer width? Question 3: What is the predominant vegetation characteristic of the buffer? n = 16 x/x *Note DL denotes downstream left and DR denotes downstream right. n = 16 x/x / *Note DL denotes downstream left and DR denotes downstream right. n = 16 x/ *Note DL denotes downstream left and DR denotes downstream right. n = 16

PAGE 77

77 Question 4: What is the approximate tree canopy cover percentage over the stream? Question 5: What is the approximate tree canopy percentage Question 6: What is the approximate density of the Section II Analysis: The second section of the FABS survey assessed the vegetation qualities potentially impacting generalized stream health. Similarly to section I, section II a stream from nutrient inputs, erosion control, and natural moderation of dissolved oxygen levels. Each question, again, are interconnected with one another; but for section II, the questions indicated preventative characteristics from geomorphic degradation. Results gathered from respondents section II data indicate a 51.75% correct response rate with a 83.63% popular answer result. The result patterns indicated a moderate accepted response rate for the FABS survey. The lowest response rate was with the participants accuracy The highest correct response rate was indicating vegetation characteristics of stream buffers with a 63.18% and a 90% popular answer response. Although section I showed no progress with respondents landscape recognition, section II begins to recognize minor trends in landscape recognition as participants completed the control points. n = 16 *Note DL denotes downstream left and DR denotes downstream right. n = 16 *Note DL denotes downstream left and DR denotes downstream right. n = 16 n = 16

PAGE 78

4.2.3 :: Section III: Land Use Characteristics Question 1: What types of surrounding land uses are visible? Question 2: Are there any roads nearby? Section III Analysis: Section III primarily addresses surrounding land use characteristics. Land use characteristics are good indicators of potential impairments. For example comparing the impacts of urban environments and dense forested environments exhibit different potential degradation on riparian systems. Concurrently, the presence of roadway types at varying densities can indicate riparian stream degradation occurring from stormwater runoff and nonpointsource pollutants. Section III had a much higher rate of correct answers. Analyzing the data showed an average 99.38% correct response rate with a 100% popular answer result rate. The success rate of Part III can be attributed to the familiarity patterns. Although achieving high success rates of pattern recognition, are the participants able to correlate landuse patterns and their potential impacts on stream health? Ideally the questionnaire analysis will be able to adequately answer this question. Question 1: How may noticeable drain pipes can be seen within 100 feet of the stream? *Note DL denotes downstream left and DR denotes downstream right. n = 16 *Note DL denotes downstream left and DR denotes downstream right. n = 16 n = 16 n = 16

PAGE 79

79 Question 2: Is there any noticeable algae accumulation along stream bank or on anything within the streambed? Question 3: Is there any noticeable garbage or trash along the stream? Question 4: Are there any signs of cattle or livestock interaction? Question 5: Are there any signs of human recreation in or along the stream? (Optional) Question 6: Using a Secchi Disk, test the apparent water clarity. This question was removed from the community-volunteer event because the Econlockhatchee River was too low to effectively measure turbidity. n = 16 x n = 16 n = 16 x n = 16

PAGE 80

helped unearth future questions to ask. By analyzing all the data, the results should be able to indicate feasibility of community members utilizing FABS, ability of community development in landscape pattern recognition. Firstly, Graph 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 display the results gathered from the overall community-volunteer event. Each similarities, and improving accuracies and precisions of the groups results. Graph 4.1 (% indicators equal to control) displays that the total percent correct responses remained relatively consistent, yet the standard of error with each control point slowly diminished throughout the study, which indicate increasingly accurate responses. Graph 4.2 displays the % popular answer results throughout the course of the accuracy with popular answer, but as the study progressed the initial 80% popular answer rate increased to 96.66%. Graph 4.3 maps the popular answer results by survey sections. Section IV Analysis: within the landscapes riparian systems. By recognizing direct towards the generalized health of a stream. For instance, cattle and livestock, although associated with agriculture landuse, livestock have the potential of causing substantial stream degradation with fecal coliform, erosion, and vegetation losses. Overall, the percent correct rate of respondents surveys is 73.32% with a popular answer response rate of 88.00%. The lowest results are associated with question Seeming the low percent of correct response rates for human recreation was rather peculiar, further reviews of the responses indicate many participants choose camping as a common recreation activity amongst the control point. Although camping was common along the Econlockhatchee River, it was not present at the control points, therefore Countering the low correct response rate, question one and question four received a 100% correct response rate. Question 6 was omitted for the community volunteer event because stream depth prohibited accurate turbidity measurements with a Secchi Disk. 4.2.4 :: FABS Survey Comprehensive Respondent Analysis The overall assessment of FABS results from the community-volunteer events showed positive results. to indicated successes with majority of the hypotheses and n = 16

PAGE 81

81 Graph 4.1 Analyzing each individual response from all 16 participants (n=16) at each control point exhibits a consistent accuracy of results indication of increasing accuracy. Yet, considering the weighting through the diminishing standard-of-error. Although correct response percentages were relatively consistent, volunteers indicated landscape pattern recognition with the increasing precision. Graph 4.2 Popular answer results are the most selected response from all participants for each question at each control point. Once the point, they are compared to the control results. At the advent of the community-volunteer events, participants scored an 80.00% popular answer results by answering 24 of 30 possible answers correctly. As the event progressed, participants were scoring a 96.66% popular answer result. The linear increase of 5.67% indicated that participants popular answers were accurately depicting the generalized health of the control points. Graph 4.3 (Left) Similar to graph 4.2, graph 4.3 looks at the % popular answers by survey sections rather than by control point.

PAGE 82

Individual respondent accuracy was statistically survey were to be utilized as a collaborative, open-source tool amongst community members, their collective results would be able to accurately depict the generalized health of Floridas blackwater ecosystems. This, in turn, when used in a tool for community members to accurately assess stream health and develop landscape pattern recognition. in quality. Yes, the FABS survey can be used within the community, but does utilizing the tool allow community members to better understand landscape relationships and water quality issues? Questionnaire analysis should begin to indicate plausibility in the educational value of the FABS survey. 4.3 :: Questionnaire Analysis As indicated before, positive correlations between respondents survey results indicate the plausibility of utilizing the FABS survey on the landscape. Being able to verify the relationship of the survey as a potential education tool to developing meaning and pattern recognition is very important. The FABS survey indicates the participants gaining an ability to recognize landscape patterns, but truly reading the meaning of the landscape promotes a higher level of literacy. Analyzing the questionnaires results from all the participants should hopefully show a positive correlation between pre and post questionnaire results. Graph 4.4 shows the average results of the participants who completed the community-volunteer event (Appendix or 0.375 points. By completing a statistical T-Test, the questionnaire results a T-Value of 1.21 and is considered educational value of FABS survey for increasing landscape literacy comprehension is not technically considered implausible. Even with a small growth in questionnaire results, certain considerations can be applied to better test educational value of the FABS survey; for instance, increasing sampling size or creating a brief educational/training session to better understand the survey. Graph 4.4 (n = 16)

PAGE 83

chapter 5 Discussion & Conclusions The meanings of landscapes hold are not just metaphorical and metaphysical, but real, their messages practical; understanding may spell survival or extinction. Losing, or failing to hear and read, the language of the landscape have always coexisted. Relearning the language of the landscape that holds life in place is an urgent task. -Anne SpirnThe Language of Landscape Rebuilding a Language with the LandscapeA Saint Johns River Blackwater Assessment Program

PAGE 84

5.1 :: Overview Re-learning the language of the landscape is becoming exponentially important. As society, culture, and technology evolve, a separation from environmental consciousness dissolves the transparent landscape. Richard Louv (2005) elevates the modern issue of electronic detachment caused by the disenfranchisement of environmental perspective catalyzed by electronic dependencies. Similarly, Robert Thayer (1994), Yi-Fu Tuan (1989), Anne Sprin (2009), and Beatley & Manning (1997) argue the landscape exhibits a natural language and transparency that all could once understand. To avoid transgressing into a society disassociated with environment, Robert Thayer (2003) challenges our communities to relearn about their LifePlace, or bioregion. In an effort towards relearning a landscapes language, could a community assessment tool help educate environmental conditions and reestablish a language of the landscape? Throughout the introductory theoretical foundations and literature review of the graduate terminal project, the basis for the development of a community assessment tool for Floridas blackwater ecosystems entitled Florida Assessment of Blackwater Streams, became apparent. Analyzing cultural threats to water resources, criticisms towards existing environmental policy, community education practices for civic environmentalism, and reading the landscape created a systematic foundation for such a tool to exist. As the study progressed, the FABS survey was tested to verify plausibility. This included a comparison of survey results against a control on various blackwater ecosystems in the Saint Johns River Basin: Orange Creek, South Fork of Black Creek, Econlockhatchee River, and Little Econlockhatchee conducted the FABS survey on the Econlockhatchee River to understand community stakeholders capability to accurately utilize the survey. The goal was to determine if the survey could become a tool that would reintroduce community members to their environment, improve landscape literacy and language comprehension, and help support civic environmentalism for bottom-up approaches that would compliment top-down policy development. 5.2 :: Project Development FABS development and established the theoretical purpose for why such a survey should exist. Chapter 3 outlines the methodology that was used. The primary question was 1. Can the survey instrument feasibly be used by community members? 2. Do the results from the community members 3. Do the answers indicate landscape pattern recognition? 4. Does the survey instrument help educate users on environmental issues in the landscape? 5. Can the assessment be used to effectively aid support for water quality and watershed health monitoring?

PAGE 85

85 5.3 :: Hypotheses Determinations:: Development and testing of the FABS survey indicated its ability to adequately assess the generalized health of Floridas blackwater ecosystems. So testing with communityvolunteers was able to proceed. After conducting two community-volunteer events, where participants canoed the Econlockhatchee River principal investigator was able to analyze results and answer the study questions. Overall the FABS survey showed evidence of success and plausibility of the hypothesis and majority of sub-hypotheses questions. Patterns of increasing accuracy of responses and diminishing standard of errors indicated the respondents comprehension improved. The increasing respondent accuracy and diminishing standard of errors was important because they indicated that the communityvolunteers began to better understand and become more comfortable with the FABS survey. survey had the ability to feasibly be used by users, results participants developed pattern recognition, allowing the survey to become a possible aid to support water quality and watershed health monitoring. Although successes were seen with majority of the research hypotheses, FABSs ability to educate volunteers on environmental issues showed to the growth, the principal investigator believes that a larger but also develops reasoning for future development of the program associated with FABS. The reason educational value is important with the FABS survey, as discussed in Chapter 2, education leads empowerment. Therefore, if further research concluded the FABS survey had a positive correlation with knowledge growth, community stakeholders are more likely to become interested in involvement with their bioregion and participate in civic environmentalism. To help promote the education value of FABS, embedding introductory education material; such as videos, allows volunteers to better read their landscape; this process is very similar to Floridas LakeWatch Program. In turn, the introductory education enables volunteers to more willingly participate in the survey at regular intervals. 5.2.3 :: FABS Application Interface Further development of the FABS survey should enhance it and link all data into a publicly accessible database. Collaboration should become the driving force of the FABS survey for multiple reasons: results indicate a high success rate and accuracy of popular answer results (the more results, higher the accuracy and precision), and collective collaboration incentivizes and instigates community involvement and participatory action. Additionally it is recommended, future development of the FABS survey to utilize a digital interface to spatially link and share results. Generation of an application to be used on smart-phones or other mobile devices would stream-line its

PAGE 86

use, enhance understanding of landscape patterns, simplify response times, geo-locate the studied location, continually update generalized health scores, and lead to improved policies for mitigating localized impacts to water quality. 5.4 :: Future Research Questions After considering the results from the development and application of FABS, future research consideration arose. There are two considerations attributed to developing further research: no research is ever capable of testing all facets of further questions. Primarily the research question answered generalized health of Floridas blackwater ecosystems, but understanding the complete impact of FABS survey takes considerable amounts of time, alterations, and further literature review. One of the future research considerations involves long-term community validation methods. Similar to the community-volunteer events, additional research should include multiple tests on multiple rivers, ideally with the same volunteers. This would further analyze and validate the potentiality of community stakeholders utilizing FABS on any blackwater ecosystem. 5.4.2 :: Stakeholder Demographics and Participant Targeting Engaging the community is of the utmost importance. Enacting the FABS survey within a community-wide application should be the primary objective beyond further validation. To better understand and develop a sound survey, focus groups and an analysis of user groups would help indicate the stakeholder demographics. Primary studies have shown that local community activist groups; such as Sierra Club, Paddling Groups, and other environment related organizations have shown interest in utilizing a survey similar to FABS. For environmental related special interest groups, utilizing the FABS survey would not provide new knowledge for its participants but it would enhance their existing knowledge. Analysis of demographic information about utilizing a FABS tool would help develop targeting guidelines to widen the breadth of participants; in essence, broadening the potential The most important research consideration employs the relationship of long-term effects of the FABS survey on community development and civic environmentalism. One similar, small-scaled project of place-attachment and civic environmentalism was presented in Roth & Leess (2003) education as empowerment in public schools with environmental science projects within the community. In binding entity to connect community members to placebased environmental issues. To determine the long term effects of the FABS survey, the researcher must become the primary mediating entity connecting community stakeholders. Acting as a type of incremental-planner for place-based civic environmentalism, the researcher would analyze the long-term effects of FABS on localized environmental policy, and community landscape literacy.

PAGE 87

87 future research consideration would take into consideration two separate testing groups that have either received an introductory course or have not received an introductory potential importance of providing educational material for the purpose of creating stronger results from the community volunteers. 5.5 :: In Closure Surveys and other forms of civic engagement similar to FABS exist but rarely capture their true potentiality and complexities of community-participation for riparian stream orchestrating stream surveys and then communicating their results through publications, journals, or state-funded websites. Although the system works, environmental linkage is not fully realized. FABS strives to reverse the environmental disconnect and reveal a transparent landscape by allowing and encouraging community stakeholders to understand the generalized health of their blackwater ecosystems. The survey can produce three major outcomes: environmental placebased recognition, ability to understand visual landscape patterns, and water-quality awareness. this study provided by Robert Thayer (1994 & 2003), Yi-Fu Tuan (1989), Anne Sprin (2009), and Beatley & Manning (1997), the landscape has a unique ability to reveal itself through visual communication and to bind itself to our social structure. Unfortunately, according to Richard Louv (2005) and Robert Thayer (1994), environmental literacy has diminished from technological advancements; Richard Louv (2005) describes the modern environmental disconnect as the third frontier of environmentalism. Based on the theories, literature review, and methodology development for FABS, results revealed a positive correlation between survey participation and improved landscape pattern recognition amongst community-stakeholders. If the FABS survey were emphasized through digital technology, the results could enhance the landscape language; creating a new frontier of technological integration. This would lead to a reattach of community members to their LifePlace and empower them to participate in environmental decision making and water resource protection.

PAGE 88

Abbott, G., Landsberg, J., Reich, A., Steidinger, K., Ketchen, S., & Blackmore, C. (2009). Resource for public health response to harmful algal blooms in Abel, T. & Stephan, M. (2000). The limits to civic environmentalism. American behavioral scientist, 44, 614-630. Adams & Ots Treaty (1819). Treaty of amity, settlement and limits between the United States of America, and his catholic majesty. Feb 22, 1819. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I., & Angel, S. (1977). A pattern language: Town, buildings, and construction. New York City: Oxford University Press. Andrews, Allen H. (1950). A yank pioneer in Florida. Jacksonville, Florida: Douglas Printing Company Atkinson, S.F., Hunter, B.A., & English, A.R. (2010). Prioritizing riparian corridors for water quality protection in urbanizing watersheds. Water resource and pro tection, 2, 675-682. Baker, L.A. (1992). Intoduction to nonpoint source pollution in the United States and prospects for wetland use. Ecological Engineering, 1, 1-26. Baker, M.W., Weller, D.E., & Jordan, T.E. (2006). Improved methods for quantifying potential nutrient interception by riparian buffers. Landscape ecology, 21, 1327-1345. Beatley, T. & Manning, K. (1997). The ecology of place: Planning for environment, economy, and community. Washington DC: Island Press Benke, A. & Cushing, C. (2005). Background and Approach. In Benke, A. & Cushing, C. (Eds,), Rivers of North America (1-18). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Aca demic Press. Carriker, R., & Borisova, T. (2009). Public policy and water in Florida. The institute of food and agriculture sciences. (EDIS document FE799). Retrieved from, Christaldi, R.A. (1996). Sharing the cup: A proposal for the allocation of Floridas water resources. Florida State law review. Retrieved from, http://www.law. fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/frames/234/chrifram.html Clem, T. (2011). Water Resource Planning: A plan for sustainable water resources. In UK KLEAR (eds.) Scott County: Looking forward. (260-281). University of Kentucky: Lexington, KY. Correll, D.L. (1983). N and P in soils and runoff of three coastal plain land uses. In R. Lowrance, R. Todd, L. Asmussen, and R. Leonard (Eds.), Nutrient cycling in agricultural ecosystems. (207-224). University of Georgia Press: Athens, Georgia. to costal waters. Estuaries. 15, 431-442. Correll, D.L., Jordan, T.E., & Weller, D.E. (1997). Livestock and pasture land effects on the water quality in Chesapeake Bay watershed streams. In K. Steele (Eds.), Animal waste and the land-water interface. (107-116). Lewis Publishers: New York Dauer, D.M., Weisberg, S.B., & Ranasinher, J.A. (2000). Relationships between benthic community condition, water quality, sediment quality nutrient laods, and land use patterns in the Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries. 23(1), 80-96. Denver Water Quality Program (2013). Point vs. non-point source pollution. Retrieved from, http://www.denvergov.org/EAP/WaterQualityProgram/Water QualityImportance/PointvsNonpointSourcePollution/tabid/424850/Default.aspx

PAGE 89

89 mary/index.cfm#territorial Doppelt, B., Scurlock, M., Frissell, C., & Karr, J. (1993). Entering the watershed: A new approach to save Americas river ecosystems. Washington D.C.: Island Press. Douglas, M.S. (1947). The Everglades: River of grass. New York City: Rinehart & Company. Francis, A. (2013). Pre-Columbian Native American land use practices around the James River watershed. Retrieved from, http://adamfrancis.net/pre-co lumbian-native-american-land-use-practices-around-the-james-river-watershed/ Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2003a). Water quality status report: Upper St. Johns. Division of water resource management. Retrieved Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2003b). Water quality assessment report: Ocklawaha. Division of water resource management. Retrieved Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2004). Water quality assessment report: Lower St. Johns. Division of water resource management. Retrieved Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2005). Water quality assessment report: Middle St. Johns. Division of water resource management. Retrieved Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2012). Integrated water quality assessment of Florida: 2012 305(b) report and 303(d) list update. Retrieved Gans, H. (1968). People and plans: Essays on urban problems and solutions. New York: Basic Books. Gibson, C. (1998). Population of the 100 largest cities and other urban places in the United States: 1790 1990. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Burea. Obtained from, http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027/twps0027.html Hardison, O.B. (1989). Disappearing through the skylight: Culture and technology in the twentieth century. New York: Viking. Haubert, J. (1998). An introduction to wild and scenic rivers. National Park Service. Retrieved from, http://www.gehwa.org/Wild%20&%20Scenic%20River%20 Files/W&S%20Rivers%20Primer.pdf Hinga, K.R., Keller, A.A., & Oviatt, C.A. (1991). Atmospheric deposition and nitrogen inputs to coastal waters. Ambio. 20, 256-260. Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House. John, D. (1994). Civic environmentalism: Alternatives to regulation in states and communities. Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc. Jones, K., Ritters, K., Wickham, J., Tankersley, R., ONeill, R., Chaloud, D., Smith, E., & Neale, A. (1997). Taking a broader view. In Environmental Protection Ag eny (Eds.), An ecological assessment of the United States mid-Atlantic region: A landscape atlas (1-16). Washington DC: USEPA 33, 2579-2590. Karr, J.R. (1991). Biological integrity: A long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecological applications, 1(1), 66-84. Kemp, W.M., Boynton, W.R., Adolf, J.E., Boesch, D.F., Boicourt, W.C., Brush, G., Cornwell, J.C., Fisher, T.R., Glibert, P.M., Hagy, J.D., Harding, L.W., Houde, E.D., Kimmel, D.G., Miller, W.D., Newell, R.I.E., Roman, M.R., Smith, E.S., & Stevenson, J.C. (2005). Eutrophication of Chesapeake Bay: Historical trends and ecological interactions. Marine ecology progress series, 303, 1-29.

PAGE 90

King, W. (2004). Through the looking glass of Silver Springs: Tourism and the politics of vision. Americana: The journal of American popular culture. 3(1). Re trieved from, http://www.americanpopularculture.com/journal/articles/spring_2004/king.htm American water resources association, 46(4), 686 699. Lajtha, K., Seely, B., & Valiela, I. (1995). Retention and leaching of atmospherically-derived nitrogen in the aggrading coastal watershed of Waquiot Bay, MA. Biogeochemistry, 28, 33-54. Leinberger, C. (2009). The option of urbanism: Investing in a new American dream. Washington DC: Island Press Leopald, A. (1949). A Sand County almanac. New York: Oxford University Press. Lewis, P. (1996). Tomorrow by design: A regional design process for sustainability. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Louv, R. (2005). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature defecit disorder. New York: Workman Publishing Company (1997). Water quality functions of riparian forest buffers in Chesapeake Bay watersheds. Environmental management, 21(5), 687-712. Lyle, J. (1985). Design for human ecosystems: Landscape, land use, and natural resources. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company: New York. Manzo, D. & Perkins, D. (2006). Finding common ground: The importance of place attachment to community participation and planning. Journal of plan ning literature, 20, 335 350. Muir, P (2013). Eutrophication. Oregon State University: BI301 human impacts on ecosystems. Retrieved from, http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/eutro phi.htm Nash, L. (1995). Water quality and health: Water in crisis. New York, NY: Oxford Press. National Park Service (1965). Land and water conservation fund act of 1965. (Public Law 88-578, Title 16) Retrieved from, http://www.nps.gov/lwcf/lwcf_act. pdf Randolf, J. (2004). Environmental land use planning and management. Washington DC: Island Press. Roberts, N. (2004). Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. The American review of public administration, 34, 315 355. Robinson, J. (1993, May 16). Steamboat built Kissimmee commerce. The Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved from, http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/ InfoWeb?p_product=AWNB&p_theme=aggregated5&p_action=doc&p_docid=0EB4F112B647165D&d_place=ORLB&f_issue=1993-05-16&f_pub lisher= Rome, A. (2001). The bulldozer in the countryside: Suburban sprawl and the rise of American environmentalism. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press Roth, M.W. & Lee, S. (2003). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science education, 88(2), 263-291. 156. Saint Johns River Water Management District (2013). Statement of agency organization and operation. Retrieved from, http://www.sjrwmd.com/organiza tion/agency_statement.pdf

PAGE 91

91 Silbernagel, J. (2005). Bio-regional patterns and spatial narratives for integrated landscape research and design. In Tress, B., Tress, G., Fry, G., and Opdam, P. (eds.) Landscape planning: Aspects of integration, education, and application. Berlin: Springer Press. Smith, C., Clayden, A., & Dunnett, N. (2008). Residential landscape sustainability: A checklist tool. Oxford: Blackwell Publications. Spanish-American War. (2013). In Encyclopdia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/558008/Spanish-American-War Stacy, P., Jones, A., Catlin, J., Duff, D., Stevens, L., & Gourley, C. (2006). Users guide for the rapid assessment of the functional condition of stream-riparian ecosystems in the American Southwest. Wild Utah project. Retrieved from, http://quiviracoalition.org/images/pdfs/1681-Rapid_Assessment_Us ers_Guide.pdf Swihart, T. (2011). Floridas water: A fragile resource in a vulnerable state. REF Press: New York. Tang, Z., Engel, B., Pijanowski, B., & Lim, K. (2005). Forecasting land use change and its environmental impact at a watershed scale. Journal of environmental management, 76, 35-45. Thayer, R. (1994). Green world, gray heart: Technology, nature, and the sustainable landscape. New York: Wiley Brothers. Thayer, R. (2003). LifePlace: Bioregional thought and practice. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Thomas, R. & Meybeck, M. (1992). The use of particulate material. In World Health Organizations (ed.) Water quality assessments: A guide to use of biota, sediments, and water in environmental monitoring, (134-181). Retrieved from, http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/resourcesquality/ watqualassess.pdf Tuan, Y. (1989). Surface phenomena and aesthetic experience. Annals of the association of American geographers. 79(2). 233-241. Turner, F.J. (1920). The frontier in American history. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company. U.S. Department of State. (2012). Settlement Patterns. Obtained from, http://countrystudies.us/united-states/geography-7.htm U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2013) Digest of federal resource laws of interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Federal water pollution control act (Clean water act). Retrieved from, http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/FWATRPO.HTML United States Congress (1968). Wild and scenic rivers act. (16 U.S.C. 1271-1287). Retrieved from, http://www.rivers.gov/rivers/documents/wsr-act.pdf United States Department of Agriculture (2009). Stream Visual Assessment Protocol Version 2. National biological handbook: Subpart B-Conservation plan ning. Retrieved from, ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/ID/technical/svap.pdf United States Environmental Protection Agency (2009). National water quality inventory: Report to Congress: 2004 reporting cycle. (USEPA publication 841-R08-001). Retrieved from, http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/cwa/305b/upload/2009_01_22_305b_2004report_2004_305Breport.pdf response. Retrieved from, http://www.epa.gov/oswer/docs/cei_imp_plan_0510.pdf United States Environmental Protection Agency (2013a). Water: Pollution prevention control. Retrieved from, http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2013b). National pollutant discharge elimination systems. Retrieved from, http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/ United States Environmental Protection Agency (2013c). Polluted runoff: Nonpoint Source Pollution. Retrieved from, http://www.epa.gov/owow_keep/nps/ cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0400903

PAGE 92

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2013e). Water: Septic systems. Retrieved from, http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic/ United States Environmental Protection Agency (2013f). Turbidity. Retrieved from, http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms55.cfm. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2013g). What is a TMDL? Retrieved from, http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/over viewoftmdl.cfm#tmdlrequired. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2013h). National pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES). Retrieved from, http://cfpub.epa.gov/np des/ United States Senate (2002b). Safe drinking water act. Retrieved from, http://epw.senate.gov/sdwa.pdf Walters, L & Cil, A. (2011). Biodiversity and stakeholder participation. Journal for natural conservation, 19, 327-329. Wohl, E. (2004). Disconnected rivers: Linking rivers to landscapes. Yale University Press: New Haven, Connecticut. http://adamfrancis.net/pre-columbian-na tive-american-land-use-practices-around-the-james-river-watershed/

PAGE 94

Appendix I:: Florida Assessment of Blackwater Streams ::

PAGE 95

1Date: ___________________________ Time of Day: _____________________ Weather: ________________________ Stream: _________________________ Approximate Location: _____________I. Streams Physical Structure 1. What is the perceived angle of the stream bank? (Downstream, Left Side) A. Shallow Slope (<30) B. Moderate (30 50) C. Steep (>50 90) D. Undercut (>90%) (Downstream, Right Side) A. Shallow Slope (<30) B. Moderate (30 50) C. Steep (>50 90) D. Undercut (>90) 2. Stream Character A. Water channel dimensions i. Approximate depth of stream (at deepest point) _________. ii. Approximate elevation change from the streams __________. i. Shallow sloped stream banks, little noticeable erosion, and vegetated stream banks ii. Deep cuts into the streambed with very noticeable erosion. iii. The stream begins to widen because there is a drastic increase of stream bank failures. terrace begins to form along the stream bank. v. Concrete or Stone Reinforced 3. Are there any erosion issues? (Downstream, Left Side) A. No visible erosion issues, protected by vegetation without built bank alterations. constructed stone banks OR Limited erosion that is protected by natural vegetation/root systems OR Past evidence of bank erosion or failures. C. Little natural protection for soil stability OR Development and structures along approximately of stream bank OR moderate erosion of streambanks. Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) Undercut Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) i. ii. iii. iv. i. ii.

PAGE 96

2 (Continued from Question I-3 on Previous Page) D. Failing stream banks with large amounts of erodibility OR Heavy amounts of built development along stream bank OR Heavy erosion of streambanks. (Downstream, Right Side) A. No visible erosion issues, protected by vegetation without built bank alterations. constructed stone banks OR Limited erosion that is protected by natural vegetation/root systems OR Past evidence of bank erosion or failures. C. Little natural protection for soil stability OR Development and structures along approximately of stream bank OR moderate erosion of streambanks. D. Failing stream banks with large amounts of erodibility OR Heavy amounts of built development along stream bank OR Heavy erosion of streambanks. 4. What is the perceived soil type of the stream bank? (Downstream, Left Side) A. Bedrock (Resistant to erosion) B. Boulder/Cobble C. Gravel D. Sand E. Silt/Clay F. Concrete G. Mix of different soil types i. Specify: ________________________ (Downstream, Right Side) A. Bedrock (Resistant to erosion) B. Boulder/Cobble C. Gravel D. Sand E. Silt/Clay F. Concrete G. Mix of different soil types i. Specify: _________________________

PAGE 97

3 (Downstream, Left Side) A. Indeterminable B. 0 10 C. 11 25 D. 26 50 E. >50 (Downstream, Right Side) A. Indeterminable B. 0 10 C. 11 25 D. 26 50 E. >50 6. Is there any noticeable agitation along the studied stream section? B. Agitation caused by stones or other objects naturally occurring in the stream bed. C. Agitation caused by trees or other vegetation that has fallen into the streams. D. Moderate agitation caused by human objects E. Heavy agitation caused by human objects 7. Are there any areas of still water (pools) present within the studied stream? A. Large and Deep pools separated by water agitation B. Large and Shallow pools separated by water agitation C. Small and deep pools separated by water agitation D. Small and Shallow pools separated by water agitation E. Large pools without water agitation separating pools F. Small pools without water agitation separating pools II. Vegetation and Stream Buffer Condition 1. What is the streambank vegetation? (Downstream, Left Side) A. Limited to no vegetation. B. Sparse vegetation thats primarily woody plants. C. Moderate vegetation cover with a mix of shrubs, grasses, and trees. D. Heavy vegetation cover along with a mix of shrubs, grasses, and trees. (Downstream, Right Side) A. Limited to no vegetation. B. Sparse vegetation thats primarily woody plants. Floodplain Floodplain Streambank Streambank(Floodplain)?

PAGE 98

4 (Continued from Question II-1 on the Previous Page) C. Moderate vegetation cover with a mix of shrubs, grasses, and trees. D. Heavy vegetation cover along with a mix of shrubs, grasses, and trees. 2. What is the approximate vegetative stream buffer width? (Downstream, Left Side) A. 0 B. 1 15 C. 16 50 D. 51 100 E. Greater than 100 (Downstream, Right Side) A. 0 B. 1 15 C. 16 50 D. 51 100 E. Greater than 100 3. What is predominate vegetation characteristic of the buffer? (Downstream, Left Side) A. Dense coverage with a mixture of shrubs, grasses, and trees. B. Moderate coverage with a mixture of shrubs, grasses, and trees. C. Moderate coverage dominated by vines. D. Sparse coverage dominated by vines. E. Cut lawn or grass F. None, paved or bare soil. G. The stream buffers vegetation changes between different vegetation types: _____ & ______ (Downstream, Right Side) A. Dense coverage with a mixture of shrubs, grasses, and trees. B. Moderate coverage with a mixture of shrubs, grasses, and trees. C. Moderate coverage dominated by vines. D. Sparse coverage dominated by vines. E. Cut lawn or grass F. None, paved or bare soil. G. The stream buffers vegetation changes between different vegetation types: _____ & ______ 4. What is the approximate tree canopy cover over the stream? A. 0% B. 1 15% C. 16 30% D. 31 60% E. >60% Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) 0% 1 15% 16 30% 31 60% >60% Buffer Human Development

PAGE 99

5 (Downstream, Left Side) A. 0% B. 1 25% C. 26 50% D. 51 75% E. >75% (Downstream, Right Side) A. 0% B. 1 25% C. 26 50% D. 51 75% E. >75% (Downstream, Left Side) A. 0% B. 1 25% C. 26 50% D. 51 75% E. >75% (Downstream, Right Side) A. 0% B. 1 25% C. 26 50% D. 51 75% E. >75% III. Land Use Characteristics 1. What types of surrounding land uses are visible? (Downstream, Left Side) A. Natural B. Agriculture i. What type of Agriculture is present? a. Tree Plantations b. Orchards/Groves c. Vineyards & Nurseries d. Cropland/Pasture e. Feeding Operations/Specialty Farms Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) 0% 1 25% 26 50% 51 75% 76 100% Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) 0% 1 25% 26 50% 51 75% 76 100% Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) 0% 1 25% 26 50% 51 75% 76 100% Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) Undercut >50 30 50 0 30 Phase I or Phase V (Stable) Phase II (Incision) Phase III (Widening) Phase IV (Stabilizing) 0% 1 25% 26 50% 51 75% 76 100%

PAGE 100

6 (Continued from Question III-1 on Previous Page) C. Urban and Built-up i. What type of Development is occurring? a. Open Public Recreation b. Low Density Residential c. Medium Density Residential (ex. Neighborhoods) d. Institutional (Schools, Churches, Govt Buildings) e. High Density Residential (ex. Apartment complexes) f. Commercial Services g. Industrial (Downstream, Right Side) A. Natural B. Agriculture i. What type of Agriculture is present? a. Tree Plantations b. Orchards/Groves c. Vineyards & Nurseries d. Cropland/Pasture e. Feeding Operations/Specialty Farms C. Urban and Built-up i. What type of Development is occurring? a. Open Public Recreation b. Low Density Residential c. Medium Density Residential (ex. Neighborhoods) d. Institutional (Schools, Churches, Govt Buildings) e. High Density Residential (ex. Apartment complexes) f. Commercial Services g. Industrial for each road.) A. No B. Yes i. What type of road(s) is present? a. Private OR Unmanaged Dirt Road b. Single Lane OR Private Paved Roads c. Local Roads d. County Highway OR State Highway e. Interstate Highway ii. What is the proximity of the road(s) a. <25 b. 26 75

PAGE 101

7 (Continued from Question III-2 on Previous Page) c. Crosses Over the Stream via Bridge d. 76 150 e. >150 1. How many noticeable drain pipes can be seen within a 100 feet of the stream? __________. 2. Is there any noticeable algae accumulation along stream bank or on anything within the streambed? A. Substantial algae growth B. Moderate algae growth C. Limited algae growth D. No noticeable algae growth 3. Is there any noticeable garbage or trash along the stream reach? A. No noticeable trash or garbage in or around the stream B. There are some signs of trash and garbage in or around the stream C. There is noticeable trash and garbage along the stream bed D. There is a large accumulation of trash and garbage in and around the stream 4. Are there any signs of cattle or livestock interaction? A. No B. Yes, some old manure is noticeable C. Yes, fresh manure is noticeable D. Yes, indications of cattle use and cattle stream crossings E. Yes, heavy use of cattle or livestock is noticeable F. Yes, Cattle are currently in or along the stream 5. Are there any signs of human recreation in or along the stream? A. No B. Yes, there is evidence of foot trails and minor use along the stream C. Yes, there is evidence of camping along the stream bank D. Yes, there is evidence of All Terrain Vehichles or heavy use along the stream. E. Yes, there is evidence of heavy swimming recreation use 6. (Optional) Using a Secchi Disk, test the apparent water clarity. A. 0 6 B. 7 12 C. 13 18 D. 19 36 E. >36

PAGE 102

Appendix II:: FABS Control Results ::

PAGE 103

!"#$%&'( !"#$%& ) + / 0 1 )2 )34 5 6 5 7 6 5 5 5 )38 6 5 6 5 7 6 5 6 *7& )9* +9+9* + *9*7&& ) + + + *5 && && && & &: &&& && && +34 5 6 5 5 6 5 5 5 +38 5 5 6 7 7 6 5 5 ,34 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ,38 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 -34 3 3 3 ; ; 5 3 5 -38 3 6 3 3 ; ; ; 6 7 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 / ; < = = = 6 3 6 !"#$%&& )34 5 7 5 6 7 5 7 5 )38 5 7 7 6 6 5 5 6 *34 ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; *38 ; ; ; ; ; 3 ; ; +34 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 +38 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 3 6 ; 3 5 6 6 5 -34 ; ; 3 3 ; ; 6 3 -38 ; 3 ; ; ; ; 3 3 .34 3 ; ; ; ; ; ; ; .38 3 ; 3 ; ; ; ; ; !"#$%&&& )34 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 )38 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 *7 > ! ! ! *5 > > > > > > > & 3 > > > > > > > && ; > > > > > > > & > > > > > > > > && > > > > > > > > & > > > > > > > > && > > > > > > > > !"#$%&' ) 2 2 2 2 ) 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 + 7 5 7 7 7 5 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 ()*#+ /9/ /9*2...../ 09-+++++++ 09/0).21* /91+)2+,,0 /9/)...../ /90//////0 /9,+++++++ 7:#8?@#AA /901/--*.0 B#C&?(DAA /9/1/***** E?8&#(F#AA 29*,+10)0/ G%CD3#:AA 29,1+1,-*) G%"CHDI'&(%$ ,#"-.+%/#++0

PAGE 104

!"#$%&'( !"#$%& ) + / 0 1 )2 )34 5 6 6 7 6 5 5 5 6 5 )38 6 6 6 6 5 6 5 7 5 7 *5& -9.9/. .91 +919*0 /9*5&& / / / ,9, *9, +9, *6 && && && & & && & && & & +34 5 6 6 6 7 5 5 5 6 5 +38 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 6 5 6 ,34 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ,38 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 -34 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 5 6 7 -38 6 6 6 6 7 7 6 6 3 7 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 / 7 : : : : : ; : : : !"#$%&& )34 3 7 7 7 7 6 7 3 3 3 )38 3 3 3 3 7 6 6 7 5 7 *34 ; 7 ; ; ; ; 3 6 ; ; *38 3 ; 3 ; ; 6 7 ; 5 ; +34 5 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 +38 5 5 6 6 6 3 ;<3 5 ; 5 5 7 6 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 -34 7 3 7 6 7 ; ; ; 6 3 -38 6 3 7 7 7 ; 7 ; 7 ; .34 ; 7 ; 3 3 ; ; 6 ; ; .38 ; 3 3 ; ; 3 6 ; 7 ; !"#$%&&& )34 5 7<6 5 5 5 5 7<6 7<6 5 5 )38 5 5 5 5 5 7<6 7<6 5 7<6 5 *5 ! = ! = x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

PAGE 105

!"#$%&'( !"#$%& ) + / 0 1 )2 )34 5 6 7 6 5 7 7 5 5 5 )38 7 6 7 5 6 7 5 6 5 5 *5& + +9)2 /9/+ -9+9, -9*5&& 0 0 0 / 0 7 *7 && ::: :: :: :: :: ::: :: : :: +34 7 6 5 6 5 7 7 5 5 6 +38 7 6 6 7 6 6 7 6 ; 6 ,34 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ,38 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 -34 6 7 6 7 3 6 ; 6 5 ; -38 7 7 3 3 7 7 6 ; 6 ; 6 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 5 6 / 6 ; ; ; ; 6 ; ; ; ; !"#$%&& )34 3 7 6 5 7 7 7 6 7 5 )38 6 7 6 6 5 5 6 7 7 5 *34 < < < < < < < < < < *38 < < < < < < < < < < +34 5 5 5 7 5 7 5 5 5 5 +38 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 5 7 7 3 3 3 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 -34 3 6 6 3 7 7 7 7 6 6 -38 6 6 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 .34 < < < < 3 6 6 5 3 7 .38 < < < < 7 7 6 7 7 7 !"#$%&&& )34 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 )38 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 *5 = = = = = = = = = = *7 x x x x x x x x x x & = = = = = = = = = = && = = = = = = = = = = & = = = = = = = = = = && = = = = = = = = = = & = = = = = = = = = = && = = = = = = = = = = !"#$%&' ) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 + 5 7 7 5 7 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 5 7 7 5 7 7 7 7 7 ()*+, 09* .9-0++++++ 092+++++++ /9-1)..../ .91....../ .9/)...../ /9)0++++++ .90+++++++ /9*2.01.-.9/)...../ 5>#8?@#AA /9*2+)01.. B#C&&?(DAA /92/E?8&#(F#AA 29*00,,-1/ G%CD3#>AA 29-+/2/).. G%"CHDI'&(%$ ,-./0.-12"$-233%+453#

PAGE 106

!"#$%&'( !"#$%& ) + / 0 1 )2 )34 5 6 7 6 5 3 6 5 7 6 )38 6 5 5 5 5 3 5 6 5 5 *7& -9+9,9, +9-9+9**7&& / /9, ,9. ,9/ *6 &&& && &&& &&& &&& &&& &&& &&& &&& && +34 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 6 +38 5 5 3 6 5 5 5 5 3 5 ,34 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ,38 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 -34 6 : 3 5 6 5 5 6 : ; -38 6 6 6 6 6 : 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 7 5 5 5 7 5 / 3 ; 6 5 ; 6 6 5 ; ; !"#$%&& )34 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 5 5 6 )38 7 6 7 6 6 7 7 7 7 6 *34 5 : 3 : 3 : : : : 3 *38 : 5 7 3 : : : 3 7 3 +34 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 5 5 5 +38 7 6 : 6 7 7 6 5 : 6 6 5 6 7 5 5 7 6 7 6 -34 3 : 5 5 3 5 5 5 7 6 -38 3 5 7 3 : 3 5 6 7 5 .34 5 5 : 3 3 : 3 3 3 5 .38 3 6 6 6 : 5 3 5 6 : !"#$%&&& )34 5<3 7 7 7 5<5 7 7 5<7 5<7 7 )38 7 5<3 5<3 7 7 5<5 7 5<7 5<7 7 *7 ! = ! ! = = *6 = = = = = = = ! & = = 3 = = = = = 7 3 && = = 5 = = = = = 7 5 & = = 7 = = = = = 3 = && = = 7 = = = = = : = & = = = = = = = = = = && = = = = = = = = = = !"#$%&' ) ) 2 2 2 ) 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 5 5 3 3 5 5 3 3 + 6 6 6 5 7 7 6 5 7 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 6 7 6 6 6 : ()*#+ .9+./+,.1, .9/1/.)12-9.*/1/.)1 .9-,1)2/), .9+1*0-/), .91,2,/.)1 .9-0,0*),+ .92/-+1.0+ -9.1,-)-+) .9)2/),*0. 7>#8?@#ABB .9+)+/*-1) C#D&?(ABB .9+02)2*2, E?8&#(F#ABB 29)/)0)-,+ G%DA3#EBB 29,),-2.*G%"DHAI'&(%$ ,-$$.+%/)*0.*)12"$)2++%3-4+#

PAGE 107

Appendix III:: Questionnaire ::

PAGE 108

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
PAGE 109

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

PAGE 110

Appendix IV:: Questionnaire Results ::

PAGE 111

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

PAGE 112

Appendix V:: 18th Century American Population Distribution ::

PAGE 114

Appendix VI:: Upper Saint Johns River TMDL Review ::

PAGE 115

Water Quality Status Report: Upper St. Johns 89 Chapter 4: The Planning List of Potentially Impaired WatersThe Planning List (Table 4.1) includes all waterbody segments (WBIDs) in the Upper St. Johns Basin that are identified as potentially impaired under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) evaluation, lists segments on the 1998 303(d) list submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and describes the parameters of concern for each segment. Figure 4.1 shows waterbody segments on the Planning List. In this figure, the entire watersheds for listed waterbody segments are highlighted. Often, however, only the main waterbody in the assessment unit has been assessed. Other waters in the assessment unit may not be impaired, or may not have data available. The IWR methodology used to develop the Planning List follows the tenet of independent applicability, which means that a waterbody will be listed if any of its designated uses are potentially impaired. Waterbody segments on the Planning List must meet specific thresholds and data sufficiency and data quality requirements in Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Appendix A describes the legislative and regulatory background for the development of the Planning and Verified lists. The methodology in Appendix B describes the criteria and thresholds required for both lists under the IWR.Relationship between the Planning List and the 303(d) ListThe states Section 303(d) list of impaired waters for the Upper St. Johns Basin is updated in two stages. The Planning List represents the first stage of this process. Potentially impaired waters on the Planning List are further assessed in Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle to verify whether they are impaired. In addition to evaluating more thoroughly the data used to place these waters on the Planning List (including the verification of quality assurance and data sufficiency), the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department), working with local stakeholders, will identify other existing data and collect additional data as needed to complete the assessment. Once the additional monitoring is completed, the data will be assessed and the Department will develop a Verified List of impaired waters for which it will develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Appendix B describes the criteria for data evaluation used to verify impaired waterbodies and produce the Verified List. The Verified List will be adopted by Secretarial Order by October 2004 and then submitted to the EPA as an update to Floridas 303(d) list that reflects the results of the IWR evaluation.

PAGE 116

90 Water Quality Status Report: Upper St. JohnsTable 4.1: Potentially Impaired Waters in the Upper St. Johns Basin WBIDWaterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1998 303(d) List Parameters of Concern Parameters Potentially Impaired Under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Blue Cypress Creek Planning Unit 28938 Blue Cypress MarshStreamN/ACadmium, DO, Lead 2893V Blue Cypress LakeLakeN/ACadmium, DO, Iron, Lead 3133 Blue Cypress CreekStreamN/A/DO, Iron, Lead 3140 Drained FarmlandStreamNutrients, Turbidity, DO 3152 Padgett BranchBlackwaterN/ADO Fort Drum Creek Planning Unit 2893SFort Drum MarshStreamN/ACadmium, Chlorophyll a (Nutrients), DO, Lead 3154Fort Drum CreekStreamColiforms, Nutrients, DO, Lead DO, Lead, Silver 3164Fort Drum CreekStreamN/ADO Interbasin Diversion Planning Unit 3090Drained FarmlandStreamNutrients, DO, Iron, Lead, Cadmium DO, Iron Jane Green Creek Planning Unit 3073Crabgrass CreekStreamColiforms, Nutrients, DO, Iron, Lead Chlorophyll a (Nutrients), DO, Lead, Selenium, Silver 3084Jane Green CreekStreamNutrients, DO, Iron, Lead Cadmium, Copper, DO, Lead, Silver 3086West Br Crabgrass CrStreamN/ADO Lake Poinsett Planning Unit 2893KLake PoinsettLakeFish, DODO, Fish, Historic Chlorophyll and TSI (Nutrients) 2893LSt. Johns River ab Lake Poinsett StreamNutrients, Turb, Fish, DO Cadmium, Chlorophyll a (Nutrients), DO, Fish, Historic Chlorophyll 2893NSt. Johns River ab Lake Winder StreamNutrients, Fish, DO Cadmium, DO, Fish 2893PSt. Johns River ab Lake Washington StreamColiforms, Nutrients, Fish, DO, Iron, Lead DO, Fish, Iron, Lead 2893YLake WinderLakeN/AFish 3059Taylor CreekStreamN/ADO, Lead 3075Wolf CreekStreamColiforms, Nutrients, DO, Iron, Lead, Cadmium Cadmium, Chlorophyll a (Nutrients), DO, Iron, Lead, Selenium Puzzle Lake Planning Unit 2893ISt. Johns River ab Puzzle Lake StreamColiforms, Nutrients, BOD, Fish, DO, Lead Cadmium, Copper, DO, Fish, Lead

PAGE 117

Water Quality Status Report: Upper St. Johns 91WBIDWaterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1998 303(d) List Parameters of Concern Parameters Potentially Impaired Under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Puzzle Lake Planning Unit, continued 2964BPuzzle LakeLakeN/ADO, Fish, Lead 2964CRuth LakeLakeN/AFish 2978ALoughman LakeLakeNutrients, BOD, DO Fish 2978BSalt LakeLakeNutrients, BOD, DO 3008AFox LakeLakeNutrients St. Johns Marsh Planning Unit 28931Sawgrass LakeLakeNutrients, FishDO, Fish 2893OLake WashingtonLakeN/ADO, Fish, Iron, Biology 2893QLake Hell n BlazesLakeNutrients, Fish, DO DO, Fish, Iron, TSI (Nutrients) 2893RThree Forks MarshStreamN/ADO 2893XSt. Johns River ab Sawgrass Lake StreamNutrients, BOD, Fish, DO Cadmium, Chlorophyll a (Nutrients), DO, Fish, Iron, Lead 3108ADrained FarmlandStreamN/ACadmium, Chlorophyll a (Nutrients), DO, Iron 3108BMarshStreamN/ADO 3108CThree ForksStreamN/ACadmium, DO, Iron, Lead 3127Wolf CreekStreamN/ADO 3130Sixmile CreekStreamN/ABiology, DO Tosohatchee Planning Unit 28935St. Johns River ab Puzzle Lake StreamN/ACopper, DO, Lead 3035Tootoosahatchee Creek StreamN/ADO 3042Jim CreekStreamN/ABiology, DO 3048Lake Wilson Outlet Canal StreamN/AFish N/A = Not applicable, no parameters listed.

PAGE 118

92 Water Quality Status Report: Upper St. Johns Figure 4.1: Upper St. Johns Basin Planning List for All Causes of Potential Impairment, with Overlay of 1998 303(d) List

PAGE 119

Water Quality Status Report: Upper St. Johns 93Local stakeholders may also have plans that include activities to reduce pollution in impaired waters. If they feel that their plans provide reasonable assurance that water quality standards will be met in the future, they should contact the Department as early as possible and provide the Department with documentation of their restoration plans. As stated in the Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA), the Department will not place waters on the Verified List if proposed or existing pollution control mechanisms are expected to result in the attainment of water quality standards.Noteworthy Significance of the Planning ListUnder the Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA), Planning Lists of potentially impaired waters are submitted to the EPA for informational purposes only and are not used in administering or implementing any regulatory programs. The Planning List is important, as it is used to guide monitoring in the basin and is the precursor to the Verified List of impaired waters. As such, stakeholders are encouraged to review the Planning List carefully, including the data used by the Department to produce the list. If reviewers identify and have access to pertinent data that were not used, they should enter the data into STORET or submit the data to the Department so that it can be used in evaluating waterbodies to be included on the Verified List. Summary of ImpairmentThis section summarizes the types and locations of potentially impaired waters by parameter group and waterbody type. The tables in Appendix F provide statistical summaries of the assessed water quality parameters by planning unit. Tables F.3 and F.4 summarize all data evaluated and categorize each parameter as impaired, not impaired, or having insufficient data by individual waterbody segment. Approximately 38 water quality parameters were evaluated for the basin. To provide a broad overview of the assessment, the parameters were grouped into 8 major categories: bacteria, biology, fish, Trophic State Index (TSI)/chlorophyll a (nutrients), pesticides, metals, unionized ammonia, and dissolved oxygen (DO). Figures 4.2 through 4.8 respectively, show all the waterbodies in the basin that are potentially impaired for select parameter groups. Appendix B contains a detailed methodology for the assessment, including more detailed descriptions of the parameter groups. Forty-eight waterbodies were assessed, and of that number 39 are potentially impaired. Fourteen potentially impaired waterbody segments are designated as Class 1 waters, suitable as drinking water supplies. All segments of the St. Johns River are listed for some type of water quality impairment. Table 4.2 summarizes the number and miles of impairment by parameter and waterbody type for each planning unit. Basinwide, the greatest number of miles of impairment for all waterbody types was caused by DO, followed by metals. Low DO may be a natural condition in the basin marshes and

PAGE 120

94 Water Quality Status Report: Upper St. Johnsslow-moving waterbodies (Keenan et al., 2002). For this reason, additional work will be conducted to differentiate between pollutant-related and other causes of low DO before the Verified List for the basin is developed. Typical metals listed in Table 4.1 are cadmium (6 WBIDs), lead (13 WBIDs), and iron (8 WBIDs). Metals and DO impairments were found in all planning units in all waterbody types. The source of metals is unknown, but iron may be naturally occurring. In contrast, no impairments were listed for either fecal or total coliform bacteria or unionized ammonia. Nutrient impairments were found in several of the stream segments and lakes comprising the St. Johns River. These include Lake Hell n Blazes, Lake Poinsett, and the St. Johns River upstream of Lake Poinsett and upstream of Sawgrass Lake. Pesticides data were insufficient for evaluation under the IWR. Fourteen waterbody segments are listed as potentially impaired because fish consumption advisories for mercury have been issued for those waters. The St. Johns River and its connected lakes are included in a limited fish consumption advisory for largemouth bass, gar, and bowfin from Lake Hell n Blazes north to and including Puzzle Lake. At the completion of Phase 2, the data for these parameters will be reevaluated to verify the condition of the waterbody segments being monitored. Chapter 5 provides more information about the Phase 2 monitoring activities.Table 4.2: Summary of Basin Waterbody Impairments Miles (Square Miles) of Impaired Waters by Parameter/Number of WBIDs with Impairments Waterbody Type Stream Length (miles) Lake (square miles)DOMetals Fish Advisory TSI/ Chlorophyll a Biology Total Miles/ Square Miles Blue Cypress Creek Planning Unit Stream21.69.6 / 29.6 / 2 Lake11.611.6 / 111.6 / 1 Blackwater8.88.8 / 1 18.3/11.6 Fort Drum Creek Planning Unit Stream23.813.8 / 38.8 / 23.8 / 113.8 Interbasin Diversion Planning Unit Stream55 / 15 / 15.0 Jane Green Creek Planning Unit Stream25.320.3 /314.5 / 27.4 / 1 Blackwater7.5 20.3 Lake Poinsett Planning Unit Stream50.245.2 / 545.2 / 529.9 / 36.8 / 2 Lake11.57.0 / 19.6 / 27.0 / 1 45.2/9.6 Puzzle Lake Planning Unit Stream52.547.5 / 147.5 / 147.5 / 1 Lake7.25.4 / 15.4 / 16.2 / 3 47.5/6.2 St. Johns Marsh Planning Unit Stream27.521.1 / 76.7 / 32.4 / 13.8 / 24.7 / 1 Lake5.55.5 / 34.8 / 25.5 / 30.6 / 14.2 / 1 21.1/5.5 Tosohatchee Planning Unit Stream22.212.2 / 30.1 / 15 / 17.1 / 112.2

PAGE 121

Water Quality Status Report: Upper St. Johns 95Figure 4.2: Upper St. Johns Basin Waters Potentially Impaired for Bacteria According to the Impaired Surface Waters Rule

PAGE 122

96 Water Quality Status Report: Upper St. Johns Figure 4.3: Upper St. Johns Basin Waters with Potentially Impaired Biology According to the Impaired Surface Waters Rule

PAGE 123

Water Quality Status Report: Upper St. Johns 97Figure 4.4: Upper St. Johns Basin Waters Potentially Impaired Based on Fish Consumption Advisories According to the Impaired Surface Waters Rule

PAGE 124

98 Water Quality Status Report: Upper St. Johns Figure 4.5: Upper St. Johns Basin Waters Potentially Impaired Based on TSI/Chlorophyll a According to the Impaired Surface Waters Rule

PAGE 125

Water Quality Status Report: Upper St. Johns 99Figure 4.6: Upper St. Johns Basin Waters Potentially Impaired for Pesticides According to the Impaired Surface Waters Rule

PAGE 126

100 Water Quality Status Report: Upper St. Johns Figure 4.7: Upper St. Johns Basin Waters Potentially Impaired for Metals According to the Impaired Surface Waters Rule

PAGE 127

Water Quality Status Report: Upper St. Johns 101Figure 4.8: Upper St. Johns Basin Waters Potentially Impaired for Dissolved Oxygen According to the Impaired Surface Waters Rule

PAGE 128

102 Water Quality Status Report: Upper St. JohnsWaters with Insufficient Data To Determine Potential ImpairmentAny waters that do not have sufficient data to be analyzed in accordance with the requirements of the IWR, but that were included on the 1998 303(d) list, will remain on the 303(d) list maintained by EPA. They will also be included on the Planning List until sufficient data are available to evaluate their condition. The Departments intention is to collect data on these waters in Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle. Many waterbodies in the Upper St. Johns Basin are not identified on the 1998 303(d) list and do not have sufficient (or any) data to be assessed under the IWR methodology. Because of resource limitations, it may not be possible for the Department to monitor all of these waterbodies during the first watershed management five-year cycle. The priority during Phase 2 of the cycle is to conduct monitoring and data gathering to address potentially impaired waters identified on the Planning List. While the Department plans to monitor waters without enough data to determine potential impairment during subsequent watershed cycles, available data gathered by others will be used for this purpose. It is important that the Department and stakeholders in the basin coordinate their monitoring plans to collect data most efficiently for these waterbodies. Chapter 5 discusses monitoring and data evaluation priorities and objectives, database management issues, and the development of the Verified List.

PAGE 129

Appendix VII:: Middle Saint Johns River TMDL Review ::

PAGE 162

Appendix VIII:: Lower Saint Johns TMDL Review ::

PAGE 163

Public Participation The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) has worked with a variety of stakeholders and held public meetings on developing and adopting the Veri ed Lists of impaired waters for the six Group 2 basins across the state. Table 4.1 lists the statewide schedule for the development and adoption of the Group 2 Veri ed Lists, including the public meetings. The schedule for the Lower St. Johns Basin is highlighted in boldface type. Appendix J contains documentation provided during the public comment period. Since nutrient Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) for the mainstem of the Lower St. Johns River were due by September 30, 2003, as part of a consent decree between U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 and Earthjustice, draft versions of Veri ed Lists of waters that met the requirements of the Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) were made available to the public on May 7, 2003. The lists were placed on the Departments TMDL Web site at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl and were also sent on request to interested parties by mail or via e-mail. Citizens were given the opportunity to comment on the draft lists in person and/or in writing. The Department also accepted written comments for 45 days beginning May 7, 2003, and ending June 23, 2003. The revised draft lists were made available to the public on June 18, 2003, and a second public meeting was held in Jacksonville on June 25, 2003. The public had the opportunity to comment on these revised lists in writing over the period from June 18, 2003, through July 3, 2003. On September 4, 2003, a Veri ed List of nutrient-impaired mainstem water segments (11 segments) was adopted by Secretarial Order. The remaining nal basin-speci c Veri ed Lists developed through the public participation process were adopted by Secretarial Order on May 27, 2004, and were submitted July 30, 2004, as the states current 303(d) list of impaired waters. Chapter 4: The Verified List of Impaired Waters265Water Quality Assessment Report: Lower St. Johns

PAGE 164

Identification of Impaired Waters As discussed in Chapter 2, waters on the Veri ed and Planning Lists must meet speci c thresholds and data suf ciency and data quality requirements in the IWR (Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]). Appendix A describes the legislative and regulatory background for the development of the Planning and Veri ed Lists. Appendix G contains a methodology that describes the criteria and thresholds required for both lists under the IWR. Any waters that do not have suf cient data to be analyzed in accordance with the requirements of the IWR will remain on the 1998 303(d) list of impaired waters maintained by the EPA. These waters are not delisted, and they will be sampled during the next phases of the watershed management cycle so that their impairment status can be veri ed. The Verified List of Impaired Waters Table 4.2 contains the Veri ed List of impaired waters for the Lower St. Johns Basin, based on the water quality assessment performed for the July 2004 update to the 303(d) list. Figure 4.1 shows waters on the Veried List for the entire basin as of May 2004 and the projected year for TMDL development. For presentation purposes, the entire watershed for the listed water is highlighted. However, only the main waterbody in the assessment unit has been assessed, and other waters in the watershed may not be impaired. Since the October 2002 update of the 303(d) list, further data became available for assessment of the basin, and these data were used to update the listing status of waters. Table H.1 in Appendix H contains the listing status of all assessed waters in the basin as of January 2003. An order containing the initial Veri ed List of Impaired Group 2 Waters (Veri ed List) was signed by the Departments Secretary on August 26, 2002. Errors Table 4.1: Schedule for Development and Adoption of the Group 2 Verified Lists DateScheduled Activity May 14, 2003Public Meeting at Jacksonville on Lower St. Johns Basin Draft Verified List June 25, 2003Public Meeting at Jacksonville on the Lower St. Johns Basin Revised Draft List July 17, 2003Final Deadline for Receiving Public Comments September 4, 2003Adoption of Partial Verified List for Nutrient Impairments in Main Stem of River September 17, 2003Public Meeting in Tallahassee on Revised Draft Verified Lists for All Basins, and Public Comments and Input from Prior Public Meetings No later than September 29, 2003 Adoption of Lower St. Johns Basin September 2003 TMDLs (main stem of river) May 27, 2004Adoption of Group 2 Verified List by Secretarial Order July 30, 2004Submittal to EPA as States 303(d) List of Impaired Waters266Water Quality Assessment Report: Lower St. Johns

PAGE 165

Table 4.2: The Verified List of Impaired Waters WBID Waterbody Segment Name Waterbody Type Waterbody Class 1998 303(d) Parameters of Concern New Parameters of Concern from IWR Priority for TMDL Development1Projected Year for TMDL Development1Comments2 (# Exceedances/# Samples) Black Creek Planning Unit 2389 Doctors Lake Lake IIIFNutrients Nutrients (TSI) Low2008Planning period: TSI potentially impaired; verified period: TSI verified. Annual average TSI exceeded 60 in 19962002. Colimitation of N and P based on TN/TP median of 16 (578 values) during the planning period and a median of 15.3 (703 values) during the verified period. 2410 Swimming Pen Creek Stream IIIFNutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll a ) Low2008Planning period: Chlorophyll a potentially impaired; verified period: Chlorophyll a verified. Annual average Chlorophyll a exceeded 20 g/L in 19962001. Colimitation of N and P based on TN/TP median of 18 (75 values) during planning period and median of 16.9 (82 values) during the verified period. 2415ABlack Creek Above St. Johns River StreamIIIFDOMedium2008Planning Period: 83/116 Potentially impaired; verified period: 38/61 verified impaired. Linkage to elevated TP (mean = 0.28 mg/L). 2423 Mill Log Creek Stream IIIFDOMedium2008Planning period: 24/77 Potentially impaired; verified period: 30/93 Verified. Linked to elevated TN (2.06 mg/L) and TP (1.67 mg/L) during the planning period and elevated TN (2.06 mg/L) and TP (1.67 mg/L) during the verified period. 2423 Mill Log Creek Stream IIIFIronMedium2008Planning period: 9/42 Potentially impaired; verified period: 16/66 Verified. 2423 Mill Log Creek Stream IIIFLeadMedium2008Planning period: 5/38 Not impaired; verified period: 11/60 Verified. 2424 Bradley Creek Stream IIIFDOMedium2008Planning period: 19/49 Potentially impaired; verified period: 29/78 Verified. Linked to elevated TN levels during both the planning period and verified period (4.33 and 4.01 mg/L, respectively). 2424 Bradley Creek Stream IIIFLeadMedium2008Planning period: 3/11 Potentially impaired; verified period: 8/21 Verified. Crescent Lake Planning Unit 2606A Dunns Creek Stream IIIFDOMedium2008Planning period: 54/218 Potentially impaired; verified period: 39/180 Verified. Believed linked to elevated algal biomass. 2606A Dunns Creek Stream IIIFNutrients (Chlorophyll a ) Medium2008Planning period: Chlorophyll a potentially impaired; verified period: Chlorophyll a verified. Annual average Chlorophyll a exceeded 20 g/L in 1996, 1997, and 19992001. P limiting based TN/TP median of 22 (152 values) during the planning period and a median of 21.3 (180 values) during the verified period. 2606B Crescent Lake Lake IIIFIronMedium2008Planning period: 10/19 Potentially impaired; verified period: 28/51 Verified.267Water Quality Assessment Report: Lower St. Johns

PAGE 166

WBID Waterbody Segment Name Waterbody Type Waterbody Class 1998 303(d) Parameters of Concern New Parameters of Concern from IWR Priority for TMDL Development1Projected Year for TMDL Development1Comments2 (# Exceedances/# Samples) Crescent Lake Planning Unit, continued 2606B Crescent Lake Lake IIIFNutrients (TSI) Medium2008Planning period: TSI potentially impaired; verified period: TSI verified. Annual average TSI exceeded 60 in 1997, 1999, and 2000. N and P colimiting based on TN/TP median of 16 (528 values) during the planning period and a median of 17.1 (651 values) during the verified period. 2622A Haw Creek Ab Crescent Lake Stream IIIFDO3DO3High2002Planning period: 47/73 Potentially impaired; verified period 27/40 Verified. Believed linked to elevated algal biomass. 2622A Haw Creek Ab Crescent Lake Stream IIIFIron3Iron3High2002Planning period: 21/52 Potentially impaired; verified period: 14/36 Verified. 2622A Haw Creek Ab Crescent Lake Stream IIIFNutrients3Nutrients (Chlorophyll a )3High2002Planning period: Chlorophyll a potentially impaired; verified period: Chlorophyll a verified. Annual average Chlorophyll a exceeded 20 g/L in 2000 and 2001. Colimitation of N and P based on planning period TN/TP ratio mean 18.6, median 17, std. dev. 7.62 (70 values); verified period TN/TP ratio mean 18.5, median 15.6, std. dev. 8.25 (63 values). 2630A Little Haw Creek StreamIIIFIronIronHigh2004Planning period: 15/42 Potentially impaired; verified period: 12/34 Verified. 2630B Lake Disston Lake IIIFIronMedium2008Planning period: 12/46 Potentially impaired; verified period: 7/35 Verified. 2630B Lake Disston Lake IIIFMercury In Fish Low2011Tissue levels in 20 samples averaged 1.14 ppm in 2001. 2630B Lake Disston Lake IIIFSeleniumMedium2008Planning period: 9/33 Potentially impaired; verified period: 7/35 Verified. 2630C Little Haw Spring StreamIIIFDOMedium2008Planning period: 8/10 Potentially impaired; verified period: 22/27 Verified. Believed linked to elevated TN during both the planning period and verified period. 2630I South Lake Talmadge Lake IIIFNutrients (TSI) Medium2008Planning period: TSI not impaired; verified period: TSI Verified. Annual average TSI exceeded 60 in 2002. P limited based upon TN/TP ratio plots and median of 50 (108 values) over the verified period. 2680A Lake MollyLake IIIFNutrients (TSI) Medium2008Planning period: TSI potentially impaired; verified period: TSI verified. Annual average TSI exceeded 60 in 2000 and 2001. P limiting based on the TN/TP median of 28 (66 values) during the planning period and a median of 26.8 (99 values) during the verified period. Deep Creek Planning Unit 2540 Moccasin Branch Stream IIIFDODO3High2002Planning period: 58/149 Potentially impaired; verified period: 33/116 Verified. Linked to elevated TP above the screening level for both the planning period and verified period (planning period median 0.236 mg/L, verified period median 0.223 mg/L).Table 4.2 (continued)268Water Quality Assessment Report: Lower St. Johns

PAGE 167

WBID Waterbody Segment Name Waterbody Type Waterbody Class 1998 303(d) Parameters of Concern New Parameters of Concern from IWR Priority for TMDL Development1Projected Year for TMDL Development1Comments2 (# Exceedances/# Samples) Deep Creek Planning Unit, continued 2549 Deep Creek Stream IIIFDODO3High2002Planning period: 101/118 Potentially impaired; verified period: 65/78 Verified. Linked to elevated TP based upon levels above the screening level during planning period (median 0.48 mg/L) and verified period (median 0.39 mg/L). 2549 Deep Creek Stream IIIFNutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll a ) High2002Planning period: Historical Chlorophyll potentially impaired; verified period: Historical chlorophyll verified. Annual average Chlorophyll a for verified period (5.43 g/L) exceeded the historic annual average Chlorophyll a (3.19 g/L). N limiting based on TN/TP median of 3.3 (408 values) during the planning period and a median of 4.2 (283 values) during the verified period. 2561 Unnamed Ditches Stream IIIFDOMedium2008Planning period: 7/30 Potentially impaired; verified period: 9/44 Verified. Linked to elevated TP levels in both the planning period and verified period (0.24 and 0.24 mg/L, respectively). 2571 Unnamed Ditch Stream IIIFDOMedium2008Planning period: 10/37 Potentially impaired; verified period: 15/56 Verified. Linked to elevated TP levels in both the planning period and verified period (0.29 and 0.31 mg/L, respectively). 2589 Sixteenmile Creek Stream IIIFDODOLow2008Planning period: 30/82 Potentially impaired; verified period: 33/121 Verified. Linked to nutrients based on elevated algal biomass. 2589 Sixteenmile Creek Stream IIIFNutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll a ) Low2008Planning period: No data; verified period: Chlorophyll a verified. Annual average Chlorophyll a exceeded 20 g/L in 2002. N limiting based on TN/TP median of 9.9 (76 values) during the planning period and a median of 6.8 (128 values) during the verified period. Etonia Creek Planning Unit 2543F Lake RossLake IIIFNutrients (TSI) Medium2008Planning period: No data; verified period: TSI verified. Annual average TSI exceeded 60 in 2002. Based upon the TN/TP ratio plot and the ratio median value of 26.3 (48 values) P is the primary limiting nutrient. 2575QCue LakeLake IIIFMercury in Fish Low2011Tissue values average 0.77 ppm in 20 samples in 2000. Intracoastal Waterway Planning Unit 8998Florida Atlantic Coast CoastalIIIMMercury in Fish Low2011Statewide coastal mercury advisory issued for king mackerel, spotted seatrout, and shark in 2002. Advisory also applies to WBIDs 8126A 8126G. 2227 Sherman Creek Stream IIIFDOMedium2008Planning period: 73/152 Potentially impaired; verified period: 51/119 Verified. Believed linked to elevated TP levels in both the planning period and verified period. 2227 Sherman Creek Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 57/85 Potentially impaired; verified period: 25/58 Verified. 2266 Hopkins Creek Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 22/30 Potentially impaired; verified period: 9/21 Verified.Table 4.2 (continued)269Water Quality Assessment Report: Lower St. Johns

PAGE 168

WBID Waterbody Segment Name Waterbody Type Waterbody Class 1998 303(d) Parameters of Concern New Parameters of Concern from IWR Priority for TMDL Development1Projected Year for TMDL Development1Comments2 (# Exceedances/# Samples) Intracoastal Waterway Planning Unit, continued 2266 Hopkins Creek Stream IIIFTotal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 13/18 Potentially impaired; verified period: 14/20 Verified. 2270 Hogpen Creek Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 27/60 Potentially impaired; verified period: 16/42 Verified. 2270 Hogpen Creek Stream IIIFTotal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 18/36 Potentially impaired; verified period: 10/22 Verified. 2273 Mill Dam Branch Stream IIIFDOMedium2008Planning period: 16/46 Potentially impaired; verified period: 15/36 Verified. Linked to elevated TN during both the planning period and verified period (1.69 and 1.69 mg/L, respectively). 2299 Open Creek Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 20/30 Potentially impaired; verified period: 12/21 Verified. Julington Creek Planning Unit 2356 Big Davis Creek Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 14/39 Potentially impaired; verified period: 5/25 Verified. 2365 Durbin Creek Stream IIIFDODOHigh2004Planning period: 162/224 Potentially impaired; verified period: 123/168 Verified. Linked to nutrients based on elevated algal biomass. 2365 Durbin Creek Stream IIIFColiforms Fecal Coliforms High2004Planning period: 33/109 Potentially impaired; verified period: 15/64 Verified. 2365 Durbin Creek Stream IIIFNutrients Nutrients (Historical Chlorophyll) High2004Planning period: Historical Chlorophyll potentially impaired; verified period: Historical Chlorophyll verified. The historic annual average Chlorophyll a (1.15 g/L) for the 19921996 period was exceeded by more than 50% in 1996 (2.89 g/L), 1997 (5.7 g/L), and 1998 (3.32 g/L). Colimitation of N and P based upon planning period TN/TP ratio mean 16.8, median 15.0, std. dev. 8.76 (67 values); verified period TN/TP ratio mean 18.4, median 16.4, std. dev. 12.35 (78 values). 2370 Oldfield Creek Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 22/33 Potentially impaired; verified period: 11/26 Verified. 2381 Cormorant Creek Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 15/31 Potentially impaired; verified period: 8/21 Verified. North Main Stem Planning Unit 2181 Dunn Creek Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 26/58 Potentially impaired; verified period: 14/39 Verified. 2191 Broward River Estuary IIIMDOMedium2008Planning period: 19/128 Potentially impaired; verified period: 22/93 Verified. Linked to elevated TN levels during planning period (1.02 mg/L) and elevated TP levels during the verified period (0.21 mg/L). 2191 Broward River Estuary IIIMFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 31/69 Potentially impaired; verified period: 17/46 Verified. 2191 Broward River Estuary IIIMTotal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 20/44 Potentially impaired; verified period: 6/24 Verified. 2204 Terrapin Creek Stream IIIFDOMedium2008Planning period: 17/52 Potentially impaired; verified period: 20/53 Verified. Linked to elevated TN, TP, and BOD during the planning period (9.34, 0.33 mg/L, and 5.0 mg/L, respectively).Table 4.2 (continued)270Water Quality Assessment Report: Lower St. Johns

PAGE 169

WBID Waterbody Segment Name Waterbody Type Waterbody Class 1998 303(d) Parameters of Concern New Parameters of Concern from IWR Priority for TMDL Development1Projected Year for TMDL Development1Comments2 (# Exceedances/# Samples) North Main Stem Planning Unit, continued 2204 Terrapin Creek Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 21/29 Potentially impaired; verified period: 19/28 Verified. 2213A St. Johns River Ab Mouth Estuary IIIMIronMedium2008Planning period: 5/13 Potentially impaired; verified period: 10/33 Verified. 2213A St. Johns River Ab Mouth Estuary IIIMNutrients (Historical Chlorophyll)4Low2008Planning period: Historical Chlorophyll potentially impaired; verified period: Historical Chlorophyll verified. The historic annual average Chlorophyll a (1.70 g/L) for the 19921996 period was exceeded by more than 50% in 2000 (4.42 g/L) and 2001 (4.67 g/L). N limiting based on TN/TP median of 7.4 (57 values) during the planning period and a median of 6.7 (68 values) during the verified period. 2213A St. Johns River Ab Mouth Estuary IIIMCopperMedium2008Planning period: 9/13 Potentially impaired; verified period: 9/33 Verified. 2213A St. Johns River Ab Mouth Estuary IIIMNickelMedium2008Planning period: 16/18 Potentially impaired; verified period: 14/35 Verified. 2213B St. Johns River Ab ICWW Estuary IIIMCopperMedium2008Planning period: 15/25 Potentially impaired; verified period: 13/34 Verified. 2213B St. Johns River Ab ICWW Estuary IIIMIronMedium2008Planning period: 9/27 Not impaired; verified period: 24/62 Verified. 2213B St. Johns River Ab ICWW Estuary IIIMLeadMedium2008Planning period: 14/26 Potentially impaired; verified period: 10/20 Verified. 2213B St. Johns River Ab ICWW Estuary IIIMNickelMedium2008Planning period: 27/29 Potentially impaired; verified period: 20/22 Verified. 2213B St. Johns River Ab ICWW Estuary IIIMNutrients (Historical Chlorophyll)4Medium2008Planning period: Historical Chlorophyll potentially impaired; verified period: Historical Chlorophyll verified. The historic annual average Chlorophyll a (3.47 g/L) for the 19901994 period was exceeded by more than 50% in 1998 (10.3 g/L), 1999 (8.40 g/L), 2000 (7.2 g/L), and 2001 (9.79 g/L). N limiting based on the TN/TP median of 8 (705 values) during the planning period and a median of 7.5 (701 values) during the verified period. 2213C St. Johns River Ab Dames Pt Estuary IIIMCopperMedium2008Planning period: 19/22 Potentially impaired; verified period: 22/30 Verified. 2213C St. Johns River Ab Dames Pt Estuary IIIMIronMedium2008Planning period: 16/32 Potentially impaired; verified period: 29/69 Verified. 2213C St. Johns River Ab Dames Pt Estuary IIIMNickelMedium2008Planning period: 27/31 Potentially impaired; verified period: 24/28 Verified. 2213D St. Johns River Ab Trout River Estuary IIIMCopperMedium2008Planning period: 18/40 Potentially impaired; verified period: 21/60 Verified.Table 4.2 (continued)271Water Quality Assessment Report: Lower St. Johns

PAGE 170

WBID Waterbody Segment Name Waterbody Type Waterbody Class 1998 303(d) Parameters of Concern New Parameters of Concern from IWR Priority for TMDL Development1Projected Year for TMDL Development1Comments2 (# Exceedances/# Samples) North Main Stem Planning Unit, continued 2213D St. Johns River Ab Trout River Estuary IIIMIronMedium2008Planning period: 29/53 Potentially impaired; verified period: 64/98 Verified. 2213D St. Johns River Ab Trout River Estuary IIIMNickelMedium2008Planning period: 36/45 Potentially impaired; verified period: 28/40 Verified. 2213E St. Johns River Ab Warren Brg Estuary IIIMCopperMedium2008Planning period: 5/17 Potentially impaired; verified period: 6/22 Verified. 2213E St. Johns River Ab Warren Brg Estuary IIIMIronMedium2008Planning period: 10/27 Potentially impaired; verified period: 38/86 Verified. 2213E St. Johns River Ab Warren Brg Estuary IIIMNutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll a )4High2002Planning period: Chlorophyll a potentially impaired; verified period: Chlorophyll a verified. Annual average Chlorophyll a over 11 g/L in 19971999. N limitation with some colimitation of N and P based on planning period TN/TP ratio mean 11.4, median 11, std. dev. 6.74 (1447 values); verified period TN/TP ratio mean 10.8, median 10.4, std. dev. 4.29 (1513 values). 2213E St. Johns River Ab Warren Brg Estuary IIIMNickelMedium2008Planning period: 14/25 Potentially impaired; verified period: 12/37 Verified. 2213F St. Johns River Ab Piney Pt Estuary IIIMNutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll a )4High2002Planning period: Chlorophyll a potentially impaired; verified period: Chlorophyll a verified. Annual average Chlorophyll a over 11 g/L in 1998 and 2000. Colimitation of N and P based on planning period TN/TP ratio mean 68.8, median 10, std. dev. 755.1 (175 values); verified period TN/TP ratio mean 71.1, median 10.3, std. dev. 775.3 (166 values). 2233 Long Branch Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Low2008Planning period: 23/29 Potentially impaired; verified period: 30/42 Verified. 2235 New Castle Creek Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 30/31 Potentially impaired; verified period: 23/25 Verified. 2239 Strawberry Creek Stream IIIFColiforms Fecal Coliforms Low2008Planning period: 30/67 Potentially impaired; verified period: 25/48 Verified. 2239 Strawberry Creek Stream IIIFColiforms Total Coliforms Low2008Planning period: 32/37 Potentially impaired; verified period: 13/22 Verified. 2240 Greenfield Creek Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 28/75 Potentially impaired; verified period: 9/40 Verified. 2244 Cow Head Creek Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 17/31 Potentially impaired; verified period: 14/23 Verified. 2246 Jones Creek Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 26/31 Potentially impaired; verified period: 17/29 Verified. 2248 Gin House Creek Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 12/32 Not impaired; verified period: 14/26 Verified.Table 4.2 (continued)272Water Quality Assessment Report: Lower St. Johns

PAGE 171

WBID Waterbody Segment Name Waterbody Type Waterbody Class 1998 303(d) Parameters of Concern New Parameters of Concern from IWR Priority for TMDL Development1Projected Year for TMDL Development1Comments2 (# Exceedances/# Samples) North Main Stem Planning Unit, continued 2252 Hogan Creek Stream IIIFColiforms Fecal Coliforms High2004Planning period: 30/31 Potentially impaired; verified period: 19/24 Verified. 2254 Red Bay Branch Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 30/32 Potentially impaired; verified period: 25/30 Verified. 2254 Red Bay Branch Stream IIIFTotal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 18/19 Potentially impaired; verified period: 17/20 Verified. 2256 Deer Creek Stream IIIFDOMedium2008Planning period: 54/71 Potentially impaired; verified period: 66/82 Verified. Linked to elevated TN during the planning period (1.69 mg/L). 2256 Deer Creek Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 27/29 Potentially impaired; verified period: 39/44 Verified. 2257 Mccoy Creek Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 56/63 Potentially impaired; verified period: 35/49 Verified. 2265A Arlington River Estuary IIIMNutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll a ) Low2008Planning period: Chlorophyll a insufficient data; verified period: Chlorophyll a verified. Annual average Chlorophyll a over 11 g/L in 2002. N limiting based on TN/TP median of 6.3 (4 values) during the planning period and a median of 8.8 (9 values) during the verified period. 2265B Pottsburg Creek Stream IIIFColiforms Fecal Coliforms Low2008Planning period: 43/69 Potentially impaired; verified period: 21/53 Verified. 2278 Silversmith Creek Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 29/31 Potentially impaired; verified period: 14/22 Verified. 2278 Silversmith Creek Stream IIIFTotal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 14/18 Potentially impaired; verified period: 5/21 Verified. 2284 Little Pottsburg Creek Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 83/91 Potentially impaired; verified period: 55/72 Verified. 2284 Little Pottsburg Creek Stream IIIFTotal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 51/55 Potentially impaired; verified period: 9/20 Verified. 2287 Miller CreekStream IIIFDOMedium2008Planning period: 17/49 Potentially impaired; verified period: 12/36 Verified. Linked to elevated BOD levels during the planning period and verified period (3.0 and 3.0 mg/L, respectively). 2287 Miller Creek Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 30/31 Potentially impaired; verified period: 15/20 Verified. 2297 Craig Creek Stream IIIFDOMedium2008Planning period: 28/49 Potentially impaired; verified period: 24/41 Verified. Linked to elevated BOD during the planning period and verified period (3.0 and 3.0 mg/L, respectively). 2297 Craig Creek Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 28/31 Potentially impaired; verified period: 20/24 Verified. 2304 Miramar Creek Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 30/31 Potentially impaired; verified period: 20/24 Verified. 2306 New Rose Creek Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 15/31 Potentially impaired; verified period: 7/20 Verified.Table 4.2 (continued)273Water Quality Assessment Report: Lower St. Johns

PAGE 172

WBID Waterbody Segment Name Waterbody Type Waterbody Class 1998 303(d) Parameters of Concern New Parameters of Concern from IWR Priority for TMDL Development1Projected Year for TMDL Development1Comments2 (# Exceedances/# Samples) North Main Stem Planning Unit, continued 2308 Leeds Pond Lake IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 22/29 Potentially impaired; verified period: 14/20 Verified. 2321 Christopher Branch Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 26/31 Potentially impaired; verified period: 11/20 Verified. 2326 Goodbys Creek Stream IIIFDOMedium2008Planning period: 41/106 Potentially impaired; verified period: 33/80 Verified. Linked to elevated TP during the planning period (0.23 mg/L) and elevated BOD during the verified period (2.7 mg/L). 2326 Goodbys Creek Stream IIIFColiforms Fecal Coliforms High2004Planning period: 26/39 Potentially impaired; verified period: 11/28 Verified. Ortega River Planning Unit 2213P Ortega River Stream IIIFDODOLow2008Planning period: 71/349 Potentially impaired; verified period: 39/220 Verified. Linked to elevated algal biomass. 2213P Ortega River Stream IIIFColiforms Fecal Coliforms Low2008Planning period: 21/74 Potentially impaired; verified period: 14/42 Verified. 2213P Ortega River Stream IIIFLeadLeadLow2008Planning period: 18/81 Potentially impaired; verified period: 10/37 Verified. 2213P Ortega River Stream IIIFNutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll a ) Low2008Planning period: Chlorophyll a potentially impaired; verified period: Chlorophyll a verified. Annual average Chlorophyll a exceeded 20 g/L in 1996 2001. N limiting based on the TN/TP median of 9.4 (232 values) during the planning period and a median of 9.0 (213 values) during the verified period. 2249A Ortega River Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 30/107 Potentially impaired; verified period: 15/67 Verified. 2249A Ortega River Stream IIIFTotal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 23/80 Potentially impaired; verified period: 10/34 Verified. 2249B McGirts Creek Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 39/94 Potentially impaired; verified period: 28/60 Verified. 2262 Cedar River Stream IIIFDODOHigh2004Planning period: 97/293 Potentially impaired; verified period: 65/195 Verified. Linked to BOD which was elevated above screening levels during planning period (3.0 mg/L). 2262 Cedar River Stream IIIFColiforms Fecal Coliforms High2004Planning period: 126/149 Potentially impaired; verified period: 54/81 Verified. 2262 Cedar RiverStream IIIFColiforms Total Coliforms High2004Planning period: 93/98 Potentially impaired; verified period: 10/26 Verified. 2280 Big Fishweir Creek Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 44/62 Potentially impaired; verified period: 33/56 Verified. 2282 Wills Branch Stream IIIFColiforms Fecal Coliforms High2004Planning period: 58/68 Potentially impaired; verified period: 29/47 Verified. 2282 Wills Branch Stream IIIFColiforms Total Coliforms High2004Planning period: 34/39 Potentially impaired; verified period: 13/22 Verified. 2316 Williamson Creek Stream IIIFColiforms Fecal Coliforms High2004Planning period: 29/35 Potentially impaired; verified period: 15/23 Verified.Table 4.2 (continued)274Water Quality Assessment Report: Lower St. Johns

PAGE 173

WBID Waterbody Segment Name Waterbody Type Waterbody Class 1998 303(d) Parameters of Concern New Parameters of Concern from IWR Priority for TMDL Development1Projected Year for TMDL Development1Comments2 (# Exceedances/# Samples) Ortega River Planning Unit, continued 2316 Williamson Creek Stream IIIFColiforms Total Coliforms High2004Planning period: 18/20 Potentially impaired; verified period: 15/21 Verified. 2322 Butcher Pen Creek Stream IIIFDODOHigh2004Planning period: 20/55 Potentially impaired; verified period: 22/53 Verified. Linked to nutrients based on elevated algal biomass. 2322 Butcher Pen Creek Stream IIIFColiforms Fecal Coliforms High2004Planning period: 34/36 Potentially impaired; verified period: 21/22 Verified. 2322 Butcher Pen Creek Stream IIIFNutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll a ) High2004Planning period: Chlorophyll a Insufficient data; verified period: Chlorophyll a verified. Annual average Chlorophyll a over 20 g/L in 2002. N limitation based upon planning period TN/TP ratio mean 8.7, median 8.5, std. dev. 0.42 (3 values); verified period TN/TP ratio mean 5.7, median 6.3, std. dev. 2.24 (13 values). 2324 Fishing Creek Stream IIIFDODOHigh2004Planning period: 26/126 Not impaired; verified period: 39/125 Verified. N and P levels during both the planning period (median 3.0 mg/L, 0.5 mg/L) and the verified period (medians 3.6 mg/L, 1.2 mg/L) were above screening levels. 2324 Fishing Creek Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 53/65 Potentially impaired; verified period: 22/40 Verified. Sixmile Creek Planning Unit 2460 Mill CreekStream IIIFDODOLow2008Planning period: 2/4 Insufficient data; verified period: 12/22 Verified. Linked to nutrients based on elevated algal biomass. 2460 Mill CreekStream IIIFNutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll a ) Low2008Planning period: Chlorophyll a insufficient data; verified period: Chlorophyll a verified. N limiting based on the TN/TP median of 2.5 (1 values) during the planning period and a median of 7.9 (11 values) during the verified period. South Main Stem Planning Unit 2382Unnamed Drain StreamIIIFDOMedium2008Planning period: 32/49 Potentially impaired; verified period: 24/37 Verified. 2382Unnamed Drain StreamIIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 29/30 Potentially impaired; verified period: 14/20 Verified. 2213G St. Johns River Ab Doctor Lake Lake IIIFCadmiumMedium2008Planning period: 12/43 Potentially impaired; verified period: 12/49 Verified. 2213I St. Johns River Ab Black Creek Lake IIIFNutrients (TSI)4Medium2008Planning period: TSI potentially impaired; verified period: TSI verified. Annual average TSI over 60 in 19961998. N and P colimiting based on the TN/TP median of 17 (899 values) for the planning period and a median of 15.9 (1062 values) during the verified period. 2213I St. Johns River Ab Black Creek Lake IIIFSilverMedium2008Planning period: 48/54 Potentially impaired; verified period: 30/33 Verified.Table 4.2 (continued)275Water Quality Assessment Report: Lower St. Johns

PAGE 174

WBID Waterbody Segment Name Waterbody Type Waterbody Class 1998 303(d) Parameters of Concern New Parameters of Concern from IWR Priority for TMDL Development1Projected Year for TMDL Development1Comments2 (# Exceedances/# Samples) South Main Stem Planning Unit, continued 2213J St. Johns River Ab Palmo Creek Lake IIIFNutrients (TSI)4Medium2008Planning period: TSI potentially impaired; verified period: TSI verified. Annual average TSI over 60 in 19961999. N and P colimiting based on the TN/TP median of 18 (425 values) during the planning period and a median of 18.3 (460 values) during the verified period. 2213K St. Johns River Ab Tocio Lake IIIFNutrients Nutrients (TSI)4High2002Planning period: TSI potentially impaired; verified period: TSI verified. Annual average TSI over 60 in 19962001. Colimitation of N and P based on planning period TN/TP ratio mean 19.2, median 19, std. dev. 5.89 (635 values); verified period TN/TP ratio mean 19.7, median 19.2, std. dev. 6.02 (870 values). 2213L St. Johns River Ab Federal Pt Lake IIIFNutrients Nutrients (TSI)4High2002Planning period: TSI potentially impaired; verified period: TSI verified. Annual average TSI over 60 in 19962001. Colimitation of N and P based on planning period TN/TP ratio mean 51.1, median 20, std. dev. 522.8 (658 values); verified period: TN/TP ratio mean 51.1, median 20.7, std. dev. 521.2 (662 values). 2213M St. Johns River Ab Rice Creek Stream IIIFNutrients (Chlorophyll a )4Medium2008Planning period: Chlorophyll a potentially impaired; verified period: Chlorophyll a verified. Annual average Chlorophyll a over 20 g/ L in 19962001. P limiting based on the TN/TP median of 23 (467 values) during the planning period and a median of 23 (518 values) during the verified period. 2213N St. Johns River Ab Dunns Creek Stream IIIFNutrients (Chlorophyll a )4Medium2008Planning period: Chlorophyll a potentially impaired; verified period: Chlorophyll a verified. Annual average Chlorophyll a over 20 g/ L in 19962000. P limiting based on the TN/TP median of 25 (369 values) during the planning period and a median of 25.4 (339 values) during the verified period. 2361 Deep Bottom Creek Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 34/34 Potentially impaired; verified period: 23/24 Verified. 2361 Deep Bottom Creek Stream IIIFTotal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 19/22 Potentially impaired; verified period: 19/22 Verified. 2385 Mandarin Drain Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 23/29 Potentially impaired; verified period: 14/20 Verified. 2538 Cedar Creek Stream IIIFNutrients (Chlorophyll a ) Medium2008Planning period: Chlorophyll a potentially impaired; verified period: Chlorophyll a verified. Annual average Chlorophyll a over 20 g/L in 1998, 1999, 2001, and 2002. N and P colimiting based on the TN/TP median of 21 (30 values) during the planning period and a median of 20.8 (52 values) during the verified period. 2569 West Run Intercepter D Stream IIIFDODO3High2002Planning period: 76/161 Potentially impaired; verified period: 53/129 Verified. Linked to elevated TP based upon levels above the screening level during planning period (median 0.23 mg/L).Table 4.2 (continued)276Water Quality Assessment Report: Lower St. Johns

PAGE 175

WBID Waterbody Segment Name Waterbody Type Waterbody Class 1998 303(d) Parameters of Concern New Parameters of Concern from IWR Priority for TMDL Development1Projected Year for TMDL Development1Comments2 (# Exceedances/# Samples) South Main Stem Planning Unit, continued 2578 Dog Branch Stream IIIFDODOLow2008Planning period: 76/148 Potentially impaired; verified period: 52/113 Verified. Linked to elevated TP based on levels above the screening level during both the planning period and verified period (0.26 and 0.24 mg/L, respectively). 2583 Cow Branch Stream IIIFDOMedium2008Planning period: 22/38 Potentially impaired; verified period: 34/59 Verified. Linked to elevated TP based on levels above the screening level during both the planning period and verified period (0.34 and 0.34 mg/L, respectively). 2592 Mill Branch Stream IIIFDODO3High2002Planning period: 5/5 Potentially impaired; verified period: 8/22 Verified. Linked to nutrients based on elevated TP above screening level during the planning period and verified period (1.2 mg/L and 0.23 mg/L, respectively). Annual average Chlorophyll a in 2002 was above 20 g/L (73.8 g/L). 2592 Mill Branch Stream IIIFColiforms Fecal Coliforms3High2002Planning period: 4/5 Potentially impaired; verified period: 16/20 Verified. 2592 Mill Branch Stream IIIFNutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll a )3High2002Planning period: Insufficient data; verified period: Chlorophyll a verified. Annual average Chlorophyll a over 20 g/L in 2002. N limitation based on planning period TN/TP ratio mean 1.1, median 1.1, std. dev. 0 (1 value); verified period TN/TP ratio mean 9.8, median 5.9, std. dev. 14.1 (11 values). Trout River Planning Unit 2203 Trout River Stream IIIFDODOLow2008Planning period: 42/69 Potentially impaired; verified period: 42/66 Verified. Linked to elevated TP during both the planning period and verified period (0.34 and 0.35 mg/L, respectively). 2203 Trout River Stream IIIFColiforms Fecal Coliforms Low2008Planning period: 22/32 Potentially impaired; verified period: 15/24 Verified. 2203A Trout River Estuary IIIMColiforms Fecal Coliforms Low2008Planning period: 35/111 Potentially impaired; verified period: 10/34 Verified. 2207 Block House Creek Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 26/29 Potentially impaired; verified period: 14/20 Verified. 2207 Block House Creek Stream IIIFTotal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 16/18 Potentially impaired; verified period: 12/20 Verified. 2210 West Branch Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 26/29 Potentially impaired; verified period: 16/21 Verified. 2220 Ninemile Creek Stream IIIFDOMedium2008Planning period: 27/52 Potentially impaired; verified period: 32/53 Verified. Linked to elevated TN and TP during the planning period (1.66 and 0.27 mg/L, respectively). 2220 Ninemile Creek Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 12/32 Potentially impaired; verified period: 6/21 Verified.Table 4.2 (continued)277Water Quality Assessment Report: Lower St. Johns

PAGE 176

WBID Waterbody Segment Name Waterbody Type Waterbody Class 1998 303(d) Parameters of Concern New Parameters of Concern from IWR Priority for TMDL Development1Projected Year for TMDL Development1Comments2 (# Exceedances/# Samples) Trout River Planning Unit, continued 2224 Ribault River Stream IIIFDOMedium2008Planning period: 36/115 Potentially impaired; verified period: 38/88 Verified. Linked to elevated TN and BOD during verified period (1.72 and 2.5 mg/L, respectively). 2224 Ribault River Stream IIIFColiforms Fecal Coliforms High2004Planning period: 31/64 Potentially impaired; verified period: 12/42 Verified. 2228 Moncrief Creek Estuary IIIMCopperCopperHigh2004Planning period: 21/35 Potentially impaired; verified period: 20/35 Verified. 2228 Moncrief Creek Estuary IIIMColiforms Fecal Coliforms High2004Planning period: 64/83 Potentially impaired; verified period: 39/62 Verified. 2228 Moncrief Creek Estuary IIIMIronIronHigh2004Planning period: 37/47 Potentially impaired; verified period: 33/44 Verified. 2228 Moncrief Creek Estuary IIIMLeadMedium2008Planning period: 6/23 Potentially impaired; verified period: 6/21 Verified. 2228 Moncrief Creek Estuary IIIMNutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll a ) High2004Planning period: Chlorophyll a potentially impaired; verified period: Chlorophyll a verified. Annual average Chlorophyll a over 11 g/L in 1996, 1999, 2000, and 2001. N limitation based upon planning period TN/TP ratio mean 7.1, median 6.4, std. dev. 2.81 (67 values); verified period TN/TP ratio mean 7.3, median 6.3, std dev 4.78 (64 values). 2228 Moncrief Creek Estuary IIIMColiforms Total Coliforms High2004Planning period: 36/55 Potentially impaired; verified period: 7/21 Verified. 2232 Sixmile Creek Reach Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 38/66 Potentially impaired; verified period: 18/42 Verified. 2232 Sixmile Creek Reach Stream IIIFTotal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 17/41 Potentially impaired; verified period: 10/28 Verified. 2238 Little Sixmile Creek Stream IIIFFecal Coliforms Medium2008Planning period: 24/34 Potentially impaired; verified period: 17/25 Verified.Notes:1Priorities and schedule for TMDL development are only provided for waters in Category 5. The priorities were retained from the 1998 303(d) list (i.e., High or Low), but High, Medium, and Low are used for newly listed waters identified under the IWR. 2Planning period represents 1/1991/2000; verified period 1/19966/2003.3EPA is developing TMDLs for these parameters.4An order adopting these segments of the St. Johns River as impaired for nutrients was signed September 4, 2003. DO = Dissolved oxygen BOD = Biological oxygen demand TSI = Trophic state index N = Nitrogen P = Phosphorus TN = Total nitrogen TP = Total phosphorus std. dev. = Standard deviation ppm = Pounds per minute Table 4.2 (continued)278Water Quality Assessment Report: Lower St. Johns

PAGE 177

Figure 4.1: Waters on the Verified List, with Projected Year for TMDL Development 279Water Quality Assessment Report: Lower St. Johns

PAGE 178

and omissions to the list were corrected in October 2002. On March 11, 2003, the Departments Secretary signed an order amending the October 2002 Veri ed List for the basin with the January 2003 listing status. The order was of cially noticed in the May 28, 2004, edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly which started a 21-day period to le a petition challenging the order and a 30-day period to appeal the order. Pollutants Causing Impairments Of the 488 water segments in the Lower St. Johns Basin, 94 waters are impaired for at least 1 parameter, and a TMDL is required for these waters. There are a total of 165 parameter listings for impairment following the methodology in Appendix G The North Main Stem planning unit has the largest number of impaired parameter listings with 29, followed by the South Main Stem planning unit with 13 listings. The most common parameter exhibiting impairment throughout the Lower St. Johns Basin was fecal coliforms with 54 listings, followed by dissolved oxygen (DO) with 35 listings and nutrients with 29 listings. There are 3 segments listed due to sh consumption advisories for mercury; this includes Cue Lake, Lake Disston, and Florida Atlantic Coast. The state has also issued limited consumption advisories for Lake Carraway, which applies to sh species having mercury levels of 0.5 to 1.5 pounds per minute. As required by the IWR, the Department must identify the pollutants causing or contributing to DO exceedances in order to place DO on the Veri ed List. If a water segment is on the Veri ed List for both DO and nutrients, nutrients is identi ed as a pollutant contributing to DO exceedances. The Department also applies the following analysis to identify the pollutant(s) contributing to DO exceedances: 1. The water segment median values for biological oxygen demand (BOD), total nitrogen (TN), and total phosphorus (TP) are determined for the veri ed period (i.e., January 1995 to June 2002). 2. The median values are then compared with the screening levels for the appropriate waterbody type. The screening levels represent the 70th percentile value of data collected from streams, lakes, or estuaries (Table 4.3) 3. If a water segment median value exceeds the screening level, the parameter is identi ed as a pollutant contributing to the exceedances. Table 4.3: Screening Level Values (70th Percentile) Based on STORET Data from 1970 to 1987 BOD (mg/L)TN (mg/L)TP (mg/L) Streams2.01.60.22 Lakes2.91.70.11 Estuaries2.11.00.19 Source: Friedemann, F., and J. Hand. July 1989. Typical Water Quality Values for Floridas Lakes, Streams and Estuaries.280Water Quality Assessment Report: Lower St. Johns

PAGE 179

Table 4.4 provides the median values for water segments where there is a suf cient number of DO exceedances to place the water on the Veri ed List. If a water has a suf cient number of exceedances for placement on the Veri ed List but the median values are less than the screening levels, the DO for that segment is included on the Planning List. Additionally, to place a water segment on the Veri ed List for nutrients, the Department must identify the limiting nutrient or nutrients on the Veried List, as required by the IWR. The following method is used to identify the limiting nutrient(s) in streams and lakes: 1. The ratios of TN to TP are calculated for each paired value of TN and TP (per sampling event) collected during the veri ed period. 2. The individual ratios over the entire veri ed period are evaluated to determine the limiting nutrient(s). If all the sampling event ratios are less than 10, nitrogen is identi ed as the limiting nutrient, and if all the ratios are greater than 30, phosphorus is identi ed as the limiting nutrient. Both nitrogen and phosphorus are identi ed as limiting nutrients if the ratios are between 10 and 30. Table 4.4: Lower St. Johns Basin Median Values for the Verified Period Planning UnitWBID Waterbody Segment Name Waterbody Type Biological Oxygen Demand 5 Day mg/L Total Nitrogen mg/L Total Phosphorus mg/L Black Creek2423 Mill Log CreekStream1.752.061.67 Black Creek2424 Bradley CreekStream 0.64.010.032 Crescent Lake2606A Dunns CreekStream 1.51.420.07 Crescent Lake2630C Little Haw Spring Stream1.11.60.015 Deep Creek 2561 Unnamed DitchesStream 1.11.230.24 Deep Creek 2571 Unnamed DitchStream 10.960.314 Deep Creek 2589 Sixteenmile Creek Stream 1.51.180.161 Intracoastal Waterway2227 Sherman Creek Stream 10.810.23 Intracoastal Waterway2273 Mill Dam BranchStream 11.690.18 Julington Creek2365 Durbin Creek Stream 1.51.130.066 North Main Stem 2191 Broward RiverEstuary 20.880.213 North Main Stem 2204 Terrapin CreekStream 59.340.33 North Main Stem 2256 Deer CreekStream 1.71.250.094 North Main Stem 2287 Miller CreekStream 30.880.16 North Main Stem 2297 Craig Creek Stream 30.860.168 North Main Stem 2326 Goodbys Creek Stream 2.70.930.2 Ortega River2213P Ortega RiverStream 21.270.145 Ortega River2262 Cedar RiverStream 10.770.13 Ortega River 2322 Butcher Pen Creek Stream 11.140.18281Water Quality Assessment Report: Lower St. Johns

PAGE 180

Planning UnitWBID Waterbody Segment Name Waterbody Type Biological Oxygen Demand 5 Day mg/L Total Nitrogen mg/L Total Phosphorus mg/L Ortega River2324 Fishing Creek Stream 11.350.16 Sixmile Creek2460 Mill CreekStream 0.71.260.18 South Main Stem 2382Unnamed DrainStream11.040.059 South Main Stem 2578 Dog Branch Stream 1.11.350.235 South Main Stem 2583 Cow BranchStream 11.180.34 Trout River 2203 Trout RiverStream 11.170.35 Trout River 2220 Ninemile CreekStream 11.660.27 Trout River2224 Ribault River Stream 2.51.720.19 Crescent Lake2622A Haw Creek Ab Crescent Lake Stream 1.470.084 Deep Creek 2540 Moccasin BranchStream 0.81.250.223 Deep Creek 2549 Deep Creek Stream 1.21.580.393 South Main Stem 2569 West Run Intercepter D Stream 11.240.202 South Main Stem 2592 Mill BranchStream 1.81.30.23 Table 4.4 (continued) Table 4.5 displays the nitrogen and phosphorus ratios for stream and lake segments potentially impaired by nutrients. Adoption Process for the Verified List of Impaired Waters The Veri ed List must be submitted in a speci c format (Section 62-303.710, F.A.C.) before being approved by order of the Departments Secretary. The list must specify the pollutant and concentration causing the impairment. If a waterbody segment is listed based on water quality criteria exceedances, then the list must provide the applicable criteria. However, if the listing is based on narrative or biological criteria, or impairment of other designated uses, and the water quality criteria are met, the Veri ed List is required to specify the concentration of the pollutant relative to the water quality criteria and explain why the numeric criterion is not adequate. For waters with exceedances of the DO criteria, the Department must identify the pollutants causing or contributing to the exceedances and list both the pollutant and DO in the Veri ed List. For waters impaired by nutrients, the Department is required to identify whether nitrogen or phosphorus, or both, are the limiting nutrients, and specify the limiting nutrient(s) in the Veri ed List. The Veri ed List must also include the priority and schedule for TMDL development established for a waterbody segment and note any waters that are being removed from the current Planning List. In future watershed management cycles, the list must also note waters that are being removed from any previous Veri ed List for the basin. 282Water Quality Assessment Report: Lower St. Johns

PAGE 181

Table 4.5: Lower St. Johns Basin Nitrogen to Phosphorus Ratios for the Verified Period WBID Waterbody Segment Name Waterbody Type Total Nitrogen Median (mg/L) Total Phoshorus Median (mg/L) Nitrogen to Phosphorus Ratio Median Nitrogen to Phosphorus Ratio Minimum Nitrogen to Phosphorus Ratio Maximum 2213E St. Johns River Ab Warren Bridge Estuary 1.27 0.121 10.4 0.4 37.4 2213F St. Johns River Ab Piney Point Estuary 1.1 0.1 10.4 2.7 10000 2228 Moncrief Creek Estuary 1.03 0.156 6.3 2.5 39.1 2322 Butcher Pen CreekStream 1.14 0.18 6.3 1.65 9.2 2592 Mill BranchStream 1.3 0.23 5.9 1.1 51.4 2622A Haw Creek Above Crescent Lake Stream 1.47 0.084 15.6 8.5 46.9 2213P Ortega RiverStream 1.27 0.145 9 0.08 20 2265A Arlington RiverEstuary 1.22 0.13 8.8 7.4 12.3 2410 Swimming Pen Creek Stream 1.596 0.095 16.9 3.6 155.3 2460 Mill Creek Stream 1.26 0.18 7.9 2.1 10.5 2589 Sixteenmile CreekStream 1.181 0.161 6.8 1.1 175.5 2213MSt. Johns River Ab Rice Creek Stream 1.38 0.058 23 7.4 10240 2213NSt. Johns River Ab Dunns Creek Stream 1.32 0.052 25.4 10.9 12580 2538 Cedar CreekStream 1.31 0.063 20.5 1.1 100.3 2606A Dunns CreekStream 1.42 0.07 21.3 10.3 421 2213C St. Johns River Ab Dames Point Estuary 0.94 0.118 7.6 2.1 101.5 2365 Durbin CreekStream 1.09 0.073 16.4 2.9 94.1 2549 Deep CreekStream 1.58 0.393 4.2 7.0 16.6 2213A St. Johns River Ab Mouth Estuary 0.54 0.082 6.7 0.1 10300 2213B St. Johns River Ab ICWW Estuary 0.8 0.108 7.52 0.4 14400 2213KSt. Johns River Ab Tocio Lake 1.39 0.075 19.1 0.6 72.5 2213LSt. Johns River Ab Federal Point Lake 1.32 0.063 20.1 5.9 9510 2389 Doctors LakeLake 1.42 0.092 15.3 2.7 217.3 2213I St. Johns River Ab Black Creek Lake 1.32 0.086 15.9 1.2 12640 2213J St. Johns River Ab Palmo Creek Lake 1.38 0.075 18.3 5.4 3480 2543F Lake RossLake 1.66 0.067 26.3 9.2 44.4 2606B Crescent LakeLake 1.38 0.083 17.2 3.6 106.1 2630I South Lake Talmadge Lake 1.15 0.022 50 25.8 88.5 2680A Lake MollyLake 1 0.036 28.4 16.2 80.6283Water Quality Assessment Report: Lower St. Johns

PAGE 183

Appendix IX:: Ocklawaha River TMDL Review ::

PAGE 184

Chapter 4: The Verified List of Impaired WatersPublic Participation The Department has worked with a variety of stakeholders and held public meetings on developing and adopting the Veri ed Lists of impaired waters for the six Group 2 basins across the state. Table 4.1 lists the statewide schedule for the development and adoption of the Group 2 Veri ed Lists, including the public meetings. The schedule for the Ocklawaha Basin is highlighted in boldface type. Appendix H contains documentation provided during the public comment period. Basin-speci c draft Veri ed Lists of waters that met the requirements of the Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) were made available to the public on July 12, 2002. The lists were placed on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Web site, at http://www.dep.state. .us/water/tmdl, and were also sent on request to interested parties by mail or via e-mail.Citizens were given the opportunity to comment on the draft lists in person and/or in writing. A total of 8 public meetings was held across the state, to encourage public participation on a basin-by-basin basis. The Department also accepted written comments for 45 days beginning July 12, 2002, and ending August 26, 2002. Following the public meetings for the Group 2 basins, which took place between July 19 and July 25, 2002, revised draft lists were made available to the public on August 7, 2002. The public had the opportunity to comment on these revised lists either in writing and/or at a nal public meeting in Tallahassee. Comments received by August 2, 2002, were considered in preparing the revised draft lists. Comments on any of the lists were accepted and considered throughout the full comment period. The nal basin-speci c Veri ed Lists developed through the public participation process were adopted by Secretarial Order during the week of August 260, 2002, and were submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on October 1, 2002, as the states current 303(d) list of impaired waters. 147Water Quality Assessment Report: Ocklawaha

PAGE 185

Table 4.1: Schedule for Development and Adoption of the Group 1 Verified Lists DateScheduled Activity July 12, 2002Publication of Draft Verified List and Beginning of Public Comment Period July 19, 2002Public Meeting at Marco Island on the Statewide Verified List for All Group 1 Basins July 22, 2002Public Meeting in Tallahassee on the Ocklockonee and St. Marks Basins July 22, 2002Public Meeting in Live Oak on the Suwannee River Basin (Including the Aucilla, Coastal, Suwannee, Waccasassa, and Orange Creek Basins) July 23, 2002Public Meeting in Leesburg on the Ocklawaha River and Orange Creek Basins July 24, 2002Public Meeting in St. Petersburg on the Tampa Bay Basin July 24, 2002Public Meeting in Belle Glade on the Lake Okeechobee Basin July 25, 2002Public Meeting in Ft. Myers on the Everglades West Coast Basin August 7, 2002Publication of Revised Draft List August 14, 2002Public Meeting in Tallahassee on Revised Draft List for All Basins, and Public Comments and Input from Prior Public Meetings August 26, 2002Final Deadline for Receiving Public Comments August 2630, 2002Adoption of Verified List by Secretarial Order October 1, 2002Submittal to EPA as States 303(d) List of Impaired Waters March 2003Amended 303(d) list submitted to EPAIdentification of Impaired Waters As discussed in Chapter 2, waters on the Veri ed and Planning Lists must meet speci c thresholds and data suf ciency and data quality requirements in the IWR (Rule 62-303, F.A.C.). Appendix A describes the legislative and regulatory background for the development of the Planning and Veri ed Lists. Appendix D contains a methodology that describes the criteria and thresholds required for both lists under the IWR. Any waters that do not have suf cient data to be analyzed in accordance with the requirements of the IWR remain on the 1998 303(d) list of impaired waters maintained by the EPA. These waters are not delisted, and they will be sampled during the next phases of the watershed management cycle so that their impairment status can be veri ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Review of Floridas Amended Section 303(d) List On June 11, 2003, the EPA released a Decision Document based on its review of the Departments amendments to Floridas 1998 Section 303(d) list. The EPA found that the Departments Group 1 update substantially met the intent of Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and partially approved the submission. Applying its own evaluation methodology, the EPA proposed listing 80 additional waterbody segments/pollutants for public comment by July 18, 2003. Under this methodology, approximately half of the added waters failed to meet water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen (DO), but no causative pollutant could be identi ed. Florida law precludes the Department from including such waters on its Veri ed List of impaired 148Water Quality Assessment Report: Ocklawaha

PAGE 186

waters until the causative pollutant is known. The majority of the remaining waters were added to the list based on a different interpretation of the methodology for assessing potential impairment for bacteria. The Department agreed to apply this alternative methodology when assessing the next group (Group 2) of waterbodies for bacteria. The consequence of having the EPA add waters to Floridas Section 303(d) list is that the EPA would be obligated to propose TMDLs for these waters. However, the EPA has proposed assigning a low priority to these waterbodies, thus providing the Department an opportunity to investigate them further. The section on Prioritization of Listed Waters in Chapter 5 provides additional details on the criteria for high-, low-, and medium-priority waters. Information on the status of Floridas amended Section 303(d) list is available on the EPAs Web site at http: //www.epa.gov/region4/water/tmdl/ orida/. Documentation of Reasonable Assurance Under the Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA), the Department will not place impaired waters on the Veri ed List if reasonable assurance is provided that these waters will attain water quality standards in the future and will make reasonable progress towards attaining water quality standards by the time the next 303(d) list of impaired waters is scheduled to be submitted to the EPA. Reasonable assurance can be provided if existing or proposed technology-based ef uent limitations and other pollution control programs under local, state, or federal authority are expected to result in the attainment of water quality standards. Examples include Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Program restoration projects that provide ongoing monitoring, and permitted facilities that upgrade to advanced treatment or remove discharges to surface waters. Table 4.2 lists the major elements of reasonable assurance, and Appendix C provides additional information. Though numerous other efforts are under way in the Ocklawaha Basin to identify and abate pollution, no management plans have been submitted to the Department that meet the reasonable assurance requirements described above. The Verified List of Impaired Waters Table 4.3 contains the Veri ed List of impaired waters for the Ocklawaha Basin, based on the water quality assessment performed for the October 2002 update to the 303(d) list. Figure 4.1 shows waters on the Veri ed List for the entire Ocklawaha Basin as of October 2002. For presentation purposes, the entire watershed for the listed water is highlighted. However, only the main water in the assessment unit has been assessed, and other waters in the watershed might not be impaired. Veri ed waters by planning unit were shown earlier in Tables 3.5 through 3.12 149Water Quality Assessment Report: Ocklawaha

PAGE 187

Table 4.2: Elements of Reasonable Assurance Descriptive 303(d) listed waterbody Water quality standards being violated or other criteria not met Pollutant(s) of concern Designated use classification Length (mi) or area (acres) of impairment or potential impairment Watershed/8-digit cataloging unit code EPA Reach File Number Description of waterbody and watershed location Suspected or documented source(s) of impairmentManagement Strategy Responsible entity Participating entities (government, agency, private, others) Summary of management strategy Supporting document(s) Pollutant(s) reduction goals/targets Assurance of participation (such as written agreements) Strategy for future growth and new sources Funding sources Implementation schedule Enforcement program if management strategy is not voluntaryMonitoring and Reporting Results Water quality monitoring program design and brief description Quality assurance/quality control elements Supporting document(s) Monitoring of implementation Reporting of monitoring and implementation results Expected response (time frame and degree of improvement) Responsible entity for reporting Frequency of reporting results Evaluating progress towards goals (water quality and implementation)Corrective Actions/Strategy (if water quality does not improve after implementation) Description of strategy Supporting document(s) and Figures 3.3 through 3.7 and 3.11 There were no data available for assessment of waters in the Florida Ridge planning unit; therefore, there are no veri ed impairments included in Table 4.3 for the planning unit. 150Water Quality Assessment Report: Ocklawaha

PAGE 188

Table 4.3: The Verified List of Impaired Waters for the Ocklawaha Group 1 Basin WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1998 303(d) Parameters of Concern Parameters Identified Using the 2002 Impaired Surface Waters Rule Priority for TMDL Development 1Projected Year for TMDL Development 2Comments Lake Apopka Planning Unit 2835CGourd Neck Spring SpringNutrientsNutrients (Chlorophyll a ) High2002Phosphorus limited. TMDL will be based on PLRG for phosphorus developed by SJRWMD. 2835D Shown as 2835B on 1998 303(d) List Lake Apopka LakeNutrientsNutrients (TSI)High2002Phosphorus limited. TMDL will be based on PLRG for phosphorus developed by SJRWMD. 2835D Shown as 2835B on 1998 303(d) List Lake Apopka LakePesticides-Fish Medium2007Advisory issued in 1999 for Brown Bullhead Catfish based on samples collected in March 1999. Advisory based on several pesticides. Palatlakaha River Planning Unit 2839 Shown as 2839 (& 2839G) on 1998 303(d) List Palatlakaha River StreamDODOLow2002Believed related to elevated nutrients. Palatlakaha River (WBID 2839) has been differentiated from Palatlakaha Lake (WBID 2839G). 2839 Shown as 2839 (& 2839G) on 1998 303(d) List Palatlakaha River StreamNutrients (Chlorophyll a ) Medium2002Phosphorus limited with some colimitation by nitrogen and phosphorus. Lake Griffin Planning Unit 2807Lake Yale Canal Called Lake Yale Canal (Yale-Griffin Canal) on 1998 303(d) List LakeNutrients (TSI)Medium2002Phosphorus limited. 2740FOcklawaha River at Sunnyhill StreamDODO, NutrientsLow2002Nitrogen is causative pollutant. 151Water Quality Assessment Report: Ocklawaha

PAGE 189

Table 4.3 (continued) WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1998 303(d) Parameters of Concern Parameters Identified Using the 2002 Impaired Surface Waters Rule Priority for TMDL Development 1Projected Year for TMDL Development 2Comments Lake Griffin Planning Unit, continued 2807ALake YaleLakeNutrients (TSI and Historical Chlorophyll a ) Medium2002Phosphorus limited. 2814A Shown as 14 on 1998 303(d) List Lake GriffinLakeNutrientsNutrients (TSI and Historical Chlorophyll a ) High2003Phosphorus limited. 2814A Shown as 14 on 1998 303(d) List Lake GriffinLakeUnionized Ammonia Unionized Ammonia High2003 2817AHaines Creek Reach StreamBODBODLow2002BOD median above screening level (96 BOD values, median 2.95 mg/L, mean 3.58 mg/L, range 139.5 mg/L) and DO meets verification threshold of IWR. 2817AHaines Creek Reach StreamDODOLow2002BOD indicated as causative pollutant (96 BOD values, median 2.95 mg/L, mean 3.58 mg/L, range 139.5 mg/L). Nutrients also believed to contribute. 2817AHaines Creek Reach StreamNutrientsNutrients (Chlorophyll a ) Low2002Phosphorus limited. Part of a PLRG for Lake Griffin. 2829ALake Lorraine LakeNutrients (TSI)Medium2007Phosphorus limited. Lake Harris Planning Unit 2832Helena RunStreamNutrientsNutrients (Chlorophyll a ) Low2002Phosphorus limited with some colimitation by nitrogen and phosphorus. 2817BLake EustisLakeNutrientsNutrients (TSI)Low2002Phosphorus limited. 2817BLake EustisLakeUnionized Ammonia Unionized Ammonia Low2002 2817CDead RiverStreamNutrients (Chlorophyll a ) Medium2002Phosphorus limited. 152Water Quality Assessment Report: Ocklawaha

PAGE 190

Table 4.3 (continued) WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1998 303(d) Parameters of Concern Parameters Identified Using the 2002 Impaired Surface Waters Rule Priority for TMDL Development 1Projected Year for TMDL Development 2Comments Lake Harris Planning Unit, continued 2819A Shown as 19 on 1998 303(d) List Trout LakeCalled Trout Lake Outlet on 1998 303(d) List LakeNutrientsNutrients (TSI)Low2002Nitrogen limited and some colimitation by nitrogen and phosphorus. Trout Lake was differentiated from Trout Lake Outlet and given a unique WBID number (2819A). Trout Lake contains the 1998 303(d) listing for nutrients. 2831ADora Canal Called Extension Ditch (Dora Canal) on 1998 303(d) List StreamNutrientsNutrients (Chlorophyll a ) Low2002Phosphorus limited. Some very high chlorophyll values. 2831ADora Canal Called Extension Ditch (Dora Canal) on 1998 303(d) List StreamDOMedium2002Nitrogen indicated as causative pollutant (median 4.54 mg/L). 2831B Shown as 31 on 1998 303(d) List Lake DoraLakeNutrientsNutrients (TSI)High2003Phosphorus limited. 2831B Shown as 31 on 1998 303(d) List Lake DoraLakeUnionized Ammonia Unionized Ammonia High2003 2832ALake Denham LakeNutrients (TSI)Medium2007Phosphorus limited. 2834CLake Beauclair LakeNutrients (TSI)Medium2003Phosphorus limited with some colimitation by nitrogen and phosphorus. 153Water Quality Assessment Report: Ocklawaha

PAGE 191

Table 4.3 (continued) WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1998 303(d) Parameters of Concern Parameters Identified Using the 2002 Impaired Surface Waters Rule Priority for TMDL Development 1Projected Year for TMDL Development 2Comments Lake Harris Planning Unit, continued 2835ALake Apopka Outlet StreamBODBODHigh2002BOD median above screening level (9 BOD values, median 3.0, range 0.0-6.2 mg/L) and DO met verification threshold of IWR. 2835ALake Apopka Outlet StreamDODOHigh2002BOD indicated as causative pollutant (9 BOD values, median 3.0, range 0.0-6.2 mg/L). Nutrients also believed to contribute. 2835ALake Apopka Outlet StreamNutrientsNutrients (Chlorophyll a ) High2002Primarily nitrogen limited. Some colimitation by nitrogen and phosphorus. 2837B Shown as 37 on 1998 303(d) List Lake CarltonCalled Lake Carlton Outlet on 1998 303(d) List LakeNutrientsNutrients (TSI)High2002Phosphorus limited. Lake Carlton was differentiated from Lake Carlton Outlet and given a unique WBID number (2837B). Lake Carlton contains the 1998 303(d) listing for nutrients. 2838ALake HarrisLakeNutrientsNutrients (TSI)Low2002Phosphorus limited. PLRG under development. 2838BLittle Lake Harris LakeNutrientsNutrients (TSI)High2002Phosphorus limited. Marshall Swamp Planning Unit 2790Lake Weir Outlet LakeNutrients (TSI)Medium2007Phosphorus limited. 2740DOcklawaha River Above Daisy Creek StreamBODBODLow2002BOD median above screening level (129 BOD values, median 2.7, range 0.4-11.2 mg/L) and DO meets verification threshold. 2740DOcklawaha River Above Daisy Creek StreamColiformsTotal ColiformsLow2002154Water Quality Assessment Report: Ocklawaha

PAGE 192

Table 4.3 (continued) WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1998 303(d) Parameters of Concern Parameters Identified Using the 2002 Impaired Surface Waters Rule Priority for TMDL Development 1Projected Year for TMDL Development 2Comments Marshall Swamp Planning Unit, continued 2740DOcklawaha River Above Daisy Creek StreamDODOLow2002BOD indicated as causative pollutant (129 BOD values, median 2.7, range 0.411.2 mg/L). Nutrients also believed to contribute. 2740DOcklawaha River Above Daisy Creek StreamNutrientsNutrients (Current and Historical Chlorophyll a ) Low2002Phosphorus limited. 2740DOcklawaha River Above Daisy Creek StreamIronMedium2007 2790ALake WeirLakeNutrients (TSI)Medium2007Phosphorus limited. Rodman Reservoir Planning Unit 2740COcklawaha River Above Lake Ocklawaha (Rodman Reservoir) StreamDODOLow2002Believed linked to elevated nutrients. 2740COcklawaha River Above Lake Ocklawaha (Rodman Reservoir) StreamNutrientsNutrients (Current and Historical Chlorophyll a ) Low2002Phosphorus limited with some colimitation by nitrogen and phosphorus. 2782CLake BryantLakeNutrients (TSI)Medium2007Phosphorus limited. Orange Creek Planning Unit 2688Hatchet Creek Blackwater Stream ColiformsTotal ColiformsLow2002Blackwater 2688Hatchet Creek StreamIronIronLow2002 2695Little Hatchet Creek StreamDOMedium2007DO met verification threshold of Impaired Surface Waters Rule and phosphorus is the causative pollutant. Chlorophyll met standards. Flows from Gum Root Swamp. 2698Hogtown Creek StreamColiformsFecal ColiformsLow2002 2698Hogtown Creek StreamDOMedium2007Elevated nutrients believed to contribute.155Water Quality Assessment Report: Ocklawaha

PAGE 193

Table 4.3 (continued) WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1998 303(d) Parameters of Concern Parameters Identified Using the 2002 Impaired Surface Waters Rule Priority for TMDL Development 1Projected Year for TMDL Development 2Comments Orange Creek Planning Unit, continued 2705Newnans Lake Outlet LakeNutrients (TSI)Medium2007Phosphorus limited with some colimitation by nitrogen and phosphorus. 2711Sweetwater Branch StreamColiformsFecal ColiformsLow2002 2741Wauberg Lake Outlet Called Wauberg (Not Walberg) Lake Outlet on 1998 303(d) List LakeNutrientsNutrients (TSI)High2002Colimitation by nitrogen and phosphorus. TN and TP medians are both below screening levels. 2754Cross CreekStreamDODOHigh2002Based on Orange Creek Partnership data. BOD indicated as causative pollutant (BOD median 3.4 mg/L). Believed also linked to nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus). 2754Cross CreekStreamNutrientsNutrients (Chlorophyll a ) High2002Colimited by nitrogen and phosphorus. Based on recent Orange Creek Partnership data. 2705B Shown as 05 on 1998 303(d) List Newnans Lake LakeNutrientsNutrients (TSI)High2002Phosphorus limited with some colimitation by nitrogen and phosphorus. 2713BRedwater Lake LakeNutrients (TSI)Medium2007Nitrogen limited with some colimitation by nitrogen and phosphorus. 2718ATumblin Creek StreamColiformsFecal ColiformsLow2002 2718ATumblin Creek StreamColiformsTotal ColiformsLow2002156Water Quality Assessment Report: Ocklawaha

PAGE 194

Table 4.3 (continued) WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1998 303(d) Parameters of Concern Parameters Identified Using the 2002 Impaired Surface Waters Rule Priority for TMDL Development 1Projected Year for TMDL Development 2Comments Orange Creek Planning Unit, continued 2718CTumblin Creek South (Previously Listed as Bevens Creek) StreamNutrients (Chlorophyll a ) Medium2007Colimited by nitrogen and phosphorus. 2720A Shown as 20 on 1998 303(d) List Alachua Sink LakeNutrientsNutrients (TSI)High2002Nitrogen limited. Alachua Sink was differentiated from Alachua Sink Outlet and given a unique WBID number (2720A). Alachua Sink retains the 1998 303(d) listing for nutrients. 2738A Shown as 38 on 1998 303(d) List Lochloosa Lake LakeNutrientsNutrients (Chlorophyll a TSI) High2002Phosphorus limited with some colimitation by nitrogen and phosphorus. 2749A Shown as 49 on 1998 303(d) List Orange LakeCalled Orange Lake Reach on 1998 303(d) List LakeNutrientsNutrients (TSI and Historical Chlorophyll a ) Low2002Phosphorus limited with some colimitation by nitrogen and phosphorus.1Where a parameter was 1998 303(d) listed, the priority shown for it in the 1998 303(d) list was retained (high or low). Where a parameter was only identified as impaired under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule, priorities of high, medium, or low were used. 2In 1998, the EPA settled a lawsuit with the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund concerning Floridas TMDL program. The consent dec ree resulting from the lawsuit requires all TMDLs on the states 1998 Section 303(d) list of impaired waters to be developed accord ing to the priority ranking and schedule established in the list. A number of Group 1 waters on the 1998 303(d) list were assigned hi gh priorities with a TMDL development due date of December 31, 2002. While the Department has the lead responsibility for TMDL development in Florida, the consent decree stipulates that, where the Department fails to develop required TMDLs according to the sche dule established in the 1998 303(d) list, the EPA shall assume this responsibility, and the EPA has nine months beyond the establish ed schedule to do so. In the case of Group 1 waters with high priorities and 2002 TMDL due dates, the deadline is September 30, 2 003. 157Water Quality Assessment Report: Ocklawaha

PAGE 195

Figure 4.1: Waters on the Verified List in the Ocklawaha Basin, with Projected Year for TMDL Development 158Water Quality Assessment Report: Ocklawaha

PAGE 196

Since the October 2002 update of the 303(d) list, further data became available for assessment of the basin, and these data were used to update the listing status of waters. Table I.1 in Appendix I contains the listing status of all assessed waters in the basin as of January 2003. An Order containing the initial Veri ed List of Impaired Group 1 Waters (Veri ed List) was signed by the Departments Secretary on August 26, 2002. Errors and omissions to the list were corrected in October 2002. On March 11, 2003, the Departments Secretary signed an order amending the October 2002 Veri ed List for the basin with the January 2003 listing status. It should be noted that changes in impairment status expressed in Table I.1 were not included in this Amended Order. The order was of cially noticed in the March 28, 2003, edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly which started a 21-day period to le a petition challenging the Order and a 30-day period to appeal the Order. Pollutants Causing Impairments The major pollutants of concern in the planning units of the Ocklawaha Basin are the following: Lake Apopka Planning UnitNutrients Palatlakaha River Planning UnitDO, Nutrients Lake Grif n Planning UnitDO, Nutrients Lake Harris Planning UnitDO, Nutrients Marshall Swamp Planning UnitDO, Nutrients, Coliform Bacteria Rodman Reservoir Planning UnitDO, Nutrients Orange Creek Planning UnitDO, Nutrients, Coliform Bacteria Though some of these impairments, such as low DO, can be attributed partially to ground water in uences from the many springs in the basin or naturally low DO in marshy areas, many are related to anthropogenic impacts. These include past agricultural practices such as muck farming; numerous hydrologic alterations to the Ocklawaha River and tributaries through the construction of dams, locks and channels; and urbanization of the basin. Adoption Process for the Verified List of Impaired Waters The Veri ed List must be submitted in a speci c format (Section 62-303.710, F.A.C.) before being approved by order of the Departments Secretary. The list must specify the pollutant and concentration causing the impairment. If a waterbody segmen t is listed based on water quality criteria exceedances, then the list must provide the applicable criteria. However, if the listing is based on narrative or biological criteria, or impairment of other designated uses, and the water quality criteria are met, the Veri ed List is required to specify the concentration of the pollutant relative to the water quality criteria and explain why the numeric criterion is not adequate. 159Water Quality Assessment Report: Ocklawaha

PAGE 197

For waters with exceedances of the DO criteria, the Department must identify the pollutants causing or contributing to the exceedances and list both the pollutant and DO in the Veri ed List. For waters impaired by nutrients, the Department is required to identify whether nitrogen or phosphorus, or both, are the limiting nutrients, and specify the limiting nutrient(s) in the Veri ed List. The Veri ed List must also include the priority and schedule for TMDL development established for a waterbody segment and note any waters that are being removed from the current Planning List. In future watershed management cycles, the list must also note waters that are being removed from any previous Veri ed List for the basin. 160Water Quality Assessment Report: Ocklawaha

PAGE 198

Appendix X:: Clean Water Act Section 303 & 305::

PAGE 199

102 Sec. 303FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT pollutants if the applicant demonstrates at such hearing that (whether or not technology or other alternative control strategies are available) there is no reasonable relationship between the economic and social costs and the benefits to be obtained (including attainment of the objective of this Act) from achieving such limitation. (B) REASONABLEPROGRESS.—The Administrator, with the concurrence of the State, may issue a permit which modifies the effluent limitations required by subsection (a) of this section for toxic pollutants for a single period not to exceed 5 years if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator that such modified requirements (i) will represent the maximum degree of control within the economic capability of the owner and operator of the source, and (ii) will result in reasonable further progress beyond the requirements of section 301(b)(2) toward the requirements of subsection (a) of this section. (c) The establishment of effluent limitations under this section shall not operate to delay the application of any effluent limitation established under section 301 of this Act.(33 U.S.C. 1312)WATERQUALITYSTANDARDSANDIMPLEMENTATIONPLANSSEC. 303. (a)(1) In order to carry out the purpose of this Act, any water quality standard applicable to interstate waters which was adopted by any State and submitted to, and approved by, or is awaiting approval by, the Administrator pursuant to this Act as in effect immediately prior to the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, shall remain in effect unless the Administrator determined that such standard is not consistent with the applicable requirements of this Act as in effect immediately prior to the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. If the Administrator makes such a determination he shall, within three months after the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, notify the State and specify the changes needed to meet such requirements. If such changes are not adopted by the State within ninety days after the date of such notification, the Administrator shall promulgate such changes in accordance with subsection (b) of this section. (2) Any State which, before the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, has adopted, pursuant to its own law, water quality standards applicable to intrastate waters shall submit such standards to the Administrator within thirty days after the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. Each such standard shall remain in effect, in the same manner and to the same extent as any other water quality standard established under this Act unless the Administrator determines that such standard is inconsistent with the applicable requirements of this Act as in effect immediately prior to the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. If the Administrator makes such a determination he shall not later than the one hunQ:\COMP\WATER2\CLEANWAT.003November 27, 2002

PAGE 200

103Sec. 303 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT dred and twentieth day after the date of submission of such standards, notify the State and specify the changes needed to meet such requirements. If such changes are not adopted by the State within ninety days after such notification, the Administrator shall promulgate such changes in accordance with subsection (b) of this section. (3)(A) Any State which prior to the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 has not adopted pursuant to its own laws water quality standards applicable to intrastate waters shall, not later than one hundred and eighty days after the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, adopt and submit such standards to the Administrator. (B) If the Administrator determines that any such standards are consistent with the applicable requirements of this Act as in effect immediately prior to the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, he shall approve such standards. (C) If the Administrator determines that any such standards are not consistent with the applicable requirements of this Act as in effect immediately prior to the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, he shall, not later than the ninetieth day after the date of submission of such standards, notify the State and specify the changes to meet such requirements. If such changes are not adopted by the State within ninety days after the date of notification, the Administrator shall promulgate such standards pursuant to subsection (b) of this section. (b)(1) The Administrator shall promptly prepare and publish proposed regulations setting forth water quality standards for a State in accordance with the applicable requirements of this Act as in effect immediately prior to the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, if— (A) the State fails to submit water quality standards within the times prescribed in subsection (a) of this section, (B) a water quality standard submitted by such State under subsection (a) of this section is determined by the Administrator not to be consistent with the applicable requirements of subsection (a) of this section. (2) The Administrator shall promulgate any water quality standard published in a proposed regulation not later than one hundred and ninety days after the date he publishes any such proposed standard, unless prior to such promulgation, such State has adopted a water quality standard which the Administrator determines to be in accordance with subsection (a) of this section. (c)(1) The Governor of a State or the State water pollution control agency of such State shall from time to time (but at least once each three year period beginning with the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972) hold public hearings for the purpose of reviewing applicable water quality standards and, as appropriate, modifying and adopting standards. Results of such review shall be made available to the Administrator. (2)(A) Whenever the State revises or adopts a new standard, such revised or new standard shall be submitted to the AdminisQ:\COMP\WATER2\CLEANWAT.003November 27, 2002

PAGE 201

104 Sec. 303FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT trator. Such revised or new water quality standard shall consist of the designated uses of the navigable waters involved and the water quality criteria for such waters based upon such uses. Such standards shall be such as to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of this Act. Such standards shall be established taking into consideration their use and value for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and other purposes, and also taking into consideration their use and value for navigation. (B) Whenever a State reviews water quality standards pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection, or revises or adopts new standards pursuant to this paragraph, such State shall adopt criteria for all toxic pollutants listed pursuant to section 307(a)(1) of this Act for which criteria have been published under section 304(a), the discharge or presence of which in the affected waters could reasonably be expected to interfere with those designated uses adopted by the State, as necessary to support such designated uses. Such criteria shall be specific numerical criteria for such toxic pollutants. Where such numerical criteria are not available, whenever a State reviews water quality standards pursuant to paragraph (1), or revises or adopts new standards pursuant to this paragraph, such State shall adopt criteria based on biological monitoring or assessment methods consistent with information published pursuant to section 304(a)(8). Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or delay the use of effluent limitations or other permit conditions based on or involving biological monitoring or assessment methods or previously adopted numerical criteria. (3) If the Administrator, within sixty days after the date of submission of the revised or new standard, determines that such standard meets the requirements of this Act, such standard shall thereafter be the water quality standard for the applicable waters of that State. If the Administrator determines that any such revised or new standard is not consistent with the applicable requirements of this Act, he shall not later than the ninetieth day after the date of submission of such standard notify the State and specify the changes to meet such requirements. If such changes are not adopted by the State within ninety days after the date of notification, the Administrator shall promulgate such standard pursuant to paragraph (4) of this subsection. (4) The Administrator shall promptly prepare and publish proposed regulations setting forth a revised or new water quality standard for the navigable waters involved— (A) if a revised or new water quality standard submitted by such State under paragraph (3) of this subsection for such waters is determined by the Administrator not to be consistent with the applicable requirements of this Act, or (B) in any case where the Administrator determines that a revised or new standard is necessary to meet the requirements of this Act. The Administrator shall promulgate any revised or new standard under this paragraph not later than ninety days after he publishes such proposed standards, unless prior to such promulgation, such Q:\COMP\WATER2\CLEANWAT.003November 27, 2002

PAGE 202

105Sec. 303 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT State has adopted a revised or new water quality standard which the Administrator determines to be in accordance with this Act. (d)(1)(A) Each State shall identify those waters within its boundaries for which the effluent limitations required by section 301(b)(1)(A) and section 301(b)(1)(B) are not stringent enough to implement any water quality standard applicable to such waters. The State shall establish a priority ranking for such waters, taking into account the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of such waters. (B) Each State shall identify those waters or parts thereof within its boundaries for which controls on thermal discharges under section 301 are not stringent enough to assure protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife. (C) Each State shall establish for the waters identified in paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection, and in accordance with the priority ranking, the total maximum daily load, for those pollutants which the Administrator identifies under section 304(a)(2) as suitable for such calculation. Such load shall be established at a level necessary to implement the applicable water quality standards with seasonal variations and a margin of safety which takes into account any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between effluent limitations and water quality. (D) Each State shall estimate for the waters identified in paragraph (1)(D) of this subsection the total maximum daily thermal load required to assure protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish and wildlife. Such estimates shall take into account the normal water temperatures, flow rates, seasonal variations, existing sources of heat input, and the dissipative capacity of the identified waters or parts thereof. Such estimates shall include a calculation of the maximum heat input that can be made into each such part and shall include a margin of safety which takes into account any lack of knowledge concerning the development of thermal water quality criteria for such protection and propagation in the identified waters or parts thereof. (2) Each State shall submit to the Administrator from time to time, with the first such submission not later than one hundred and eighty days after the date of publication of the first identification of pollutants under section 304(a)(2)(D), for his approval the waters identified and the loads established under paragraphs (1)(A), (1)(B), (1)(C), and (1)(D) of this subsection. The Administrator shall either approve or disapprove such identification and load not later than thirty days after the date of submission. If the Administrator approves such identification and load, such State shall incorporate them into its current plan under subsection (e) of this section. If the Administrator disapproves such identification and load, he shall not later than thirty days after the date of such disapproval identify such waters in such State and establish such loads for such waters as he determines necessary to implement the water quality standards applicable to such waters and upon such identification and establishment the State shall incorporate them into its current plan under subsection (e) of this section. (3) For the specific purpose of developing information, each State shall identify all waters within its boundaries which it has Q:\COMP\WATER2\CLEANWAT.003November 27, 2002

PAGE 203

106 Sec. 303FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT not identified under paragraph (1)(A) and (1)(B) of this subsection and estimate for such waters the total maximum daily load with seasonal variations and margins of safety, for those pollutants which the Administrator identifies under section 304(a)(2) as suitable for such calculation and for thermal discharges, at a level that would assure protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous population of fish, shellfish and wildlife. (4) LIMITATIONSONREVISIONOFCERTAINEFFLUENTLIMITA-TIONS.— (A) STANDARDNOTATTAINED.—For waters identified under paragraph (1)(A) where the applicable water quality standard has not yet been attained, any effluent limitation based on a total maximum daily load or other waste load allocation established under this section may be revised only if (i) the cumulative effect of all such revised effluent limitations based on such total maximum daily load or waste load allocation will assure the attainment of such water quality standard, or (ii) the designated use which is not being attained is removed in accordance with regulations established under this section. (B) STANDARDATTAINED.—For waters identified under paragraph (1)(A) where the quality of such waters equals or exceeds levels necessary to protect the designated use for such waters or otherwise required by applicable water quality standard, any effluent limitation based on a total maximum daily load or other waste load allocation established under this section, or any water quality standard established under this section, or any other permitting standard may be revised only if such revision is subject to and consistent with the antidegradation policy established under this section. (e)(1) Each State shall have a continuing planning process approved under paragraph (2) of this subsection which is consistent with this Act. (2) Each State shall submit not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of the Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972 to the Administrator for his approval a proposed continuing planning process which is consistent with this Act. Not later than thirty days after the date of submission of such a process the Administrator shall either approve or disapprove such process. The Administrator shall from time to time review each State’s approved planning process for the purpose of insuring that such planning process is at all times consistent with this Act. The Administrator shall not approve any State permit program under title IV of this Act for any State which does not have an approved continuing planning process under this section. (3) The Administrator shall approve any continuing planning process submitted to him under this section which will result in plans for all navigable waters within such State, which include, but are not limited to, the following: (A) effluent limitations and schedules of compliance at least as stringent as those required by section 301(b)(1), section 301(b)(2), section 306, and section 307, and at least as Q:\COMP\WATER2\CLEANWAT.003November 27, 2002

PAGE 204

107Sec. 303 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT stringent as any requirements contained in any applicable water quality standard in effect under authority of this section; (B) the incorporation of all elements of any applicable areawide waste management plans under section 208, and applicable basin plans under section 209 of this Act; (C) total maximum daily load for pollutants in accordance with subsection (d) of this section; (D) procedures for revision; (E) adequate authority for intergovernmental cooperation; (F) adequate implementation, including schedules of compliance, for revised or new water quality standards, under subsection (c) of this section; (G) controls over the disposition of all residual waste from any water treatment processing; (H) an inventory and ranking, in order of priority, of needs for construction of waste treatment works required to meet the applicable requirements of sections 301 and 302. (f) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any effluent limitation, or schedule of compliance required by any State to be implemented prior to the dates set forth in sections 301(b)(1) and 301(b)(2) nor to preclude any State from requiring compliance with any effluent limitation or schedule of compliance at dates earlier than such dates. (g) Water quality standards relating to heat shall be consistent with the requirements of section 316 of this Act. (h) For the purposes of this Act the term ‘‘water quality standards’’ includes thermal water quality standards. (i) COASTALRECREATIONWATERQUALITYCRITERIA.— (1) ADOPTIONBYSTATES.— (A) INITIALCRITERIAANDSTANDARDS.—Not later than 42 months after the date of the enactment of this subsection, each State having coastal recreation waters shall adopt and submit to the Administrator water quality criteria and standards for the coastal recreation waters of the State for those pathogens and pathogen indicators for which the Administrator has published criteria under section 304(a). (B) NEWORREVISEDCRITERIAANDSTANDARDS.—Not later than 36 months after the date of publication by the Administrator of new or revised water quality criteria under section 304(a)(9), each State having coastal recreation waters shall adopt and submit to the Administrator new or revised water quality standards for the coastal recreation waters of the State for all pathogens and pathogen indicators to which the new or revised water quality criteria are applicable. (2) FAILUREOFSTATESTOADOPT.— (A) INGENERAL.—If a State fails to adopt water quality criteria and standards in accordance with paragraph (1)(A) that are as protective of human health as the criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators for coastal recreation waters published by the Administrator, the Administrator shall promptly propose regulations for the State setting forth revised or new water quality standards Q:\COMP\WATER2\CLEANWAT.003November 27, 2002

PAGE 205

108 Sec. 304FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT for pathogens and pathogen indicators described in paragraph (1)(A) for coastal recreation waters of the State. (B) EXCEPTION.—If the Administrator proposes regulations for a State described in subparagraph (A) under subsection (c)(4)(B), the Administrator shall publish any revised or new standard under this subsection not later than 42 months after the date of the enactment of this subsection. (3) APPLICABILITY.—Except as expressly provided by this subsection, the requirements and procedures of subsection (c) apply to this subsection, including the requirement in subsection (c)(2)(A) that the criteria protect public health and welfare.(33 U.S.C. 1313)INFORMATIONANDGUIDELINESSEC. 304. (a)(1) The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate Federal and State agencies and other interested persons, shall develop and publish, within one year after the date of enactment of this title (and from time to time thereafter revise) criteria for water quality accurately reflecting the latest scientific knowledge (A) on the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on health and welfare including, but not limited to, plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, plant life, shorelines, beaches, esthetics, and recreation which may be expected from the presence of pollutants in any body of water, including ground water; (B) on the concentration and dispersal of pollutants, or their byproducts, through biological, physical, and chemical processes; and (C) on the effects of pollutants on biological community diversity, productivity, and stability, including information on the factors affecting rates of eutrophication and rates of organic and inorganic sedimentation for varying types of receiving waters. (2) The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate Federal and State agencies and other interested persons, shall develop and publish, within one year after the date of enactment of this title (and from time to time thereafter revise) information (A) on the factors necessary to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of all navigable waters, ground waters, waters of the contiguous zone, and the oceans; (B) on the factors necessary for the protection and propagation of shellfish, fish, and wildlife for classes and categories of receiving waters and to allow recreational activities in and on the water; and (C) on the measurement and classification of water quality; and (D) for the purpose of section 303, on and the identification of pollutants suitable for maximum daily load measurement correlated with the achievement of water quality objectives. (3) Such criteria and information and revisions thereof shall be issued to the States and shall be published in the Federal Register and otherwise made available to the public. (4) The Administrator shall, within 90 days after the date of enactment of the Clean Water Act of 1977 and from time to time thereafter, publish and revise as appropriate information identifying conventional pollutants, including but not limited to, pollutQ:\COMP\WATER2\CLEANWAT.003November 27, 2002

PAGE 206

109Sec. 304 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT ants classified as biological oxygen demanding, suspended solids, fecal coliform, and pH. The thermal component of any discharge shall not be identified as a conventional pollutant under this paragraph. (5)(A) The Administrator, to the extent practicable before consideration of any request under section 301(g) of this Act and within six months after the date of enactment of the Clean Water Act of 1977, shall develop and publish information on the factors necessary for the protection of public water supplies, and the protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish and wildlife, and to allow recreational activities, in and on the water. (B) The Administrator, to the extent practicable before consideration of any application under section 301(h) of this Act and within six months after the date of enactment of Clean Water Act of 1977, shall develop and publish information on the factors necessary for the protection of public water supplies, and the protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish and wildlife, and to allow recreational activities, in and on the water. (6) The Administrator shall, within three months after enactment of the Clean Water Act of 1977 and annually thereafter, for purposes of section 301(h) of this Act publish and revise as appropriate information identifying each water quality standard in effect under this Act of State law, the specific pollutants associated with such water quality standard, and the particular waters to which such water quality standard applies. (7) GUIDANCETOSTATES.—The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate State agencies and on the basis of criteria and information published under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, shall develop and publish, within 9 months after the date of the enactment of the Water Quality Act of 1987, guidance to the States on performing the identification required by section 304(l)(1) of this Act. (8) INFORMATIONONWATERQUALITYCRITERIA.—The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate State agencies and within 2 years after the date of the enactment of the Water Quality Act of 1987, shall develop and publish information on methods for establishing and measuring water quality criteria for toxic pollutants on other bases than pollutant-bypollutant criteria, including biological monitoring and assessment methods. (9) REVISEDCRITERIAFORCOASTALRECREATIONWATERS.— (A) INGENERAL.—Not later than 5 years after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, after consultation and in cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, tribal, and local officials (including local health officials), the Administrator shall publish new or revised water quality criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators (including a revised list of testing methods, as appropriate), based on the results of the studies conducted under section 104(v), for the purpose of protecting human health in coastal recreation waters. (B) REVIEWS.—Not later than the date that is 5 years after the date of publication of water quality criteria under Q:\COMP\WATER2\CLEANWAT.003November 27, 2002

PAGE 207

110 Sec. 304FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT this paragraph, and at least once every 5 years thereafter, the Administrator shall review and, as necessary, revise the water quality criteria. (b) For the purposes of adopting or revising effluent limitations under this Act the Administrator shall, after consultation with appropriate Federal and State agencies and other interested persons, publish within one year of enactment of this title, regulations, providing guidelines for effluent limitations, and, at least annually thereafter, revise, if appropriate, such regulations. Such regulations shall— (1)(A) identify, in terms of amounts of constituents and chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of pullutants, the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the application of the best practicable control technology currently available for classes and categories to point sources (other than publicly owned treatment works); and (B) specify factors to be taken into account in determining the control measures and practices to be applicable to point sources (other than publicly owned treatment works) within such categories of classes. Factors relating to the assessment of best practical control technology currently available to comply with subsection (b)(1) of section 301 of this Act shall include consideration of the total cost of application of technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such application, and shall also take into account the age of equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, the engineering aspects of the application of various types of control techniques, process changes, non-water quality environmental impact (including energy requirements), and such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate; (2)(A) identify, in terms of amounts of constituents and chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of pollutants, the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the application of the best control measures and practices achievable including treatment techniques, process and procedure innovations, operating methods, and other alternatives for classes and categories of point sources (other than publicly owned treatment works); and (B) specify factors to be taken into account in determining the best measures and practices available to comply with subsection (b)(2) of section 301 of this Act to be applicable to any point source (other than publicly owned treatment works) within such categories of classes. Factors relating to the assessment of best available technology shall take into account the age of equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, the engineering aspects of the application of various types of control techniques, process changes, the cost of achieving such effluent reduction, non-water quality environmental impact (including energy requirements), and such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate; (3) identify control measures and practices available to eliminate the discharge of pollutants from categories and classes of point sources, taking into account the cost of achieving such elimination of the discharge of pollutants; and Q:\COMP\WATER2\CLEANWAT.003November 27, 2002

PAGE 208

111Sec. 304 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT (4)(A) identify, in terms of amounts of constituents and chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of pollutants, the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology (including measures and practices) for classes and categories of point sources (other than publicly owned treatment works); and (B) specify factors to be taken into account in determining the best conventional pollutant control technology measures and practices to comply with section 301(b)(2)(E) of this Act to be applicable to any point source (other than publicly owned treatment works) within such categories or classes. Factors relating to the assessment of best conventional pollutant control technology (including measures and practices) shall include consideration of the reasonableness of the relationship between the costs of attaining a reduction in effluents and the effluent reduction benefits derived, and the comparison of the cost and level of reduction of such pollutants from the discharge from publicly owned treatment works to the cost and level of reduction of such pollutants from a class or category of industrial sources, and shall take into account the age of equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, the engineering aspects of the application of various types of control techniques, process changes, non-water quality environmental impact (including energy requirements), and such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate. (c) The Administrator, after consultation, with appropriate Federal and State agencies and other interested persons, shall issue to the States and appropriate water pollution control agencies within 270 days after enactment of this title (and from time to time thereafter) information on the processes, procedures, or operating methods which result in the elimination or reduction of the discharge of pollutants to implement standards of performance under section 306 of this Act. Such information shall include technical and other data, including costs, as are available on alternative methods of elimination or reduction of the discharge of pollutants. Such information, and revisions thereof, shall be published in the Federal Register and otherwise shall be made available to the public. (d)(1) The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate Federal and State agencies and other interested persons, shall publish within sixty days after enactment of this title (and from time to time thereafter) information, in terms of amounts of constituents and chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of pollutants, on the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the application of secondary treatment. (2) The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate Federal and State agencies and other interested persons, shall publish within nine months after the date of enactment of this title (and from time to time thereafter) information on alternative waste treatment management techniques and systems available to implement section 201 of this Act. (3) The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate Federal and State agencies and other interested persons, shall promulQ:\COMP\WATER2\CLEANWAT.003November 27, 2002

PAGE 209

112 Sec. 304FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT gate witin one hundred and eighty days after the date of enactment of this subsection guidelines for identifying and evaluating innovative and alternative wastewater treatment process and techniques referred to in section 201(g)(5) of this Act. (4) For the purposes of this subsection, such biological treatment facilities as oxidation ponds, lagoons, and ditches and trickling filters shall be deemed the equivalent of secondary treatment. The Administrator shall provide guidance under paragraph (1) of this subsection on design criteria for such facilities, taking into account pollutant removal efficiencies and, consistent with the objective of the Act, assuring that water quality will not be adversely affected by deeming such facilities as the equivalent of secondary treatment. (e) The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate Federal and State agencies and other interested persons, may publish regulations, supplemental to any effluent limitations specified under subsections (b) and (c) of this section for a class or category of point sources, for any specific pollutant which the Administrator is charged with a duty to regulate as a toxic or hazardous pollutant under section 307(a)(1) or 311 of this Act, to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and drainage from raw material storage which the Administrator determines are associated with or ancillary to the industrial manufacturing or treatment process within such class or category of point sources and may contribute significant amounts of such pollutants, to navigable waters. Any applicable controls established under this subsection shall be included as a requirement for the purposes of section 301, 302, 307, or 403, as the case may be, in any permit issued to a point source pursuant to section 402 of this Act. (f) The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate Federal and State agencies and other interested persons, shall issue to appropriate Federal agencies, the States, water pollution control agencies, and agencies designated under section 208 of this Act, within one year after the effective date of this subsection (and from time to time thereafter) information including (1) guidelines for identifying and evaluating the nature and extent of nonpoint sources of pollutants, and (2) processes, procedures, and methods to control pollution resulting from— (A) agricultural and silvicultural activities, including runoff from fields and crop and forest lands; (B) mining activities, including runoff and siltation from new, currently operating, and abandoned surface and underground mines; (C) all construction activity, including runoff from the facilities resulting from such construction; (D) the disposal of pollutants in wells or in subsurface excavations; (E) salt water intrusion resulting from reductions of fresh water flow from any cause, including extraction of ground water, irrigation, obstruction, and diversion; and (F) changes in the movement, flow, or circulation of any navigable waters or ground waters, including changes caused by the construction of dams, levees, channels, causeways, or flow diversion facilities. Q:\COMP\WATER2\CLEANWAT.003November 27, 2002

PAGE 210

113Sec. 304 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT Such information and revisions thereof shall be published in the Federal Register and otherwise made available to the public. (g)(1) For the purpose of assisting States in carrying out programs under section 402 of this Act, the Administrator shall publish, within one hundred and twenty days after the date of enactment of this title, and review at least annually thereafter and, if appropriate, revise guidelines for pretreatment of pollutants which he determines are not susceptible to treatment by publicly owned treatment works. Guidelines under this subsection shall be established to control and prevent the discharge into the navigable waters, the contiguous zone, or the ocean (either directly or through publicly owned treatment works) of any pollutant which interferes with, passes through, or otherwise is incompatible with such works. (2) When publishing guidelines under this subsection, the Administrator shall designate the category or categories of treatment works to which the guidelines shall apply. (h) The Administrator shall, within one hundred and eighty days from the date of enactment of this title, promulgate guidelines establishing test procedures for the analysis of pollutants that shall include the factors which must be provided in any certification pursuant to section 401 of this Act or permit application pursuant to section 402 of this Act. (i) The Administrator shall (1) within sixty days after the enactment of this title promulgate guidelines for the purpose of establishing uniform application forms and other minimum requirements for the acquisition of information from owners and operators of point-sources of discharge subject to any State program under section 402 of this Act, and (2) within sixty days from the date of enactment of this title promulgate guidelines establishing the minimum procedural and other elements of any State program under section 402 of this Act which shall include: (A) monitoring requirements; (B) reporting requirements (including procedures to make information available to the public); (C) enforcement provisions; and (D) funding, personnel qualifications, and manpower requirements (including a requirement that no board or body which approves permit applications or portions thereof shall include, as a member, any person who receives, or has during the previous two years received, a significant portion of his income directly or indirectly from permit holders or applicants for a permit). (j) LAKERESTORATIONGUIDANCEMANUAL.—The Administrator shall, within 1 year after the date of the enactment of the Water Quality Act of 1987 and biennially thereafter, publish and disseminate a lake restoration guidance manual describing methods, procedures, and processes to guide State and local efforts to improve, restore, and enhance water quality in the Nation’s publicly owned lakes. (k)(1) The Administrator shall enter into agreements with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Army, and the Secretary of the Interior, and the heads of such other departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the United States as the Administrator determines, to provide for the maximum utilization of other Q:\COMP\WATER2\CLEANWAT.003November 27, 2002

PAGE 211

114 Sec. 304FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT Federal laws and programs for the purpose of achieving and maintaining water quality through appropriate implementation of plans approved under section 208 of this Act and nonpoint source pollution management programs approved under section 319 of this Act. (2) The Administrator is authorized to transfer to the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Army, and the Secretary of the Interior and the heads of such other departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the United States as the Administrator determines, any funds appropriated under paragraph (3) of this subsection to supplement funds otherwise appropriated to programs authorized pursuant to any agreement under paragraph (1). (3) There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out the provisions of this subsection, $100,000,000 per fiscal year for the fiscal years 1979 through 1983 and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1984 through 1990. (l) INDIVIDUALCONTROLSTRATEGIESFORTOXICPOLLUTANTS.— (1) STATELISTOFNAVIGABLEWATERSANDDEVELOPMENT OFSTRATEGIES.—Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this subsection, each State shall submit to the Administrator for review, approval, and implementation under this subsection— (A) a list of those waters within the State which after the application of effluent limitations required under section 301(b)(2) of this Act cannot reasonably be anticipated to attain or maintain (i) water quality standards for such waters reviewed, revised, or adopted in accordance with section 303(c)(2)(B) of this Act, due to toxic pollutants, or (ii) that water quality which shall assure protection of public health, public water supplies, agricultural and industrial uses, and the protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish and wildlife, and allow recreational activities in and on the water; (B) a list of all navigable waters in such State for which the State does not expect the applicable standard under section 303 of this Act will be achieved after the requirements of sections 301(b), 306, and 307(b) are met, due entirely or substantially to discharges from point sources of any toxic pollutants listed pursuant to section 307(a); (C) for each segment of the navigable waters included on such lists, a determination of the specific point sources discharging any such toxic pollutant which is believed to be preventing or impairing such water quality and the amount of each toxic pollutant discharged by each such source; and (D) for each such segment, an individual control strategy which the State determines will produce a reduction in the discharge of toxic pollutants from point sources identified by the State under this paragraph through the establishment of effluent limitations under section 402 of this Act and water quality standards under section 303(c)(2)(B) of this Act, which reduction is sufficient, in combination with existing controls on point and nonpoint sources of pollution, to achieve the applicable water quality standard as Q:\COMP\WATER2\CLEANWAT.003November 27, 2002

PAGE 212

115Sec. 305 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT soon as possible, but not later than 3 years after the date of the establishment of such strategy. (2) APPROVALORDISAPPROVAL.—Not later than 120 days after the last day of the 2-year period referred to in paragraph (1), the Administrator shall approve or disapprove the control strategies submitted under paragraph (1) by any State. (3) ADMINISTRATOR’SACTION.—If a State fails to submit control strategies in accordance with paragraph (1) or the Administrator does not approve the control strategies submitted by such State in accordance with paragraph (1), then, not later than 1 year after the last day of the period referred to in paragraph (2), the Administrator, in cooperation with such State and after notice and opportunity for public comment, shall implement the requirements of paragraph (1) in such State. In the implementation of such requirements, the Administrator shall, at a minimum, consider for listing under this subsection any navigable waters for which any person submits a petition to the Administrator for listing not later than 120 days after such last day. (m) SCHEDULEFORREVIEWOFGUIDELINES.— (1) PUBLICATION.—Within 12 months after the date of the enactment of the Water Quality Act of 1987, and biennially thereafter, the Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register a plan which shall— (A) establish a schedule for the annual review and revision of promulgated effluent guidelines, in accordance with subsection (b) of this section; (B) identify categories of sources discharging toxic or nonconventional pollutants for which guidelines under subsection (b)(2) of this section and section 306 have not previously been published; and (C) establish a schedule for promulgation of effluent guidelines for categories identified in subparagraph (B), under which promulgation of such guidelines shall be no later than 4 years after such date of enactment for categories identified in the first published plan or 3 years after the publication of the plan for categories identified in later published plans. (2) PUBLICREVIEW.—The Administrator shall provide for public review and comment on the plan prior to final publication.(33 U.S.C. 1314)WATERQUALITYINVENTORYSEC. 305. (a) The Administrator, in cooperation with the States and with the assistance of appropriate Federal agencies, shall prepare a report to be submitted to the Congress on or before January1,1974, which shall— (1) describe the specific quality, during 1973, with appropriate supplemental descriptions as shall be required to take into account seasonal, tidal, and other variations, of all navigable waters and the waters of the contiguous zone; Q:\COMP\WATER2\CLEANWAT.003November 27, 2002

PAGE 213

116 Sec. 305FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT (2) include an inventory of all point sources of discharge (based on a qualitative and quantitative analysis of discharges) of pollutants, into all navigable waters and the waters of the contiguous zone; and (3) identify specifically those navigable waters, the quality of which— (A) is adequate to provide for the protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife and allow recreational activities in and on the water; (B) can reasonably be expected to attain such level by 1977 or 1983; and (C) can reasonably be expected to attain such level by any later date. (b)(1) Each State shall prepare and submit to the Administrator by April 1, 1975, and shall bring up to date by April 1, 1976, and biennially thereafter, a report which shall include— (A) a description of the water quality of all navigable waters in such State during the preceding year, with appropriate supplemental descriptions as shall be required to take into account seasonal, tidal, and other variations, correlated with the quality of water required by the objective of this Act (as identified by the Administrator pursuant to criteria published under section 304(a) of this Act) and the water quality described in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph; (B) an analysis of the extent to which all navigable waters of such State provide for the protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allow recreational activities in and on the water; (C) an analysis of the extent to which the elimination of the discharge of pollutants and a level of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife and allows recreational activities in and on the water, have been or will be achieved by the requirements of this Act, together with recommendations as to additional action necessary to achieve such objectives and for what waters such additional action is necessary; (D) an estimate of (i) the environmental impact, (ii) the economic and social costs necessary to achieve the objective of this Act in such State, (iii) the economic and social benefits of such achievement, and (iv) an estimate of the date of such achievement; and (E) a description of the nature and extent of nonpoint sources of pollutants, and recommendations as to the programs which must be undertaken to control each category of such sources, including an estimate of the costs of implementing such programs. (2) The Administrator shall transmit such State reports, together with an analysis thereof, to Congress on or before October 1, 1975, and October 1, 1976, and biennially thereafter.(33 U.S.C. 1315)Q:\COMP\WATER2\CLEANWAT.003November 27, 2002