Santa Fe River and Springs Environmental Analysis...Segments 1 and 2 (SFR at Worthington Spring to SFR at US-27) exhibited values that were typically lower than the springs numeric

i

June 2019

SANTA FE RIVER AND SPRINGS

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Phase 2: Quarterly Report #8: Environmental Data

A Misty Morning at Poe Spring by Zoey Hendrickson

ii

Santa Fe River and Springs Environmental Analysis

Phase 2 – Quarter 8: Environmental Data

Prepared for

Santa Fe River and Springs Scientific Working Group

Date

July 2020

Prepared by

The Howard T. Odum Florida Springs Institute

i

Table of Contents Figures ..................................................................................................................................................... iii

Tables ....................................................................................................................................................... iv

Section 1.0 Introduction .................................... 1

Section 2.0 Methods.......................................... 4

2.1 Physical Environment ......................................................................................................................... 9

2.1.1 Underwater Light Transmission .................................................................................................. 9

2.1.2 Secchi Disk Visibility ................................................................................................................ 10

2.1.3 Water Quality ............................................................................................................................. 10

2.1.4 Stream Discharge ....................................................................................................................... 10

2.2 Biology .............................................................................................................................................. 11

2.2.1 Fish............................................................................................................................................. 11

2.2.2 Snails .......................................................................................................................................... 11

2.2.3 Plant Community Characterization ............................................................................................ 11

2.2.4 Human Use ................................................................................................................................ 12

2.3 Ecosystem Level Monitoring ............................................................................................................ 15

2.3.1 Ecosystem Metabolism .............................................................................................................. 15

Section 3.0 Results .......................................... 17

3.1 Physical Environment ............................... 17

3.1.1 Underwater Light Transmission..................................................................................................... 17

3.1.2 Water Clarity .................................................................................................................................. 17

3.1.3 Water Quality ................................................................................................................................. 17

3.1.3.1 Dissolved Oxygen ................................................................................................................... 17

3.1.3.2 pH............................................................................................................................................ 18

3.1.3.3 Specific Conductance .............................................................................................................. 18

3.1.3.4 Water Temperature ................................................................................................................. 18

3.1.3.5 Nitrate-nitrogen ....................................................................................................................... 18

3.1.3.6 Analytical Parameters ............................................................................................................. 19

3.2 Biology ...................................................... 30

3.2.1 Fish ................................................................................................................................................. 30

ii

3.2.2 Snails .............................................................................................................................................. 33

3.2.2 Vegetation ...................................................................................................................................... 34

3.3.3 Human Use..................................................................................................................................... 38

3.3 Ecosystem Level Monitoring .................... 45

References ....................................................... 49

Appendix A ..................................................... 50

Detailed Water Chemistry ....................................................................................................................... 50

Appendix B ..................................................... 87

Quarters 1-8 Fish Data ............................................................................................................................ 87

Appendix C ..................................................... 95

Quarters 1-8 Vegetation Data ................................................................................................................. 95

Appendix D ..................................................... 99

Quarters 1-8 Human Use Data ................................................................................................................ 99

Poe Spring ........................................................................................................................................... 99

Gilchrist Blue Spring ........................................................................................................................ 105

Naked Spring .................................................................................................................................... 111

Ichetucknee Head Spring .................................................................................................................. 112

Blue Hole .......................................................................................................................................... 116

iii

Table of Exhibits

Figures

Figure 1. Phase 2 Sampling Stations for the Santa Fe River and Springs Environmental Analysis. ............ 3

Figure 2. Segments 1 and 2 Santa Fe River monitoring station locations. ................................................... 5

Figure 3. Segment 3 Santa Fe River monitoring station locations. ............................................................... 6

Figure 4. Lower Santa Fe River Segment 4 and the Ichetucknee monitoring station locations. .................. 7

Figure 5. Underwater LI COR sensor used to measure PAR. ....................................................................... 9

Figure 6. Human use survey area for Gilchrist Blue Spring (22,300 m2) and Naked Spring (640 m2). ..... 12

Figure 7. Human use area for Ichetucknee Head Spring (3,940 m2) and Blue Hole Spring (1,100 m2). .... 13

Figure 8. Human use survey area for Poe Springs Park (4,560 m2). ........................................................... 14

Figure 9. Example estimation of ecosystem metabolism based on upstream-downstream dissolved oxygen data (from WSI 2007). ................................................................................................................................ 16

Figure 10. PAR Diffuse Attenuation and Percent Transmittance measurements along the Santa Fe River (April 2018 through May 2020) .................................................................................................................. 20

Figure 11. PAR Diffuse Attenuation and Percent Transmittance measurements along the Ichetucknee River (April 2018 through May 2020) .................................................................................................................. 21

Figure 12. Average horizontal Secchi disc readings along the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers (April 2018 through May 2020) ..................................................................................................................................... 22

Figure 13. Average vertical Secchi disc readings along the Santa Fe River (April 2018 through May 2020) .................................................................................................................................................................... 23

Figure 14. Seasonal variations of water quality parameters in rivers vs springs between April 2018 and May 2020. ........................................................................................................................................................... 24

Figure 15. Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) measurements along the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers (April 2018 through May 2020) ..................................................................................................................................... 25

Figure 16. pH measurements along the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers (April 2018 through May 2020) .................................................................................................................................................................... 26

Figure 17. Specific conductance measurements along the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers (April 2018 through May 2020) ..................................................................................................................................... 27

Figure 18. Water temperature measurements along the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers (April 2018 through May 2020 .................................................................................................................................................... 28

Figure 19. Nitrate measurements along the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers between April 2018 and May 2020. ........................................................................................................................................................... 29

Figure 20. A quarterly comparison of fish biomass (kg/ha) in springs along the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers (April 2018 through May 2020) ...................................................................................................... 32

Figure 21. A comparison of snail densities within systems and between quarters 5-8 (April 2019-February 2020). .......................................................................................................................................................... 33

Figure 22. A comparison of snail counts within systems throughout the study (April 2019-February 2020). .................................................................................................................................................................... 33

iv

Figure 23. A comparison of the number of visitors in and out-of-water at Poe Spring throughout the study. .................................................................................................................................................................... 40

Figure 24. A comparison of the human density (#/m2) of visitors in and out-of-water at Poe Spring throughout the study. .................................................................................................................................. 40

Figure 25. A comparison of the number of visitors in and out-of-water at Gilchrist Blue Spring throughout the study. ..................................................................................................................................................... 41

Figure 26. A comparison of the human density (#/m2) of visitors in and out-of-water at Gilchrist Blue Spring throughout the study. .................................................................................................................................. 41

Figure 27. A comparison of the number of visitors in and out-of-water at Naked Spring throughout the study. ........................................................................................................................................................... 42

Figure 28. A comparison of the human density (#/m2) of visitors in and out-of-water at Naked Spring throughout the study. .................................................................................................................................. 42

Figure 29. A comparison of the number of visitors in and out-of-water at Ichetucknee Head Spring throughout the study. .................................................................................................................................. 43

Figure 30. A comparison of the human density (#/m2) of visitors in and out-of-water at Ichetucknee Head Spring throughout the study. ....................................................................................................................... 43

Figure 31. A comparison of the number of visitors in and out-of-water at Blue Hole Spring throughout the study. ........................................................................................................................................................... 44

Figure 32. A comparison of the human density (#/m2) of visitors in and out-of-water at Blue Hole Spring throughout the study. .................................................................................................................................. 44

Figure 33. Time series graphs for GPP, NPP and CR for springs throughout the study. ........................... 47

Figure 34. A comparison of P/R ratios of springs throughout the study. .................................................... 48

Tables

Table 1. Quarter labels and details for Phase 2 ............................................................................................. 1

Table 2. Collaborators for the Santa Fe River and Springs Environmental Analysis. .................................. 2

Table 3. Santa Fe River, springs, and tributary stations and detailed monthly sampling frequencies. ......... 8

Table 4. A table of priority herbicide and pesticides tested for during 7 sampling events. ........................ 19

Table 5. Seasonal averaged fish counts, densities, and biomass for various springs along the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers (April 2018 through May 2020) .................................................................................. 31

Table 6. Minimum, maximum, and average percent cover of bare ground, detritus, algae, and vegetation for ecological monitoring systems for the period-of-record. ...................................................................... 35

Table 7. Minimum, maximum, and average percent cover by quarter at Poe Spring. ................................ 35

Table 8. Minimum, maximum, and average percent cover by quarter at Gilchrist Blue Spring. ............... 36

Table 9. Minimum, maximum, and average percent cover by quarter at Naked Spring. ........................... 37

Table 10. Minimum, maximum, and average percent cover by quarter in the Ichetucknee River system. 37

Table 11. Human use comparison between spring system and quarters (April 2019-March 2020). .......... 39

Table 12. Average ecosystem metabolism estimates for select springs along the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers. ......................................................................................................................................................... 46

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (April 2018 –May 2020)

1

Section 1.0 Introduction

The Santa Fe River is classified as an Outstanding Florida Water and is home to over 30 recorded springs. The river and springs provide essential habitat for a diversity of flora and fauna and are major contributors to the economic vitality of surrounding areas (FSI 2012; SRWMD 2014)). However, the Santa Fe River and springs are experiencing negative impacts from a variety of human caused stressors including reduced discharge, increased nitrate-nitrogen levels, excessive recreation, harmful aquatic plant management activities, and structural alterations. These changes are resulting in a shifting ecological baseline for the Santa Fe River.

The Howard T. Odum Florida Springs Institute (FSI) is conducting a Santa Fe River and Springs Environmental Analysis. The project consists of 3 phases; Phase 1 - a summary of existing data (completed in May 2017 [FSI 2017]), Phase 2 - a detailed two-year river health evaluation intended to fill data gaps (Table 1), and Phase 3 - the development of a comprehensive management and recovery strategy. We have partnered with Our Santa Fe River, Inc. (OSFR) and other collaborators (Table 2) to complete this project. This report is a Phase 2 interim deliverable for all eight quarters of sampling.

FSI began data collection at Santa Fe River springs, spring runs, and river stations (Figure 1) for Phase 2 in April 2018. The goal of this phase is to fill existing data gaps by conducting a comprehensive, two-year monitoring program to improve understanding of the physical, chemical, biological, and ecological condition of the springs and river. These data will be used in conjunction with other existing research to create an updated baseline of ecological conditions for the Santa Fe River and springs that can be used to assess ongoing changes in spring and river health and to serve as a basis for developing a recovery and management strategy.

Results from the first seven quarters of sampling (April 2018 through December 2019) were summarized previously (FSI 2019). This report summarizes results from the full two years of intensive sampling (April 2018 through March 2020).

Table 1. Quarter labels and details for Phase 2


2

Name AffiliationDr. Robert Knight Florida Springs InstituteHillary Skowronski Florida Springs InstituteZoey Hendrickson Florida Springs InstituteLily Kirk University of FloridaLauren DeVito University of FloridaDr. Wendy Graham University of FloridaDr. Xiang Bi University of FloridaDr. Dina Liebowitz University of FloridaEric Nagid FWCCameron Bodine FWCAva Laszlo FWCKristen Lynch FWCTravis Tuten FWCDr. Gary Warren FWCDr. Jim Williams FWC/USGSMatt Phillips FWCSusan Geda FWCDr. Anne Barkdoll FDEPDan Pearson FDEPRick Owen FDEPSandi Kalilich-Richmond FDEPSine Murray FDEPSam Cole Ichetucknee Springs State ParkGabby Paxton Gilchrist Blue Springs and O’Leno State ParksSky Notestein Suwannee River WMDFay Baird Suwannee River WMDAmy Brown Suwannee River WMDDarlene Velez Suwannee River WMDTom Mirti Suwannee River WMDAlex Blankenship Suwannee River WMDTara Rodgers Suwannee River WMDStacie Greco Alachua County Environmental Protection DepartmentHolly Greer Alachua County Environmental Protection DepartmentEfrain Tavares Alachua County Environmental Protection DepartmentGreg Owen Alachua County Environmental Protection DepartmentPete Butt Karst Environmental ServicesGeorgia Shemitz Karst Environmental ServicesTom Morris Karst Environmental ServicesErica Hernandez Alachua Conservation TrustMelissa Hill Alachua Conservation TrustDr. Ken Sulak USGS, retiredDr. Steve Walsh USGSBob Palmer FSI Board of DirectorsDave Wilson FSI Board of DirectorsTedd Greenwald FSI Board of DirectorsJim Stevenson FSI Board of DirectorsMike Roth FSI Advisory Panel

Table 2. Collaborators for the Santa Fe River and Springs Environmental Analysis.


3

Figure 1. Phase 2 Sampling Stations for the Santa Fe River and Springs Environmental Analysis.


4

Section 2.0 Methods Data were collected over a 2-year period along the Santa Fe River as well as from several of its springs, and three of its major tributaries: the Ichetucknee River, Olustee Creek, and Cow Creek. For this assessment, monitoring was divided into five study segments, with one segment within the Upper Santa Fe River from SR 121 bridge at Worthington Springs downstream to O’Leno State Park, three segments within the Lower Santa Fe River below River Rise, and two tributary segments (Olustee Creek and Ichetucknee River):

• Upper Santa Fe River o Segment 1 (Worthington Spring at SR 121 to the Santa Fe River Sink in O’Leno State

Park) • Lower Santa Fe River

o Segment 2 (Santa Fe River Rise to US Hwy 27) o Segment 3 (US Hwy 27 to State Road 47) o Segment 4 (State Road 47 to Suwannee River confluence)

• Olustee Creek (CR 18 bridge to Santa Fe River confluence) • Ichetucknee River (Head Spring to Santa Fe River confluence)

Routine monitoring of water quality field parameters, nitrate nitrogen and color, and physical conditions was conducted in each segment during Quarters 1-8 (April 2018 through May 2020). Table 3 provides sampling frequencies (M = monthly, Q = quarterly) for spring, spring run, and river stations. Detailed maps identifying monitoring station locations for each segment are provided in Figure 2 through Figure 4. A total of 62 monitoring stations were selected to characterize water quality and related ecological conditions. Additional ecological and biological data were collected at three spring and river sites during quarters 5 through 8. The ecological and biological surveys include recording data sonde and HOBO (temperature and light pendant) deployments, fish counts, vegetation surveys, and flow measurements. These representative sites included:

• Poe Springs • Gilchrist Blue/Naked Springs • Ichetucknee River/Blue Hole Spring

Water quality samples were collected for analysis by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) analytical laboratory for color, chloride, sulfate, arsenic, copper, iron, chlorophyll a, nitrate+nitrite nitrogen, total ammonia, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus, and fecal coliforms at 10 river and 20 spring sites on a quarterly basis, with 10 sites sampled each month. Priority herbicides and insecticides were tested at 10 spring or river stations quarterly. During routine monitoring, water samples were also collected for analysis by McGlynn Laboratories Inc. for nitrate nitrogen and color.


5

Figure 2. Segments 1 and 2 Santa Fe River monitoring station locations.


6

Figure 3. Segment 3 Santa Fe River monitoring station locations.


7

Figure 4. Lower Santa Fe River Segment 4 and the Ichetucknee monitoring station locations.


8

Table 3. Santa Fe River, springs, and tributary stations and detailed monthly sampling frequencies.


9

2.1 Physical Environment 2.1.1 Underwater Light Transmission Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR), underwater light transmission, and attenuation coefficients were measured monthly at 57 of the 61 monitoring sites during comprehensive ecological assessments and while collecting monthly samples for laboratory analysis. Data were collected using a LI-COR brand LI-192 underwater quantum sensor to measure PAR energy reaching the water surface and at 1-foot intervals from the surface to the bottom of the water column. Figure 5 provides a typical light senor installation. Light extinction (attenuation) coefficients were calculated from these data using the Lambert-Beer equation (Wetzel 2001):

Iz = Io(e-kz)

Where:

Iz = PAR at depth z

Io = PAR at the water surface

k = diffuse attenuation coefficient, m-1

z = water depth, m

Figure 5. Underwater LI COR sensor used to measure PAR.


10

2.1.2 Secchi Disk Visibility Visual water clarity was assessed using vertical or horizontal Secchi disk visibility, the distance where a standard white and black Secchi disk disappears. At tannic river and creek stations, the Secchi depth was estimated by vertically lowering the Secchi disk below the water surface. In spring systems, underwater visibility is commonly greater than the depth of the water column, in those cases Secchi disk visibility was measured horizontally. Vertical and horizontal Secchi distance was measured with a 20-centimeter diameter black and white disk attached to the end of a tape measure below the surface of the water. For horizontal readings, a skin diver extended the tape while moving away from the disk and recorded the distance at which it was no longer visible. Secchi disk measurements were taken at 38 stations during monthly monitoring sessions and during comprehensive ecological sampling.

2.1.3 Water Quality Field parameters (water temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, oxygen percent saturation, pH, and specific conductance) were measured monthly using a YSI proDSS meter at each of the 62 (28 river and 33 springs) monitoring sites, during comprehensive ecological assessments, and while collecting monthly samples for laboratory analysis.

During routine monitoring, water samples were collected at 60 of the 62 sample sites and sent to McGlynn Laboratories Inc. for nitrate nitrogen and color analysis. Samples were collected by placing a capped sample bottle below the surface water, uncapping to collect water, and recapping underwater. Samples have a 28-day holding time and are sent to the lab bi-weekly.

Water samples for laboratory analysis were also collected according to Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) standard operating procedures. Thirty sites (10 river and 20 springs) were sampled four times throughout the year. Samples were shipped overnight to the FDEP Central Laboratory in Tallahassee where they were analyzed for color, chloride, sulfate, arsenic, copper, iron, chlorophyll a, NOx-N, NH4-N, TKN, total phosphorus, and fecal coliforms. Ten spring and river sites were also sampled once per quarter for additional priority herbicides, insecticides, and trace organic compounds.

2.1.4 Stream Discharge Stream discharge was measured at 14 locations, including 11 springs, at Ichetucknee below the Blue Hole confluence, at the mouth of the Ichetucknee River (LIR-15) and at Olustee Creek using a Hach FH950 portable velocity meter. At each location, a fiberglass tape was stretched across the stream channel perpendicular to the flow direction, allowing depth and velocity to be measured in up to 25 evenly spaced segments. Narrower streams were measured at 10-22 segments. At water depths less than 2.5 ft, velocity was measured at 0.6 of the water column depth. For water depths greater than 2.5 ft, velocity was measured at 0.2, 0.6, and 0.8 fractional depths of the water column.


11

2.2 Biology 2.2.1 Fish Visual surveys of the fish communities were conducted during ecological assessments at the Ichetucknee Headspring and run, as well as, Blue Hole, Gilchrist Blue, Naked, and Poe springs systems. Visual surveys of fish communities were made by 2 to 3 people using mask and snorkel gear. Observers spread out to evenly span the spring run segment and swam in parallel paths, noting the fish species or groups of similar species (lowest possible taxonomic level) of all observed fish. All observations were reported to a data recorder, who was at a fixed location on shore or who followed the observers in a boat. Following each survey, observers estimated the total length (average and range) by fish species. Fish density was calculated for each sub-section by dividing the number of individual fish counted by the area sampled. Wet-weight biomass of fish species was estimated using published length-weight relationships (Schneider et al. 2000) and average species total lengths and total numbers. Fish assemblage diversity was calculated using the Shannon-Wiener diversity index based on the calculated densities of individual species or groups (Zar 1984).

2.2.2 Snails Populations of Elimia sp. snails were surveyed during quarters 5-8 at Gilchrist Blue, Ichetucknee, and Poe Spring systems. A 0.32 m2 PVC quadrat was used to delineate sample locations along transects at several sites within spring runs. Underwater photographs were taken at 25%, 50%, and 75% of the transects total distance across the spring run. Field photos were uploaded and saved by date and in site-specific folders to quantitatively estimate the snails present in each quadrat to provide average counts and population densities (#/m2) of snails within each system.

2.2.3 Plant Community Characterization The distribution and percent cover of aquatic plant communities (macroalgae and submerged aquatic vegetation), as well as substrates in each study segment were visually estimated quarterly in 3 spring systems: Gilchrist Blue Springs, Poe Spring, and the Ichetucknee River. Aquatic vegetative cover was documented along several transects in each spring run using the line-intercept method. A tape measure was stretched along each transect, and all aquatic plant communities intercepting the vertical plane of the line were recorded. Line-intercept data were used to estimate percent cover, frequency, relative cover, and relative frequency. Frequency was based on dividing each transect into 8 equal sized sub-transects. Values by species were summed and averaged to yield an importance value as follows:

Linear Cover Distance for Species A =∑ (m)A Speciesfor distancesintercept line

Percent Cover =(m) distance transect Total

(m)A Species of distancecover Linear x 100

Relative Percent Cover =(m) species all of distancecover linear Total

(m)A Species of distancecover Linear x 100

Absolute Frequency =

Relative Frequency =∑ species all of sfrequencie absolute

A Species offrequency Absolutex 100

Importance Value = ( )2

Frequency Relative Cover Vegetative Relative +

All observed plants were identified to species or lowest possible taxonomic classification.

of number Total occurred A Species in which sub-transects of Number

sub-transects


12

2.2.4 Human Use Human use is a physical factor that has potential to impact springs. Foot traffic in the spring and its run and bank erosion are two common ways that humans can have a negative influence the health of a spring. Many springs with shallow runs experience plant disturbance when visitors have access for wading. Human use was recorded at the Gilchrist Blue, Ichetucknee, and Poe springs systems. During ecological monitoring, human use was monitored at one location for the duration of ecological sampling on a weekday and compared to observations from a weekend day. Observers recorded the number of individuals participating in in-water and out-of-water activities in 15-minute intervals. In-water categories include wading, bathing, swimming, snorkeling, tubing, canoeing/kayaking, fishing, and “other” and out-of-water categories include sitting, walking, sunbathing, nature study, dive prep and “other”. Figure 6 through Figure 8 show the study area for all springs for human use observations.

Figure 6. Human use survey area for Gilchrist Blue Spring (22,300 m2) and Naked Spring (640 m2).


13

Figure 7. Human use area for Ichetucknee Head Spring (3,940 m2) and Blue Hole Spring (1,100 m2).


14

Figure 8. Human use survey area for Poe Springs Park (4,560 m2).


15

2.3 Ecosystem Level Monitoring 2.3.1 Ecosystem Metabolism Ecosystem metabolism was calculated in each spring segment using an Excel spreadsheet adaptation of the upstream/downstream dissolved oxygen (DO) change methods of H.T. Odum (1957a, 1957b). This method estimates and subtracts upstream from downstream DO mass fluxes corrected for atmospheric diffusion to determine the metabolic oxygen rate-of-change of the aquatic ecosystem. Dissolved oxygen mass inputs typically include spring discharges, atmospheric diffusion into or out of the water column (input when DO is less than 100% saturation and diffusion out when DO is above 100% saturation), accretion from tributary streams or spring seep inflows, and the release of DO as a by-product of aquatic plant photosynthesis. Oxygen losses include diffusion from the water column to the atmosphere (under super-saturated conditions), the metabolic respiration of the aquatic microbial, plant, and animal communities, and sediment biological oxygen demand.

The upstream to downstream change in DO mass flux measured at any time is the net effect of these gains and losses as shown in the following conceptual equation:

Δ DO = GPP – CR + Din + A Where:

Δ DO = DO rate-of-change, g O2/m2/d GPP = gross primary productivity, g O2/m2/d CR = community respiration, g O2/m2/d Din = diffusion into the water under unsaturated conditions, g O2/m2/d A = accrual of DO from other spring boils, g O2/m2/d

The DO measurements used to estimate segment ecosystem metabolism were collected at the downstream end of the spring run study segments at 30-minute intervals using recording YSI 6600 V2 data sondes with optical DO sensors. Instantaneous grab sampler data was used to estimate the upstream DO values.

Upstream and downstream dissolved oxygen data were each shifted by one-half of the estimated travel time between the upstream and downstream stream segment stations and an oxygen rate-of-change curve was prepared. Areas, volumes, current velocities, and diffusion measurements were used to estimate ecosystem metabolism. Water surface area was estimated for the study segment using best available data and corrected hourly using an estimated stage:area relationship. Average velocities were estimated from the stage:volume relationship and spring discharge measurements. Nominal travel times for the water mass were estimated based on the length of the spring run and the estimated hourly current velocities.

The resulting DO rate-of-change curve was corrected for atmospheric diffusion based on measured percent oxygen saturation in the water, and oxygen diffusion rates derived from the empirical relationship between velocity and diffusion measured using the floating dome method (Copeland and Duffer 1964). The corrected oxygen rate-of-change curve for each 24-hour period was used to estimate gross primary productivity (GPP), community respiration (CR), net primary productivity (NPP), production/respiration (P/R) ratio, and ecological efficiency. Figure 9 illustrates these metabolism measurements based on a typical oxygen rate-of-change curve.

Descriptions of the ecosystem metabolism parameters follow below:

• Gross primary productivity (GPP) is estimated as the entire area under the oxygen rate-of-change curve, calculated by extending the nighttime corrected oxygen rate-of-change through the daylight hours and estimating the entire area under the daytime curve in g O2/m2/d. GPP is a measure of all aquatic plant productivity occurring below the water surface within the stream segment. GPP includes primary productivity of both algae (including photosynthetic bacteria) and submerged vascular plants.

• Community respiration (CR) is the average of the corrected nighttime oxygen rate-of-change values in g O2/m2/d. CR is a measure of the total dark metabolism of the entire submerged ecosystem within each stream segment. CR includes the respiration of all microbes in the sediments and water column, respiration of bacteria, algae, and plants in the water column, and respiration of all aquatic animals, including protozoans, macroinvertebrates, crustaceans, and fish. Respiration of turtles, alligators, frogs, snakes, manatees, and other air-breathing aquatic fauna is not included in this estimate.


16

• Net primary productivity (NPP) is equal to the difference between these two estimates (GPP-CR). NPP

provides an estimate of the net fixed carbon that remains each day after the respiratory needs of the aquatic ecosystem are met. CR may be higher than GPP in some streams and during some periods of time, indicating that there are unmeasured inputs of fixed carbon or losses of fixed carbon that were previously stored in the ecosystem.

• The P/R ratio or ecological quotient is equal to GPP/CR. A P/R ratio of one indicates that production and consumption are equally balanced. A ratio greater than one indicates an autotrophic aquatic ecosystem while a value less than one indicates a heterotrophic ecosystem.

• Photosynthetic efficiency (PE) is equal to the rate of gross primary productivity divided by the incident PAR during a specified time interval. It estimates the overall efficiency of an aquatic ecosystem to utilize the visible fraction of incident solar radiation, the principal forcing function for autotrophic stream ecosystems. PAR reaching the plant level is estimated using PAR sensors just above the water surface to estimate canopy shading, and based on river stage, the plant community characterization data for segment depth, and the light attenuation coefficient estimated for each sampling event. PE is reported as PAR Efficiency by dividing GPP in O2/m2/d by PAR in moles of photons/m2/d, resulting in units of g O2/mole. PAR Efficiency is also reported as a percentage using the conversion factors employed by Knight (1980; 1983): 4.22 Kcal/g O2 and 52.27 Kcal/mole of photons (McCree 1972).

Figure 9. Example estimation of ecosystem metabolism based on upstream-downstream dissolved oxygen data

(from WSI 2007).

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

5/15/05 0:00 5/15/05 6:00 5/15/05 12:00 5/15/05 18:00 5/16/05 0:00

Dis

solv

ed O

xyg

en (

mg

/L)

UpstreamDownstream

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

5/15/05 0:00 5/15/05 6:00 5/15/05 12:00 5/15/05 18:00 5/16/05 0:00

DO

Rat

e-o

f-C

han

ge

(g/m

2 /hr)

CorrectedUncorrected

-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

5/15/05 0:00 5/15/05 6:00 5/15/05 12:00 5/15/05 18:00 5/16/05 0:00

Co

rrec

ted

DO

Rat

e-o

f-C

han

ge

(g/m

2 /hr)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

5/15/05 0:00 5/15/05 6:00 5/15/05 12:00 5/15/05 18:00 5/16/05 0:00

PA

R (

um

ol/m

2 /s)

AirPlant Level

Air = 39.30 mol/m2/d

Plant Level = 28.52 mol/m2/d

GPP = 8.45 g/m2/d

CR = 8.40 g/m2/d

NPP = GPP- CR = +0.05 g/m2/dPAR Eff. = GPP / PAR = 0.30 g O2/mol


17

Section 3.0 Results This section summarizes data collected as part of the ecosystem monitoring conducted along the Santa Fe River and springs from Quarters 1 through 8 (April 2018 through May 2020). These data provide a quantitative record of existing conditions in the river and are useful for comparison to historic and future environmental data from the Santa Fe River and springs. Parameter figures are represented by a box and whisker plot. River stations are indicated with a green diamond and spring/spring run stations with a blue diamond

3.1 Physical Environment 3.1.1 Underwater Light Transmission The summaries of PAR percent transmittance and diffuse attenuation data collected on the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee river are presented in Figure 10 and Figure 11. PAR diffuse attenuation is consistently highest in the tannic waters of the Upper Santa Fe, and lowest in the springs. Light transmittance is consistently higher at the spring and spring run stations (20-77%) with river stations ranging from 1-10% in segments 1 and 2, to 12-23% in segment 3 and 17-23% in segment 4. PAR attenuation in the Ichetucknee River (dominated by spring flow) is on average less than 0.8 and transmittance is typically greater than 53%, like the Santa Fe River springs.

3.1.2 Water Clarity Figure 12 and Figure 13 present the average horizontal and vertical Secchi disc readings at sites on the Santa Fe and the Ichetucknee Rivers. Spring stations typically had horizontal Secchi readings greater than 8.8 m except for the vertical Secchi readings in Segment 2 where Santa Fe Spring averaged 3.45 m. Santa Fe River stations had Secchi readings that were typically below 2.5 m. Horizontal Secchi readings were typically between 8.8 and 55 m. Of the springs studied, Gilchrist Blue Spring had the highest measured water clarity with an average horizontal visibility of 54.9 m. Gilchrist Blue Secchi readings maxed out on two occasions (April 2018 and March 2020) meaning that the observer was past the end of the dock in the head spring and could still see the disc. Every measurement at the Ichetucknee Head Spring maxed out, due to its small size and exceptional clarity. Little Devil and Ginnie Springs also had good clarity averaging 48 m.

3.1.3 Water Quality Figure 14 shows the water quality results for samples collected by FSI staff on four segments of the Santa Fe River and associated springs, and the Ichetucknee River and associated springs. Compared to the adjacent river stations, spring stations have lower dissolved oxygen concentrations and higher specific conductance. Measured pH and water temperature showed similar trends at river and spring stations during this two-year monitoring period with river values experiencing more fluctuations. The pH values of springs and rivers show similar fluctuations, with river stations exhibiting larger changes in through the seasons. During quarters 4-7, river stations were becoming more basic, possibly due to a decrease in rainfall even during summer months which are supposed to be the rainy season. River temperatures exhibited a seasonal trend with peaks in quarters 2 and 6 (July-Sept 2018 and 2019) and a decline during January-March 2019. Spring temperatures showed slight seasonal variations but overall hovered close to 22°C. The nitrate-nitrogen graph displays parallel trends in springs and rivers, however, the springs consistently had higher values, suggesting groundwater pollution as opposed to runoff. Both the spring and river stations exceed the FDEP springs standard of 0.35mg/L.

3.1.3.1 Dissolved Oxygen Figure 15 presents boxplots to display the fluctuation of dissolved oxygen (mg/L) measured along four segments of the Santa Fe River as well as the Ichetucknee River between 1 April 2018 and 31 December 2019. During this sampling period, the Santa Fe River dissolved oxygen concentrations were typically 3.2 mg/L or higher while spring stations had variable DO values ranging from very low (0.16 mg/L at Hornsby Spring) to over 4.6 mg/L at the Gilchrist Blue Springs Group. The Ichetucknee Head Spring as well as Cedar Head Spring run and Blue Hole Spring feeding the Ichetucknee River have lower DO concentrations (<4.4 mg/L) while the river from ICH Below Blue Hole to LIR-15 are between 3.6 and 6.2 mg/L. The DO concentrations in the main channel of the Ichetucknee River rise from about 4.35 mg/L at the upstream canoe launch to over 6.65 mg/L near the tube takeout location.


18

3.1.3.2 pH Figure 16 presents boxplots to display the fluctuation of pH measured along four segments of the Santa Fe River and the Ichetucknee River between 1 April 2018 and 31 December 2019. pH values in segments one and two had values below 7.19 s.u. Hornsby Spring (segment 2) usually has a higher pH but had a period of record average closer to the other segment stations at 7.21 s.u. All river and spring stations downstream from US-27 had values between 7 and 8 s.u with little variation between spring and river stations.

3.1.3.3 Specific Conductance Figure 17 presents boxplots to display the fluctuation of specific conductance measured along four segments of the Santa Fe River and the Ichetucknee River between 1 April 2018 and 31 December 2019. Spring stations typically had a higher specific conductance value compared to the river stations and did not vary as much. Specific conductance is a useful parameter when determining how much groundwater is entering the river from springs. Changes in conductivity measurements may be related to the mixing of groundwater with surface water, and dilution by rain or other surface water inputs. River stations varied more, due to rain occurrences, dry periods, and runoff. During periods of high rainfall, the specific conductance is generally lower, but in times of little rainfall, the river is mainly spring fed, thus increasing the specific conductance. Santa Fe Spring in segment 1 had an average of 304 umhos/cm, while most other springs in other segments had higher specific conductance values between 348 and 437 umhos/cm. Lower specific conductance values in springs are likely associated with periodic flow reversals and subsequent discharge of groundwater with a significant surface water component. Troop Spring had an unusually high average specific conductance of 976 umhos/cm as well as neighboring springs such as Betty Spring, and Trail Spring (460-470 umhos/cm). These three springs are located 1-2 miles North of Alliance Branford Dairy (American Dairy), and have high concentrations of NOx-N, indicating the influence of livestock wastewater input into the groundwater coming out of these springs.

3.1.3.4 Water Temperature Figure 18 presents boxplots to display the fluctuation of water temperature (°C) measurements along four segments of the Santa Fe River and along the Ichetucknee River collected between 1 April and 31 December 2019. River stations show more variability whereas springs have a consistent average of 21.1-22.8°C. The depth of the river changes greatly throughout the year, allowing surface waters to warm when levels are lower, but increased rainfall and winter months cool the water, producing the wider range on the boxplots.

3.1.3.5 Nitrate-nitrogen

Figure 19 presents the average nitrate-and-nitrite (NOx-N) levels measured at 47 locations along the Santa Fe River and 10 locations along the Ichetucknee. Segments 1 and 2 (SFR at Worthington Spring to SFR at US-27) exhibited values that were typically lower than the springs numeric nutrient standard of 0.35 mg/L, with the exception of the springs stations in those segments, which ranged from 0.36 to 0.67 mg/L. NOx-N concentrations were generally highest in the spring boils, with the Gilchrist Blue Spring Group having values typically above 2 mg/L, Ginnie Spring system ranging from 1.51 to 1.95 mg/L and Betty/Troop/Trail springs with very high concentrations ranging from 4.5 mg/L to more than 47 mg/L. Elevated NOx-N concentrations at Betty, Troop, and Trail springs are attributed to their proximity to Alliance Branford Dairy located only 1-2 miles to the south. The numeric nutrient limit for nitrate of 0.35 mg/L set by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection is represented by a grey dotted line on the graph.


19

3.1.3.6 Analytical Parameters

Quarterly samples were collected and analyzed for 71 priority herbicides, pesticides, and trace organic compounds during seven sampling events throughout the two-year study. Table 4 includes the priority analytes tested for which are highlighted based on their detection frequencies. Analytes in bright yellow were detected in multiple systems throughout the study while the light-yellow analytes were detected only at the Santa Fe River Rise and Gilchrist Blue Spring Run stations in October 2018. All 19 of the analytes from that sampling event were detected at the re-emergence of the Santa Fe River at River Rise State Park. This area of the river is unique in that the river disappears upstream at the O’Leno Sink, then travels underground for three miles while mixing with the Floridan Aquifer system, re-emerging at Santa Fe River Rise. These analytes were not detected at the O’Leno State Park station during that sampling event, suggesting that the contaminants entered the aquifer elsewhere and mixed with the Santa Fe River water while underground. The Gilchrist Blue Spring Run had 7 of the 19 analytes present in the water sample. Naked Spring was also sampled that day but did not contain any of the analytes, suggesting that the pesticides originated from Gilchrist Blue Spring groundwater alone.

Atrazine and metolachlor are herbicides used to control broad-leaf plants and grasses in corn, cotton, soybean, peanut, and sugarcane fields. Atrazine was detected during all 7 sampling events at a total of 24 stations. When contamination values are compared, river stations typically had higher amounts of atrazine than spring stations. Although atrazine was detected (Minimum Detection Level (MDL) = 0.24-0.65 ng/L), the concentrations were well below the maximum contamination level (MCL) of 3000 ng/L. Metolachlor was detected in 6 of the sampling events at a total of 19 stations. The concentration of metolachlor was also higher in rivers than in the springs. Although the EPA does not have an MCL for metolachlor, there is a health advisory level of 525,000 ng/L, meaning that the levels detected in our samples are not a health concern.

Appendix A presents the results of water chemistry analysis of samples collected at 10 sites along the Santa Fe River and at 20 of its springs and tributaries. Values above the detection limit are highlighted in yellow and concerning values such as nitrate-nitrogen are highlighted in red (> the FDEP drinking water standard of 10 mg/L).

Table 4. A table of priority herbicide and pesticides tested for during 7 sampling events.


20

Figure 10. PAR Diffuse Attenuation and Percent Transmittance measurements along the Santa Fe River (April 2018 through May 2020)


21

Figure 11. PAR Diffuse Attenuation and Percent Transmittance measurements along the Ichetucknee River (April 2018 through May 2020)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

k (d

iffus

e at

tenu

atio

n co

effic

ient

)

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

95

Perc

ent T

rans

mitt

ance

(@ 1

m)


22

Figure 12. Average horizontal Secchi disc readings along the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers (April 2018 through May 2020)

*Indicates that the Secchi readings have maxed out

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

Horiz

onta

l Sec

chi (

m)

* * *


23

Figure 13. Average vertical Secchi disc readings along the Santa Fe River (April 2018 through May 2020)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

Vert

ical

Sec

chi (

m)


24

Figure 14. Seasonal variations of water quality parameters in rivers vs springs between April 2018 and May 2020.


25

Figure 15. Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) measurements along the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers (April 2018 through May 2020)

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

55.5

66.5

77.5

88.5

99.510

SFR

at W

orth

ingt

on S

prin

gSF

R ab

ove

Olu

stee

Olu

stee

Cre

ekSF

R be

low

Olu

stee

Cre

ekSa

nta

Fe S

prin

gSF

R at

I-75

O'L

eno

Stat

e Pa

rkSa

nta

Fe R

iver

Rise

Horn

sby

Sprin

gHo

rnsb

y Sp

ring

Cano

e La

unch

SFR

at U

S-44

1SF

R at

US-

27SF

R ab

ove

Alle

n Sp

ring

Alle

n Sp

ring

Poe

Sprin

gPo

e Sp

ring

Run

SFR

belo

w P

oe S

prin

gCO

L930

971

Run

Lily

Spr

ing

Pick

ard

Sprin

gCO

L101

971

Run

Mer

mai

d Sp

ring

SFR

abov

e Jo

hnso

nJo

hnso

n Sp

ring

John

son

Sprin

g Ru

nRu

m Is

land

Spr

ing

Nak

ed S

prin

gN

aked

Spr

ing

Run

Gilc

hrist

Blu

e Sp

ring

Gilc

hrist

bef

ore

Nak

edGi

lchr

ist B

lue

Sprin

g Ru

nLi

ttle

Blu

e Sp

ring

SFR

belo

w G

ilchr

ist B

lue

Litt

le D

evil

Sprin

gDe

vil's

Eye

Spr

ing

July

Spr

ing

Ginn

ie S

prin

gGi

nnie

Spr

ing

Run

SFR

at S

R-47

Cow

Cre

ek a

t CR

138

Wils

on S

prin

gCO

L917

971

SFR

abov

e IC

HSF

R be

low

ICH

Bett

y Sp

ring

Troo

p Sp

ring

SFR

at U

S-12

9Tr

ail S

prin

gSF

R at

39t

h Av

eSu

wan

nee

Rive

r abo

ve S

FRSu

wan

nee

Rive

r bel

ow S

FRIc

hetu

ckne

e He

ad S

prin

gIC

H Ca

noe

Laun

chCe

dar H

ead

Sprin

g Ru

nIC

H ab

ove

Blue

Hol

eBl

ue H

ole

Sprin

gIC

H be

low

Blu

e Ho

leIC

H M

idpo

int

Dam

pier

's La

ndin

gIC

H Tu

be T

akeo

utLI

R-1

LIR-

15

DO (m

g/L)


26

Figure 16. pH measurements along the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers (April 2018 through May 2020)

4.8

5.2

5.6

6

6.4

6.8

7.2

7.6

8

8.4SF

R at

Wor

thin

gton

Spr

ing

SFR

abov

e O

lust

eeO

lust

ee C

reek

SFR

belo

w O

lust

ee C

reek

Sant

a Fe

Spr

ing

SFR

at I-

75O

'Len

o St

ate

Park

Sant

a Fe

Riv

er R

iseHo

rnsb

y Sp

ring

Horn

sby

Sprin

g Ca

noe

Laun

chSF

R at

US-

441

SFR

at U

S-27

SFR

abov

e Al

len

Sprin

gAl

len

Sprin

gPo

e Sp

ring

Poe

Sprin

g Ru

nSF

R be

low

Poe

Spr

ing

COL9

3097

1 Ru

nLi

ly S

prin

gPi

ckar

d Sp

ring

COL1

0197

1 Ru

nM

erm

aid

Sprin

gSF

R ab

ove

John

son

John

son

Sprin

gJo

hnso

n Sp

ring

Run

Rum

Isla

nd S

prin

gN

aked

Spr

ing

Nak

ed S

prin

g Ru

nGi

lchr

ist B

lue

Sprin

gGi

lchr

ist b

efor

e N

aked

Gilc

hrist

Blu

e Sp

ring

Run

Litt

le B

lue

Sprin

gSF

R be

low

Gilc

hrist

Blu

eLi

ttle

Dev

il Sp

ring

Devi

l's E

ye S

prin

gJu

ly S

prin

gGi

nnie

Spr

ing

Ginn

ie S

prin

g Ru

nSF

R at

SR-

47Co

w C

reek

at C

R 13

8W

ilson

Spr

ing

COL9

1797

1SF

R ab

ove

ICH

SFR

belo

w IC

HBe

tty

Sprin

gTr

oop

Sprin

gSF

R at

US-

129

Trai

l Spr

ing

SFR

at 3

9th

Ave

Suw

anne

e Ri

ver a

bove

SFR

Suw

anne

e Ri

ver b

elow

SFR

Iche

tuck

nee

Head

Spr

ing

ICH

Cano

e La

unch

Ceda

r Hea

d Sp

ring

Run

ICH

abov

e Bl

ue H

ole

Blue

Hol

e Sp

ring

ICH

belo

w B

lue

Hole

ICH

Mid

poin

tDa

mpi

er's

Land

ing

ICH

Tube

Tak

eout

LIR-

1LI

R-15

pH (s

tand

ard

units

)


27

Figure 17. Specific conductance measurements along the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers (April 2018 through May 2020)

50100150200250300350400450500550600650700750800850900950

10001050

SFR

at W

orth

ingt

on S

prin

gSF

R ab

ove

Olu

stee

Olu

stee

Cre

ekSF

R be

low

Olu

stee

Cre

ekSa

nta

Fe S

prin

gSF

R at

I-75

O'L

eno

Stat

e Pa

rkSa

nta

Fe R

iver

Rise

Horn

sby

Sprin

gHo

rnsb

y Sp

ring

Cano

e La

unch

SFR

at U

S-44

1SF

R at

US-

27SF

R ab

ove

Alle

n Sp

ring

Alle

n Sp

ring

Poe

Sprin

gPo

e Sp

ring

Run

SFR

belo

w P

oe S

prin

gCO

L930

971

Run

Lily

Spr

ing

Pick

ard

Sprin

gCO

L101

971

Run

Mer

mai

d Sp

ring

SFR

abov

e Jo

hnso

nJo

hnso

n Sp

ring

John

son

Sprin

g Ru

nRu

m Is

land

Spr

ing

Nak

ed S

prin

gN

aked

Spr

ing

Run

Gilc

hrist

Blu

e Sp

ring

Gilc

hrist

bef

ore

Nak

edGi

lchr

ist B

lue

Sprin

g Ru

nLi

ttle

Blu

e Sp

ring

SFR

belo

w G

ilchr

ist B

lue

Litt

le D

evil

Sprin

gDe

vil's

Eye

Spr

ing

July

Spr

ing

Ginn

ie S

prin

gGi

nnie

Spr

ing

Run

SFR

at S

R-47

Cow

Cre

ek a

t CR

138

Wils

on S

prin

gCO

L917

971

SFR

abov

e IC

HSF

R be

low

ICH

Bett

y Sp

ring

Troo

p Sp

ring

SFR

at U

S-12

9Tr

ail S

prin

gSF

R at

39t

h Av

eSu

wan

nee

Rive

r abo

ve S

FRSu

wan

nee

Rive

r bel

ow S

FRIc

hetu

ckne

e He

ad S

prin

gIC

H Ca

noe

Laun

chCe

dar H

ead

Sprin

g Ru

nIC

H ab

ove

Blue

Hol

eBl

ue H

ole

Sprin

gIC

H be

low

Blu

e Ho

leIC

H M

idpo

int

Dam

pier

's La

ndin

gIC

H Tu

be T

akeo

utLI

R-1

LIR-

15

Spec

ific C

ondu

ctan

ce (u

S/cm

)


28

Figure 18. Water temperature measurements along the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers (April 2018 through May 2020

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27SF

R at

Wor

thin

gton

Spr

ing

SFR

abov

e O

lust

eeO

lust

ee C

reek

SFR

belo

w O

lust

ee C

reek

Sant

a Fe

Spr

ing

SFR

at I-

75O

'Len

o St

ate

Park

Sant

a Fe

Riv

er R

iseHo

rnsb

y Sp

ring

Horn

sby

Sprin

g Ca

noe

Laun

chSF

R at

US-

441

SFR

at U

S-27

SFR

abov

e Al

len

Sprin

gAl

len

Sprin

gPo

e Sp

ring

Poe

Sprin

g Ru

nSF

R be

low

Poe

Spr

ing

COL9

3097

1 Ru

nLi

ly S

prin

gPi

ckar

d Sp

ring

COL1

0197

1 Ru

nM

erm

aid

Sprin

gSF

R ab

ove

John

son

John

son

Sprin

gJo

hnso

n Sp

ring

Run

Rum

Isla

nd S

prin

gN

aked

Spr

ing

Nak

ed S

prin

g Ru

nGi

lchr

ist B

lue

Sprin

gGi

lchr

ist b

efor

e N

aked

Gilc

hrist

Blu

e Sp

ring

Run

Litt

le B

lue

Sprin

gSF

R be

low

Gilc

hrist

Blu

eLi

ttle

Dev

il Sp

ring

Devi

l's E

ye S

prin

gJu

ly S

prin

gGi

nnie

Spr

ing

Ginn

ie S

prin

g Ru

nSF

R at

SR-

47Co

w C

reek

at C

R 13

8W

ilson

Spr

ing

COL9

1797

1SF

R ab

ove

ICH

SFR

belo

w IC

HBe

tty

Sprin

gTr

oop

Sprin

gSF

R at

US-

129

Trai

l Spr

ing

SFR

at 3

9th

Ave

Suw

anne

e Ri

ver a

bove

SFR

Suw

anne

e Ri

ver b

elow

SFR

Iche

tuck

nee

Head

Spr

ing

ICH

Cano

e La

unch

Ceda

r Hea

d Sp

ring

Run

ICH

abov

e Bl

ue H

ole

Blue

Hol

e Sp

ring

ICH

belo

w B

lue

Hole

ICH

Mid

poin

tDa

mpi

er's

Land

ing

ICH

Tube

Tak

eout

LIR-

1LI

R-15

Wat

er T

empe

ratu

re (°

C)


29

Figure 19. Nitrate measurements along the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers between April 2018 and May 2020.

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

55.5

66.5

77.5

88.5

99.510

10.511

11.512

SFR

at W

orth

ingt

on S

prin

gSF

R ab

ove

Olu

stee

Olu

stee

Cre

ekSF

R be

low

Olu

stee

Cre

ekSa

nta

Fe S

prin

gSF

R at

I-75

O'L

eno

Stat

e Pa

rkSa

nta

Fe R

iver

Rise

Horn

sby

Sprin

gHo

rnsb

y Sp

ring

Cano

e La

unch

SFR

at U

S-44

1SF

R at

US-

27SF

R ab

ove

Alle

n Sp

ring

Alle

n Sp

ring

Poe

Sprin

gPo

e Sp

ring

Run

SFR

belo

w P

oe S

prin

gCO

L930

971

Run

Lily

Spr

ing

Pick

ard

Sprin

gCO

L101

971

Run

Mer

mai

d Sp

ring

SFR

abov

e Jo

hnso

nJo

hnso

n Sp

ring

John

son

Sprin

g Ru

nRu

m Is

land

Spr

ing

Nak

ed S

prin

gN

aked

Spr

ing

Run

Gilc

hrist

Blu

e Sp

ring

Gilc

hrist

bef

ore

Nak

edLi

ttle

Blu

e Sp

ring

SFR

belo

w G

ilchr

ist B

lue

Litt

le D

evil

Sprin

gDe

vil's

Eye

Spr

ing

July

Spr

ing

Ginn

ie S

prin

gGi

nnie

Spr

ing

Run

SFR

at S

R-47

Cow

Cre

ek a

t CR

138

Wils

on S

prin

gCO

L917

971

SFR

abov

e IC

HSF

R be

low

ICH

Bett

y Sp

ring

Troo

p Sp

ring

SFR

at U

S-12

9Tr

ail S

prin

gSF

R at

39t

h Av

eSu

wan

nee

Rive

r abo

ve S

FRSu

wan

nee

Rive

r bel

ow S

FRIc

hetu

ckne

e He

ad S

prin

gIC

H Ca

noe

Laun

chCe

dar H

ead

Sprin

g Ru

nBl

ue H

ole

Sprin

gIC

H be

low

Blu

e Ho

leIC

H M

idpo

int

Dam

pier

's La

ndin

gIC

H Tu

be T

akeo

utLI

R-1

LIR-

15

NO

x-N

(mg/

L)

47.7

1 AV

G


30

3.2 Biology 3.2.1 Fish Table 5 presents the results for seasonal data from fish counts during ecological and biological monitoring at ten stations along the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers. If more than one fish count occurred in one quarter, the count, density, and biomass values were averaged.

Figure 20 illustrates the changes in biomass in each system throughout the year. Detailed quarterly data can be found in Appendix B.

Overall, when comparing fish biomass in the presented springs and rivers, most springs had different seasons where biomass was the highest. The exceptions, Naked and Blue Hole Springs, consistently had high biomass values that ranged from 9.1-17.6 kg/ha and 21.6-48.1 kg/ha, respectively. Both springs are smaller and act as refuges for fish, including larger species such as chubsuckers, largemouth bass, and sunfish. Naked Springs was officially closed to recreational activities in July 2019, but no significant trend in the data was observed related to that closure. Blue Hole Spring is a deeper spring that has a high percent cover of habitable submerged aquatic vegetation that fish use as a sanctuary from the main Ichetucknee River channel.

Hornsby Spring had a high biomass of 12.1 kg/ha during the first quarter of sampling then dropped to below 1 kg/ha for 3 quarters before increasing to 2 kg/ha due to the 2,900 eastern mosquitofish observed. Hornsby is a low dissolved oxygen spring (<0.5 mg/L) and does not provide a suitable habitat to sustain fish populations. Fish that were observed most often were eastern mosquitofish, minnows, and golden shiners, species that typically stay near the surface of the water where more oxygen is available. Poe Spring also has low dissolved oxygen availability for fish (<1 mg/L). Like Hornsby, most fish observed at Poe were smaller species: eastern mosquitofish, redeye chub, and smaller sunfish. These species were observed only around the edge of the spring and near the surface of the water, with the exception of bowfin, which are typically found lying on the bottom of a spring. Bowfin have evolved to live in hypoxic conditions as they are bimodal breathers, meaning that they can breathe both underwater as well as break the surface to gulp air.

Fish biomass at Gilchrist Blue Spring typically ranged from 4.1-7.2 kg/ha, with quarter 4 increasing to 14.8 kg/ha. Counts were conducted from the head spring, down the run up to the confluence with the Santa Fe River. Data was separated into head spring and run data to compare the potential differences in distribution. All quarters, except for quarter 8, exhibited higher counts in the run compared to the head spring; however, due to the difference in areas, the areal biomass estimates in the two sections were similar. There was not a significant seasonal trend in the Gilchrist Blue system, however, a higher number of small fishes were observed in the spring and summer months due to spawning.

Like Gilchrist Blue, Ichetucknee Head Spring and its run were separated to determine differences in fish assemblages within the system. The head spring ranged from 5.5 to 42 kg/ha, with the highest values in quarters 4 (34 kg/ha) and 8 (42 kg/ha). During quarter 4, 250 large sunfish and 51 bass contributed to the high biomass, while in quarter 8, a total of 3,735 fish were observed but consisted mostly of sunfish and many smaller fish such as Eastern mosquitofish, minnows, and shiners. The Ichetucknee Head Spring Run had lower areal biomass values, due to a larger survey area. When in the run, the depth and flow prevented observers from stopping and counting in highly vegetated areas which could account for lower count, density, and biomass values. Compared to the head spring, the run contained between 2.4-5.5 times the number of fish, due to the increased area.


31

Table 5. Seasonal averaged fish counts, densities, and biomass for various springs along the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers (April 2018 through May 2020)


32

02468

101214161820222426283032343638404244464850

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q1 Q3 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q1 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q1 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q2 Q3 Q4

Hornsby Poe Naked Gilchrist Blue Devil's Ginnie ICH Head Spring ICH HeadSpring Run

Blue Hole LIR

Biom

ass (

kg/h

a)

Figure 20. A quarterly comparison of fish biomass (kg/ha) in springs along the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers (April 2018 through May 2020)


33

3.2.2 Snails

Figure 21 presents the population density of snails for the Gilchrist Blue, Ichetucknee, and Poe spring for quarters 5 through 8. Figure 22 presents the total snail counts during each month of sampling at the three systems. Gilchrist Blue exhibited overall higher densities of snails with the highest density reaching 38.8 snails/m2 in quarter 5. This is likely due to sufficient DO levels and vegetation cover within the system to support snail populations, but not so much vegetation as to obscure the snails from visual counts. The decrease in density and counts in the summer months (quarter 6) could potentially correspond to an increase in human recreation in the spring and spring run disturbing the sediment/snail habitat. Ichetucknee also exhibited higher densities and counts (highest average of 16.5 snails/m2 in quarter 5), however the Ichetucknee has a higher percent coverage of vegetation than Gilchrist or Poe, which can make it difficult to view snails when conducting visual surveys. Poe has the lowest densities and counts for snails. This is likely due to the lack of vegetation and DO (average of 0.75 mg/L) to support the food and habitat needs for snail populations.

Figure 21. A comparison of snail densities within systems and between quarters 5-8 (April 2019-February 2020).

Figure 22. A comparison of snail counts within systems throughout the study (April 2019-February 2020).


34

3.2.2 Vegetation

Table 6 through Table 10 present the results of vegetation surveys conducted along transects at Gilchrist Blue, Naked, Blue Hole, and Poe springs as well as a portion of the Ichetucknee River. Blue Hole (T-6) has been combined with the Ichetucknee River system. Observations have been divided into six categories: bare ground (sand, rocks, roots, etc.), detritus, algae, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), floating vegetation, and emergent vegetation. Detailed transect and species data can be found in Appendix C.

Table 6 provides period-of-record statistics for percent cover for all ecological monitoring systems. Throughout our study, Poe and Gilchrist Blue Springs on average had the highest amount of bare ground. Both systems experienced heavy foot traffic which disturbed the spring bottom and its vegetation. The Ichetucknee River had the highest average SAV which consisted mostly of strap-leaf sagittaria. Algae was most prevalent at Poe Spring with an average of 43% percent cover.

Table 7 presents statistics on percent cover at Poe Springs, a biologically depauperate system, for quarters 5 through 8. The naturally occurring SAV can be found along the banks of the head spring but does not extend into the run where the transects are located. Most of the floating vegetation and SAV were a result of a replanting project by the Alachua County Environmental Protection Department. These species did not occur prior to replanting, but following that, floating and SAV ranged from 0.03 and 0.9% and consisted of strap-leaf sagittaria and both the common and giant duckweed. Since quarter 5, bare ground decreased by 26%, but was replaced by algae. Algae coverage increased from 29% in June 2019 to 54% in March 2020. Nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in this spring during this sampling period had an upward trend which may explain the increase in algae coverage.

Vegetation at Gilchrist Blue Spring (Table 8) has been monitored since Quarter 1. This system has been dominated by bare ground and detritus with algae fluctuating from 18% in June 2018 to 42% in March 2019 and dropping to 7% in March 2020. Muskgrass (Chara sp.), a multicellular green alga that resembles land plants, contributed a small percentage to the algae category (1 - 5.2%). SAV ranged from 0.5 to 6.7% and consisted mostly of alligator weed, East Indian Hygrophila, red ludwigia, and pennywort. Naked Spring (Table 9) is dominated by bare ground, detritus, and algae. Since closing the spring to recreational activities in July 2019, the SAV has increased to 7.3% with even more SAV in the head spring by the vents. On average, bare ground, detritus, and algae have decreased by 8%, 25%, and 2.5%, respectively.

Table 10 illustrates the shift of percent cover in the Ichetucknee Head Spring Run from the kayak launch to below the confluence of Blue Hole Spring, as well as Blue Hole Spring (T-6). The presence of bare ground increased from quarter 5 to 6, most likely due to human use during the summer months. Bare ground decreased during the winter months but increased again from January to March. Overall algae cover has decreased by 11% from quarter 5 to 8 and experienced a spike during quarter 7. SAV decreased throughout our study at the transects, however, strap-leaf sagittaria appeared to be rebounding below the canoe launch where foot traffic usually occurred. Percent plant cover in Blue Hole Spring consisted mostly of SAV, algae, and floating vegetation (duckweed and water fern). Due to the depth and high discharge of the spring, foot traffic is not common, possibly contributing to the relatively high cover of strap-leaf sagittaria and lack of bare ground. The observed algal cover in Blue Hole is primarily epiphytic with excessive growth covering much of the native SAV.


35

Table 6. Minimum, maximum, and average percent cover of bare ground, detritus, algae, and vegetation for ecological monitoring systems for

the period-of-record.

Table 7. Minimum, maximum, and average percent cover by quarter at Poe Spring.


36

Table 8. Minimum, maximum, and average percent cover by quarter at Gilchrist Blue Spring.


37

Table 9. Minimum, maximum, and average percent cover by quarter at Naked Spring.

Table 10. Minimum, maximum, and average percent cover by quarter in the Ichetucknee River system.


38

3.3.3 Human Use Table 11 provides detailed human use data between spring systems and days of the week throughout the study at of five springs of interest: Poe, Gilchrist Blue, Naked, Ichetucknee and Blue Hole. Each spring system had both weekday and weekend human use surveys, with the total weekend visitors counts ranging from 2-18 times higher than weekday surveys. April-September exhibited the highest visitor numbers and densities for all spring systems. For every spring, except for Blue Hole Spring, in-water density (#/m2) was higher than out-of-water density due to the activities available as well as the popularity and area of the spring.

Figure 23 through Figure 32 illustrate the number of park visitors participating in in-water and out-of-water activities throughout the study. Two graphs are presented for each spring to show the fluctuation of the number of visitors and to display the difference of human densities (#/m2) between the spring and the surrounding land as well as between weekday and weekend use.

Poe Spring (Figure 23 and Figure 24) was surveyed during 12 sampling trips throughout the study. Survey lengths were significantly shorter than other springs and usually occurred in the morning before the prime time for guests to visit the spring which could account for low visitor counts. Compared to other systems, Poe Spring had lower visitor counts, except for two days during the summer where weekend visitation spiked to 2,900-3,500 people. During the winter weekend surveys, there was no in-water activity, most likely due to the air temperature.

Gilchrist Blue Spring (Figure 25 and Figure 26) was monitored for seven of the eight months of the study. On average, the weekday and weekend visitation was highest at Gilchrist Blue Spring when compared to the other systems. In-water density was consistently higher than out-of-water density, with many guests wading, bathing, swimming, and launching or returning kayaks. The visitation rate to Gilchrist Blue did not seem to increase due to the closure of Naked Spring. Due to its closure in July 2019, Naked Spring (Figure 27 and Figure 28) was surveyed for human use only during quarters 5 and 6. During those two quarters, it was surveyed once on a weekday and twice on the weekend. The highest observation of visitors occurred during quarter 5 when 437 guests were counted at the spring, with human density estimated to be 3 people/m2. The spring was closed in July 2019 to allow the submerged aquatic vegetation to recover from the excessive foot traffic and human use.

Ichetucknee Head Spring (Figure 29 and Figure 30) human use data were collected during quarters 5-8. The highest visitor count occurred during a weekend in Quarter 5 with 2,400 guests counted and a density of 1.8 people/m2 in the water, which was significantly higher than any other survey of the system. Following that June survey, visitation dropped throughout the fall and winter months, with one spike during an October weekend.

Blue Hole Spring (Figure 31 and Figure 32) was surveyed 6 times throughout the study with 3 surveys occurring during the week and 3 during the weekend. Unlike the other spring systems, the out-of-water density was consistently higher than the in-water density, most likely due to the depth of the spring. Most visitors immediately entered the spring upon arrival due to limited space on the platforms and very few remained in the water for an extended amount of time. Blue Hole Spring is deeper and therefore eliminates the possibility of wading or bathing, leaving most people to snorkel or SCUBA dive. Most out-of-water activity consisted of people walking to the spring and observing it with few people staying and sitting.

Detailed human activity graphs for the studied springs can be found in Appendix D.


39

Table 11. Human use comparison between spring system and quarters (April 2019-March 2020).


40

Figure 23. A comparison of the number of visitors in and out-of-water at Poe Spring throughout the study.

Figure 24. A comparison of the human density (#/m2) of visitors in and out-of-water at Poe Spring throughout the study.


41

Figure 25. A comparison of the number of visitors in and out-of-water at Gilchrist Blue Spring throughout the study.

Figure 26. A comparison of the human density (#/m2) of visitors in and out-of-water at Gilchrist Blue Spring throughout the study.


42

Figure 27. A comparison of the number of visitors in and out-of-water at Naked Spring throughout the study.

Figure 28. A comparison of the human density (#/m2) of visitors in and out-of-water at Naked Spring throughout the study.


43

Figure 29. A comparison of the number of visitors in and out-of-water at Ichetucknee Head Spring throughout the study.

Figure 30. A comparison of the human density (#/m2) of visitors in and out-of-water at Ichetucknee Head Spring throughout the study.

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend

May June July October February March

2019 2020

Num

ber o

f Visi

tors

In-water count Out-of-water count

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0

Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend

May June July October February March

2019 2020

Hum

an D

ensit

y (#

/m2 )

In-water density Out-of-water density


44

Figure 31. A comparison of the number of visitors in and out-of-water at Blue Hole Spring throughout the study.

Figure 32. A comparison of the human density (#/m2) of visitors in and out-of-water at Blue Hole Spring throughout the study.


45

3.3 Ecosystem Level Monitoring Table 12 provides a summary of ecosystem metabolism parameters collected at nine spring and river systems throughout the two-year study.

Figure 33 provides time series graphs for GPP, NPP, and CR for five main spring systems throughout the study. The top graph represents the changes of GPP for each system. Throughout the eight quarters of data collection, the average rates of GPP ranged between 0.62 O2/m2/day at the Devil’s Spring System to over 29 O2/m2/day in the Ichetucknee River. Although all sites are clear water systems, the productivity varies greatly due to water clarity, the presence or absence of SAV, and algal biomass. Springs that had the lowest GPP also had low percent coverage of naturally occurring submerged aquatic vegetation, while systems with high GPP (the upper and lower Ichetucknee and Blue Hole Spring) also had a high percent of strap-leaf sagittaria present. Blue Hole Spring and the lower portion of the river averaged 20 O2/m2/d while the Ichetucknee River above Blue Hole Spring was half as productive as the rest of the system with an average of 9.52-20 O2/m2/d. Poe Spring had similar GPP values to Gilchrist Blue and Naked Spring and higher values than the Ginnie Spring System throughout 8 quarters. This is most likely due to the size of Poe Spring as well as the abundance of algae. Both Ginnie and Gilchrist Blue Springs experience foot traffic from recreation which has reduced both SAV and algal cover, thus reducing productivity. Gilchrist Blue Spring’s average was skewed due to the inclusion of the run during quarters 1-4. During quarters 5-8, GPP dropped from 5.3-9.6 O2/m2/d to 1.1-2.9 O2/m2/d. The difference from quarters 1-4 and 5-8 values is a result of moving the sampling location from the head spring to the confluence of the Santa Fe River to only measuring the head spring. The values suggest that the system as a whole, including input from Naked Spring, is 2-3 times more productive than the head spring alone.

NPP (the difference between GPP and CR) estimates an excess of fixed carbon produced by a spring. NPP values were measured between -18.5 and 1.68 O2/m2/day. A negative value suggests that these systems are heterotrophic and using internal fixed carbon in order to meet their metabolic needs. Most springs had negative NPP values with the exception of the Lower Ichetucknee River which ranged from 0.30 to 2.0 O2/m2/day. Springs and spring runs that are under forest canopies receive fixed carbon inputs from leaves and are often heterotrophic.

The average rates of CR ranged from 1.28 to 27 O2/m2/day. Community respiration was highest in the Ichetucknee River system (6.36-44.81 O2/m2/day). The remaining systems ranged from 1.28-12 O2/m2/day.

Figure 34 presents P:R ratio values for all of the systems during the study. Values varied from 0.32 to 2.6 with most springs at or below the balanced ecological quotient of 1. Springs with values above 1 are considered autotrophic and springs with values below 1 are heterotrophic. The Gilchrist Blue Spring system was dominated by heterotrophs (animals, bacteria, fungi) for 7 of the 9 sampling events; however two spikes in P:R ratio occurred in January and November 2019 resulting in values of 2.63 and 2.38 indicating that they system shifted from heterotrophic to autotrophic at that time. Light availability following leaf fall during the winter months may have been the cause of a higher GPP resulting in a higher P/R ratio. The significant increase in the P:R ratio at Poe Spring in February 2020 was caused by an increase in productivity and a slight decrease in community respiration. Some springs switch between being autotrophically or heterotrophically dominated systems, but more data is needed to determine if seasonal effects have an influence.


46

Table 12. Average ecosystem metabolism estimates for select springs along the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers.


47

Figure 33. Time series graphs for GPP, NPP and CR for springs throughout the study.


48

Figure 34. A comparison of P/R ratios of springs throughout the study.


49

References

Copeland, B. J. and W. R. Duffer. 1964. Use of a clear plastic dome to measure gaseous diffusion rates in natural waters. Limnology and Oceanography 9:494-499. Odum, H.T. 1957a. Trophic Structure and Productivity of Silver Springs, Florida. Ecological Monographs. Volume 27 (1): 55-112. Odum, H.T. 1957b. Primary Production Measurements in Eleven Florida Springs and a Marine Turtle-Grass Community. Limnology and Oceanography 2:85-97. Schneider, J.C., P.W. Larrman, and H. Gowing. 2000. Length-weight relationships, Chapter 17, In Schneider, J.C. [Ed.] Manual of Fisheries Survey Methods II: With Periodic Updates. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Special Report 25, Ann Arbor, MI. Wetzel, R.G. 2001. Limnology: Lake and River Ecosystems. 3rd Ed. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

Zar, J.H. 1984. Biostatistical analysis. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 130 p.


50

Appendix A Detailed Water Chemistry

Santa Fe River Sites Detailed Chemical Analysis - April 16, 2018

GROUP PARAMETER UNITS SFR at

Worthington Spring

SFR at I-75

O'Leno State Park

Santa Fe River

Rise

SFR at US-441

SFR at US 27

SFR at US 47

SFR above

ICH

SFR at US 129

SFR at 39th Ave

DISSOLVED OXYGEN DO % 67.8 69.5 70.5 64.6 62.6 65.7 60.0 64.8 65.8 64.6 DO mg/L 6.36 6.42 6.51 5.89 5.73 6.06 5.50 5.96 6.05 5.93 GENERAL INORGANIC Alk

mg/L as CaCO3 9.10 8.60 8.50 12.0 44.0 36.0 83.0 84.0 96.0 100

Cl-T mg/L 10.0 A 9.70 9.90 9.40 10.0 9.60 9.30 8.90 8.60 8.20 F-T mg/L 0.076 I 0.077 I 0.077 I 0.084 I 0.110 0.100 0.110 0.110 0.110 0.110

Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 28.9 28.3 28.8 33.6 73.3 60.2 112 115 124 131

SO4 mg/L 2.3 A 4.70 6.10 3.80 12.0 9.50 12.0 12.0 13.0 13.0 GENERAL ORGANIC TOC mg/L 36.0 36.0 36.0 34.0 27.0 29.0 19.0 18.0 15.0 14.0 METAL Ca-T mg/L 7.48 7.34 7.47 9.20 22.7 18.4 36.9 38.1 41.1 44.3 K-T mg/L 1.2 I 1.1 I 1.2 I 1.20 1.2 I 1.2 I 1.1 I 1 I 0.95 I 1.1 I Mg-T mg/L 2.49 2.43 2.46 2.59 4.04 3.46 4.71 4.74 5.07 5.03 Na-T mg/L 5.60 5.30 5.40 5.10 5.60 5.20 5.10 5.00 4.90 4.60 NITROGEN NH4-N mg/L 0.014 0.013 0.012 0.012 0.010 0.010 0.008 0.008 0.010 0.010 NOx-N mg/L 0.052 0.026 0.024 0.020 0.110 0.085 0.460 0.430 0.480 0.570 TKN mg/L 1.20 1.10 1.20 1.10 0.880 0.980 0.700 0.680 0.610 0.570 PHOSPHORUS OrthoP mg/L 0.150 0.160 0.160 0.160 0.150 0.160 0.130 0.120 0.110 0.110 TP mg/L 0.210 0.200 0.210 0.230 0.190 0.210 0.160 0.160 0.140 0.140 PHYSICAL Color CPU 430 460 420 420 350 360 240 230 190 170 pH SU 6.68 J 6.71 J 6.63 J 6.97 J 7.52 J 7.15 J 7.29 J 7.38 J 7.47 J 7.39 J SpCond umhos/cm 74.7 72.0 71.1 78.5 156 130 221 224 249 251 Turb NTU 3.2 A 2.60 2.70 2.60 2.30 2.60 1.90 2.00 1.90 1.80 SOLID TDS mg/L 114 114 106 115 142 A 134 170 160 174 174 TSS mg/L 2 I 3 I 2 U 3 I 4 IA 4 I 3 I 4 I 4 I 4 I TEMPERATURE Wtr Temp C 18.4 19.2 19.2 19.8 19.7 19.3 19.6 19.4 19.4 19.5


51

Santa Fe River Springs and Tributaries Detailed Chemical Analysis - May 15, 2018

GROUP PARAMETER UNITS Olustee Creek

Santa Fe Spring

Hornsby Spring

Poe Spring

Johnson Spring

Rum Island Spring

Gilchrist Blue

Spring

Little Devil

Spring

Ginnie Spring

Cow Creek at CR 138

DISSOLVED OXYGEN DO % 57.9 5.40 4.80 9.70 52.0 36.9 58.2 50.2 43.3 71.6

DO mg/L 4.91 0.470 0.410 0.840 4.49 3.20 5.01 4.34 3.76 6.25

GENERAL INORGANIC Alk mg/L as CaCO3 29.0 144 160 188 179 187 170 A 156 149 A 192

Cl-T mg/L 14.0 9.60 12.0 12.0 7.20 8.70 6.60 6.10 6.00 5.40

F-T mg/L 0.110 0.250 0.170 0.120 0.110 0.120 0.096 I 0.087 I 0.087 I 0.056 I

Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 48.5 184 213 213 214 221 198 182 176 212

SO4 mg/L 4.70 31.0 36.0 15.0 14.0 16.0 11.0 9.30 10.0 0.21 I

TOC mg/L 27.0 3.60 2.80 1.80 0.5 U 0.71 I 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 11.0 METAL Ca-T mg/L 12.5 55.0 71.7 75.2 73.0 76.0 68.1 63.0 61.2 81.3

K-T mg/L 1.50 0.82 I 1.1 I 0.84 I 0.6 I 0.7 I 0.54 I 0.5 I 0.45 I 0.32 I

Mg-T mg/L 4.19 11.3 8.21 6.20 7.60 7.46 6.90 5.90 5.58 2.30

Na-T mg/L 7.60 6.00 8.00 7.10 3.60 4.60 3.20 3.00 2.90 2.90 NITROGEN NH4-N mg/L 0.052 0.008 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 I 0.005 I 0.002 U 0.084

NOx-N mg/L 0.300 0.590 0.540 0.230 2.40 1.70 2.40 2.00 1.70 0.072

TKN mg/L 0.940 0.17 I 0.12 I 0.13 I 0.098 I 0.12 I 0.09 I 0.13 I 0.08 U 0.460 PHOSPHORUS OrthoP mg/L 0.160 0.120 0.093 0.082 0.041 0.055 0.034 0.038 0.034 0.055

TP mg/L 0.210 0.120 0.088 0.078 0.038 0.053 0.034 0.039 0.034 0.067 PHYSICAL Color CPU 250 30.0 18.0 6.90 2.5 U 3.2 I 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 67 A

pH SU 6.94 7.34 7.17 7.27 7.60 7.46 7.61 7.68 7.61 7.76

SpCond umhos/cm 124 374 425 429 410 424 384 349 339 326

Stage ft --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 25.3

Turb NTU 2.10 0.300 0.150 0.200 0.200 0.150 0.150 0.450 0.250 0.083 SOLID TDS mg/L 115 217 238 A 229 223 234 A 196 178 184 229

TSS mg/L 2 I 2 I 2 U 2 I 2 I 2 UA 2 I 2 I 2 U 2 I TEMPERATURE Wtr Temp C 23.6 21.7 22.5 22.4 22.6 22.6 22.7 22.5 22.4 22.0


52

Santa Fe River Springs and Tributaries Detailed Chemical Analysis - June 13 and 14, 2018

GROUP PARAMETER UNITS Poe Spring Johnson Spring

Gilchrist Blue Spring

Run

Wilson Spring

ICH Head Spring

Cedar Head Spring Run

Blue Hole Spring

ICH Midpoint

Launch

ICH Tube Takeout LIR-15


DO mg/L 0.790 4.39 4.92 0.280 4.15 4.25 2.52 6.38 8.22 5.85

GENERAL INORGANIC Alk mg/L CaCO3 187 176 171 141 154 153 145 149 145 152

Cl-T mg/L 12.0 7.10 6.60 12.0 4.40 4.90 5.30 6.20 6.10 6.10

F-T mg/L 0.130 0.110 0.100 0.190 0.100 0.110 0.120 0.140 0.140 0.140

Hardness mg/L CaCO3 223 224 214 221 186 181 169 176 176 177

SO4 mg/L 14.0 14.0 12.0 55.0 8.60 5.80 4.80 9.50 10.0 11.0

TOC mg/L 1.80 0.5 U 0.5 U 3.00 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.52 I 0.55 I 0.7 I METAL As-T ug/L 1.7 0.4 0.4 1.1 0.5 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.1

B-T ug/L 20.1 13 12.5 15.5 9.9 10.4 10.8 12 11.7 11.8

Ca-T mg/L 0.079 0.077 0.073 0.070 0.063 0.062 0.058 0.059 0.059 0.059

Cu-T ug/L 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U

Fe-T ug/L 30 U 30 U 30 U 30 U 30 U 30 U 30 U 40 I 43 I 30 U

K-T mg/L 0.89 I 0.63 I 0.6 I 0.71 I 0.3 U 0.3 U 0.43 I 0.47 I 0.45 I 0.46 I

Na-T mg/L 7.40 3.90 3.50 7.60 2.60 2.90 3.30 4.10 4.10 4.10

Mg-T mg/L 0.007 0.008 0.008 0.011 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.007 0.007 0.007

Zn-T ug/L 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NITROGEN NH4-N mg/L 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.003 I 0.002 U 0.003 I 0.006 0.008 0.007 0.007

NOx-N mg/L 0.220 2.30 2.40 0.570 0.810 0.870 0.790 0.580 0.530 0.540

TKN mg/L 0.200 0.08 UJ 0.08 U 0.230 0.094 I 0.096 I 0.08 I 0.11 I 0.12 IJ 0.12 I PHOSPHORUS OrthoP mg/L 0.083 0.038 0.040 0.090 0.022 0.032 0.044 0.045 0.043 0.041

TP mg/L 0.085 0.036 0.039 0.099 0.026 0.034 0.045 0.057 0.056 0.048 PHYSICAL pH SU 7.27 7.38 7.41 7.26 7.51 7.53 7.57 7.82 8.02 7.71

Color CPU 10.0 2.5 U 2.5 U 26.0 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U

SpCond umhos/cm 439 421 402 439 350 341 325 338 337 345

Turb NTU 0.300 0.1 U 1.20 0.250 0.350 0.400 0.600 0.700 0.350 0.250 TEMPERATURE Wtr Temp C 22.6 22.7 22.9 21.7 21.9 21.8 21.7 22.6 23.2 22.5


53

DEP herbicide and insecticide analysis for stations along the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers for June 2018

PARAMETER UNITS Poe Spring

Johnson Spring

Gilchrist Blue

Spring Run

Wilson Spring

ICH Head Spring

Cedar Head

Spring Run

Blue Hole

Spring

ICH Midpoint

ICH Tube

Takeout LIR-15

4,4'-DDD ng/L 3.2 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.2 U 3.1 U 3.2 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 4,4'-DDE ng/L 3.2 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.2 U 3.1 U 3.2 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 4,4'-DDT ng/L 3.2 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.2 U 3.1 U 3.2 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.1 U a-BHC ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Acetochlor ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U a-Chlordane ng/L 1.1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Alachlor ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U Aldrin ng/L 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.2 U Ametryn ng/L 0.31 U 0.31 U 0.32 U 0.32 U 0.31 U 0.31 U 0.31 U 0.32 U 0.31 U 0.31 U AMPA ug/L 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Atrazine ng/L 2.30 0.27 I 0.25 I 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U Atrazine Desethyl ng/L 1.4 U 1.4 U 1.5 U 1.5 U 1.4 U 1.4 U 1.4 U 1.5 U 1.4 U 1.4 U Azinphos Methyl ng/L 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U b-BHC ng/L 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.2 U Bromacil ng/L 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U Butylate ng/L 0.38 UJ 0.38 UJ 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 0.38 UJ 0.39 UJ 0.38 UJ 0.38 UJ Carbophenothion ng/L 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.3 UJ 4.2 UJ 4.3 UJ 4.1 UJ 4.1 UJ 4.2 UJ Chlordane ng/L 2.7 U 3.9 I 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.7 U 2.6 UQ 2.7 U 2.9 I 2.6 U 2.6 U Chlorothalonil ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Chlorpyrifos Ethyl ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U Chlorpyrifos Methyl ng/L 0.096 U 0.096 U 0.097 U 0.099 U 0.096 U 0.097 U 0.095 U 0.099 U 0.096 U 0.096 U Cyanazine ng/L 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U Cypermethrin ng/L 21 U 21 U 21 U 21 U 22 U 21 U 22 U 21 U 21 U 21 U d-BHC ng/L 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.2 U Demeton ng/L 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 2 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 2 U 1.9 U 1.9 U Diazinon ng/L 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U Dicofol ng/L 32 U 31 U 31 U 31 U 32 U 31 U 32 U 31 U 31 U 31 U Dieldrin ng/L 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.2 U Disulfoton ng/L 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U Endosulfan I ng/L 4.3 UJ 4.2 UJ 4.1 UJ 4.2 UJ 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.2 U Endosulfan II ng/L 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.2 U Endosulfan sulfate ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Endrin ng/L 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Endrin aldehyde ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Endrin Ketone ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U EPTC ng/L 1.2 UJ 1.2 UJ 1.2 UJ 1.2 UJ 1.2 UJ 1.2 UJ 1.2 UJ 1.2 UJ 1.2 UJ 1.2 UJ Ethion ng/L 0.14 U 0.14 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.14 U 0.14 U 0.14 U 0.15 U 0.14 U 0.14 U


54

PARAMETER UNITS

Poe Spring

Johnson Spring

Gilchrist Blue

Spring Run

Wilson Spring

ICH Head Spring

Cedar HS Run

Blue Hole

Spring

ICH Midpoint

Launch

ICH Tube

Takeout LIR-15

Fenamiphos ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U Fipronil ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U Fipronil Sulfide ng/L 0.14 U 0.14 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.14 U 0.14 U 0.14 U 0.15 U 0.14 U 0.14 U Fipronil Sulfone ng/L 0.25 I 0.14 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.14 U 0.14 U 0.14 U 0.15 U 0.14 U 0.14 U Fonofos ng/L 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.2 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.2 U 0.19 U 0.19 U g-BHC ng/L 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.2 U g-Chlordane ng/L 1.1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Glyphosate ug/L 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Heptachlor ng/L 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U Heptachlor epoxide ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Hexazinone ng/L 0.89 I 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U Malathion ng/L 0.34 U 0.34 U 0.34 U 0.35 U 0.34 U 0.34 U 0.33 U 0.35 U 0.34 U 0.34 U Metalaxyl ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U Methoxychlor ng/L 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.2 U Metolachlor ng/L 0.35 I 0.24 U 0.25 I 0.3 I 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U Metribuzin ng/L 0.19 UJ 0.19 UJ 0.19 UJ 0.2 UJ 0.19 UJ 0.19 UJ 0.19 UJ 0.2 UJ 0.19 UJ 0.19 UJ Mevinphos ng/L 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U Mirex ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Molinate ng/L 0.29 U 0.29 U 0.29 U 0.3 U 0.29 U 0.29 U 0.29 U 0.3 U 0.29 U 0.29 U Norflurazon ng/L 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U Parathion Ethyl ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U Parathion Methyl ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U Pendimethalin ng/L 0.96 U 0.96 U 0.97 U 0.99 U 0.96 U 0.97 U 0.95 U 0.99 U 0.96 U 0.96 U Permethrin ng/L 11 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 11 U 10 U 11 U 10 U 10 U 10 U Phorate ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U Prometon ng/L 0.86 U 0.86 U 0.88 U 0.89 U 0.87 U 0.87 U 0.86 U 0.89 U 0.86 U 0.86 U Prometryn ng/L 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.2 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.2 U 0.19 U 0.19 U Simazine ng/L 0.73 I 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U Sucralose ug/L 0.210 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.01 U Terbufos ng/L 0.096 U 0.096 U 0.097 U 0.099 U 0.096 U 0.097 U 0.095 U 0.099 U 0.096 U 0.096 U Terbuthylazine ng/L 0.41 U 0.41 U 0.41 U 0.42 U 0.41 U 0.41 U 0.4 U 0.42 U 0.41 U 0.41 U Toxaphene ng/L 32 U 31 U 31 U 31 U 32 U 31 UQ 32 U 31 U 31 U 31 U Trifluralin ng/L 1.1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U


55

Santa Fe River Detailed Chemical Analysis – July 9, 2018


Worthington Spring

O'Leno State Park

Santa Fe River

Rise

SFR at I-75

SFR at US-441

SFR at US-27

SFR at SR-47

SFR above ICH

SFR at US-129

SFR at 39th Ave

DISSOLVED OXYGEN DO % 64.1 65.4 53.9 64 54.3 55.6 55.1 61 59.6 56.2

DO mg/L 5.27 5.36 4.44 5.25 4.48 4.58 4.59 5.05 4.98 4.72 GENERAL INORGANIC Alk mg/L as CaCO3 9.8 7.6 12 7.6 51 38 85 88 97 99

Cl-T mg/L 8.5 7.9 8.4 8.1 9.4 9 9 8.9 8.9 8.5

F-T mg/L 0.079 I 0.081 I 0.088 I 0.082 I 0.11 0.1 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11

Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 29.4 28.1 36.3 28.1 84.5 66.5 115 122 132 133

SO4 mg/L 1.1 0.96 4.2 1 14 10 12 13 13 13

TOC mg/L 40 41 40 42 31 35 24 24 19 18 METAL Ca-T mg/L 7.91 7.6 10.4 7.58 26.8 20.8 38.5 40.7 44.2 44.7

K-T mg/L 0.84 I 0.77 I 0.81 I 0.81 I 0.91 I 0.9 I 0.82 I 0.85 I 0.84 I 0.91 I

Mg-T mg/L 2.34 2.21 2.53 2.22 4.26 3.53 4.69 4.9 5.15 5.18

Na-T mg/L 4.7 4.5 4.6 4.5 5.5 5.2 5 5.1 4.8 4.7 NITROGEN NH4-N mg/L 0.017 0.017 0.019 0.017 0.016 0.015 0.008 0.007 0.009 0.009

NOx-N mg/L 0.067 0.056 0.056 0.054 0.15 0.12 0.52 0.51 0.59 0.61

TKN mg/L 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 0.96 1 0.83 0.71 0.71 0.75 J PHOSPHORUS OrthoP mg/L 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.16 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11

TP mg/L 0.2 0.2 0.21 0.2 0.19 0.2 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 PHYSICAL Color CPU 520 540 530 540 410 460 320 310 270 250

pH SU 6.09 5.84 6.15 6.02 6.89 6.86 7.16 7.28 7.32 7.53

SpCond umhos/cm 70.6 65.2 80.1 65.5 177.9 137.2 228.1 235.2 251.2 256.1

Turb NTU 3.4 A 2.8 3.2 2.9 2.4 2.7 2.1 2.2 A 1.6 1.7 SOLID TDS mg/L 116 117 130 112 143 142 134 176 162 A 166 A

TSS mg/L 4 I 4 I 3 I 3 I 3 I 3 I 3 I 3 I 4 IA 3 IA TEMPERATURE Wtr Temp C 25.2 25.6 25.2 25.4 25.1 25.1 24.5 24.7 24.3 24.5


56

Santa Fe River Springs and Tributaries Detailed Chemical Analysis – August 9, 2018

GROUP PARAMETER UNITS SFR at US-441

SFR at US-27

Poe Spring


Run*

Ginnie Spring Run

SFR at SR-47 LIR-15 SFR at

US-129 SFR at

39th Ave

DISSOLVED OXYGEN DO % 37.2 41.8 5.7 40.7 49.3 46.1 52.5 52.1 50.2

DO mg/L 3.02 3.35 0.48 3.36 4.25 3.75 4.48 4.24 4.08 GENERAL INORGANIC Alk mg/L as CaCO3 43 26 186 A 46 163 50 121 55 52

Cl-T mg/L 7.0 6.3 12 6.4 6.2 6.4 6 5.8 5.5

F-T mg/L 0.1 0.085 I 0.13 0.088 I 0.093 I 0.088 I 0.12 0.087 I 0.085 I

Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 72.3 45.5 206 71.9 185 72.6 144 73.4 71.1

SO4 mg/L 14 A 6.8 17 7 10 7 8.9 5.5 4.2

TOC mg/L 34 39 3 35 0.52 I 33 12 31 30 METAL As-T ug/L 0.98 0.89 1.67 0.96 0.77 0.93 1.05 0.87 0.92

B-T ug/L 18.4 17.3 20.1 17 11.1 17.6 13.6 15.9 16.4

Ca-T mg/L 22.7 14 72.3 23.5 64 23.8 48.1 24.3 23.6

Cu-T ug/L 0.49 I 0.53 I 0.2 U 0.56 I 0.26 I 0.58 I 0.2 I 0.49 I 0.54 I

Fe-T ug/L 870 1020 30 U 810 30 U 850 260 720 720

K-T mg/L 0.94 I 0.91 I 0.96 I 0.86 I 0.49 I 0.9 I 0.6 I 0.85 I 0.89 I

Na-T mg/L 4.5 3.8 7.4 4 3.1 3.9 3.9 3.5 3.4

Mg-T mg/L 3.75 2.56 6.14 3.18 6.14 3.22 5.9 3.08 2.93

Zn-T ug/L 6.6 I 7.3 I 5 U 6.4 I 5 U 7.4 I 5 U 6 I 6.8 I NITROGEN NH4-N mg/L 0.021 0.022 0.002 I 0.017 0.003 I 0.016 0.011 0.014 0.015

NOx-N mg/L 0.091 0.055 0.14 0.13 2.0 0.22 0.4 0.21 0.19

TKN mg/L 1 1.2 0.35 1.1 0.11 I 1.1 0.55 0.98 0.97 PHOSPHORUS OrthoP mg/L 0.17 0.19 0.084 0.17 0.036 0.17 0.091 0.16 0.16

TP mg/L 0.22 0.22 0.085 0.21 0.036 0.19 0.11 0.2 0.2 PHYSICAL pH SU 6.72 6.53 7.22 7.00 7.45 6.86 7.48 7.15 7.24

Color CPU 460 530 16 470.00 2.5 U 450 150 430 430

SpCond umhos/cm 151.1 97 424.2 222.30 360.8 142.1 313.85 145.8 137

Turb NTU 2.3 2.5 A 0.3 1.8 0.15 2 0.9 1.6 1.8 TEMPERATURE Wtr Temp C 25.9 26.6 22.7 24.95 22.6 25.8 23.3 25.8 25.9

*Gilchrist Blue Spring nitrate-nitrogen and specific conductance values are low due to river water intrusion in the run. High DO and color values also indicate river water intrusion


57

DEP herbicide and insecticide analysis for river stations along the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers for August 2018

PARAMETER UNITS SFR at US-441

SFR at US-27

Poe Spring

Gilchrist Blue

Spring Run

Ginnie Spring Run

SFR at US-47 LIR-15 SFR at

US-129 SFR at

39th Ave

4,4'-DDD ng/L 3.2 U 3.2 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.4 U 3.2 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 4,4'-DDE ng/L 3.2 U 3.2 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.4 U 3.2 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 4,4'-DDT ng/L 3.2 U 3.2 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.4 U 3.2 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.1 U a-BHC ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.3 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2 U Acetochlor ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.25 U a-Chlordane ng/L 1.1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Alachlor ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.25 U Aldrin ng/L 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.6 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.1 U Ametryn ng/L 0.31 U 0.32 UJ 0.31 U 0.31 U 0.31 U 0.33 U 0.32 U 0.32 U 0.33 U AMPA ug/L 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Atrazine ng/L 1.7 1.6 3.3 1.5 0.24 U 1.2 0.48 I 1.1 1.1 Atrazine Desethyl ng/L 1.4 U 1.5 U 1.4 U 1.4 U 1.4 U 1.5 U 1.5 U 1.5 U 1.5 U Azinphos Methyl ng/L 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.3 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.3 U b-BHC ng/L 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.6 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.1 U Bromacil ng/L 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.5 U 0.49 U 0.49 U 0.5 U Butylate ng/L 0.38 U 0.39 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.4 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.4 U Carbophenothion ng/L 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.6 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.1 U Chlordane ng/L 3.4 U 5.2 U 2.6 U 6.8 U 2.9 U 4 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U Chlorothalonil ng/L 2.1U 2.1U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.3 U 2.1U 2.1 U 2.1U 2 U Chlorpyrifos Ethyl ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.25U 0.25U Chlorpyrifos Methyl ng/L 0.096 U 0.097 U 0.096 U 0.096 U 0.096 U 0.1 U 0.098 U 0.098 U 0.1 U Cyanazine ng/L 0.48 U 0.49 UJ 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.5 U 0.49 U 0.49 U 0.5 U Cypermethrin ng/L 24 U 22 U 21 U 21 U 23 U 23 U 21 U 21 U 20 U d-BHC ng/L 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.2U 4.6 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.1 U Demeton ng/L 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 2 U 2 U 4 U 3 U Diazinon ng/L 0.12 UJ 0.12 UJ 0.12 UJ 0.12 UJ 0.12 UJ 0.13 UJ 0.12 UJ 0.12 UJ 0.13 UJ Dicofol ng/L 32 U 32 U 31 U 31 U 34 U 32 U 31 U 31 U 31 U Dieldrin ng/L 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.6 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.1 U Disulfoton ng/L 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.5 U 0.49 U 0.49 U 0.5 U Endosulfan I ng/L 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.6 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.1 U Endosulfan II ng/L 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.6 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.1 U Endosulfan sulfate ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.3 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2 U Endrin ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.3 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2 U Endrin aldehyde ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.3 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2 U Endrin Ketone ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.3 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2 U EPTC ng/L 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.3 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.3 U Ethion ng/L 0.14 UJ 0.15 UJ 0.14 UJ 0.14 UJ 0.14 UJ 0.15 UJ 0.15 UJ 0.15 UJ 0.15 UJ Ethoprop ng/L 0.096 U 0.097 U 0.096 U 0.096 U 0.096 U 0.1 U 0.098 U 0.098 U 0.1 U


58

PARAMETER UNITS SFR at US-441

SFR at US-27

Poe Spring

Gilchrist Blue

Spring Run

Ginnie Spring

Run

SFR at SR-47 LIR-15 SFR at

US-129 SFR at

39th Ave

Fenamiphos ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.25 U Fipronil ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.25 U Fipronil Sulfide ng/L 0.14 U 0.15 U 0.14 U 0.14 U 0.14 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.15 U Fipronil Sulfone ng/L 0.14 U 0.15 U 0.22 I 0.14 U 0.14 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.15 U Fonofos ng/L 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U g-BHC ng/L 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.6 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.1 U g-Chlordane ng/L 1.1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Glyphosate ug/L 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Heptachlor ng/L 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.7 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.5 U Heptachlor epoxide ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.3 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2 U Hexazinone ng/L 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.85 I 0.49 U 0.49 U 0.5 U Malathion ng/L 0.34 U 0.34 U 0.34 U 0.34 U 0.33 U 0.35 U 0.34 U 0.34 U 0.35 U Metalaxyl ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.25 U Methoxychlor ng/L 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.6 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.1 U Metolachlor ng/L 1.5 1.5 0.28 I 1.5 0.24 U 1.6 0.5 I 1.6 1.8 Metribuzin ng/L 0.19 UJ 0.19 UJ 0.19 UJ 0.19 UJ 0.19 UJ 0.2 UJ 0.2 UJ 0.2 UJ 0.2 UJ Mevinphos ng/L 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.5 U 0.49 U 0.49 U 0.5 U Mirex ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.3 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2 U Molinate ng/L 0.29 U 0.29 UJ 0.29 U 0.29 U 0.29 U 0.3 U 0.29 U 0.29 U 0.3 U Norflurazon ng/L 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.5 U 0.49 U 0.49 U 0.5 U Parathion Ethyl ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.25 U Parathion Methyl ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.25 U Pendimethalin ng/L 0.96 U 0.97 U 0.96 U 0.96 U 0.96 U 1 U 0.98 U 0.98 U 1 U Permethrin ng/L 11 U 11 U 10 U 10 U 11 U 11 U 10 U 10 U 10 U Phorate ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.25 U Prometon ng/L 0.86 U 0.88 U 0.86 U 0.87 U 0.86 U 0.91 U 0.88 U 0.88 U 0.91 U Prometryn ng/L 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U Simazine ng/L 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.5 U 0.49 U 0.49 U 0.5 U Sucralose ug/L 0.057 0.07 0.28 0.066 0.01 U 0.072 0.01 U 0.039 I 0.082 Terbufos ng/L 0.096 U 0.097 U 0.096 U 0.096 U 0.096 U 0.1 U 0.098 U 0.098 U 0.1 U Terbuthylazine ng/L 0.41 U 0.41 U 0.41 U 0.41 U 0.41 U 0.43 U 0.41 U 0.42 U 0.43 U Toxaphene ng/L 32 U 32 U 31 U 31 U 34 U 32 U 31 U 31 U 31 U Trifluralin ng/L 1.1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U


59

Santa Fe River Springs and Ichetucknee spring and river stations Detailed Chemical Analysis – September 12, 2018

GROUP PARAMETER UNITS Johnson Spring

Naked Spring


Run

Wilson Spring

ICH Head Spring

Cedar Head

Spring Run

Blue Hole

Spring

ICH Midpoint

ICH Tube Takeout LIR-15


DO mg/L 4.09 4.74 4.93 0.53 3.96 4.40 2.39 6.22 5.56 5.48 GENERAL INORGANIC Alk mg/L as CaCO3 183 A 179 176 139 164 160 152 153 154 159

Cl-T mg/L 7.4 7.2 7 11 4.8 5.1 5.7 6.5 6.5 6.6

F-T mg/L 0.11 0.1 0.1 0.15 0.1 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.14

Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 225 221 212 189 188 180 172 172 163 189

SO4 mg/L 14 13 12 38 8.8 5.7 4.8 11 11 13

TOC mg/L 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 5.9 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.51 I 0.5 U 0.6 I METAL Ca-T mg/L 77.3 75.9 72.8 62.9 64.5 62.1 59.8 57.7 54.6 63

K-T mg/L 0.65 I 0.66 I 0.64 I 0.68 I 0.3 U 0.33 I 0.41 I 0.47 I 0.46 I 0.49 I

Mg-T mg/L 7.82 7.57 7.36 7.81 6.52 5.97 5.54 6.74 6.55 7.58

Na-T mg/L 3.6 3.4 3.3 5.9 2.6 2.8 3.3 3.8 3.8 4.2 NITROGEN NH4-N mg/L 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.005 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.006 0.006 0.004 I

NOx-N mg/L 2.5 2.6 2.5 0.27 0.8 0.86 0.78 0.6 0.59 0.57

TKN mg/L 0.14 I 0.13 I 0.14 I 0.35 0.08 U 0.16 I 1.2 0.17 I 0.17 I 0.14 I PHOSPHORUS OrthoP mg/L 0.035 0.033 0.032 0.074 0.022 0.031 0.044 0.044 0.043 0.043

TP mg/L 0.035 0.032 0.032 0.077 0.023 0.033 0.044 0.061 0.059 0.046 PHYSICAL Color CPU 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 61 A 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U

pH SU 7.46 7.48 7.37 7.33 7.52 7.48 7.52 7.77 7.81 7.7

SpCond umhos/cm 414.3 403.8 398.2 376.1 344.1 335.7 321.3 336.1 337.9 348.6

Turb NTU 0.15 0.1 U 0.2 0.35 0.2 0.3 0.15 0.45 0.6 0.35 TEMPERATURE Wtr Temp C 22.6 22.5 22.6 22.5 21.8 22.1 21.7 23 22.4 22.4


60

Santa Fe River and Springs Detailed Chemical Analysis – October 16, 2018


Worthington Spring

O'Leno State Park

Santa Fe River Rise

Hornsby Spring

Poe Spring

Johnson Spring

Rum Island Spring

Naked Spring

Gilchrist Blue

Spring Run

Little Blue

Spring

DISSOLVED OXYGEN DO % 72.1 62.9 28.7 3.9 5.5 52.8 38 55.2 50.8 51.1 DO mg/L 6.15 5.4 2.42 0.33 0.5 4.56 3.28 4.78 5.06 4.41 GENERAL INORGANIC Alk mg/L as CaCO3 15 48 90 166 193 182 182 176 A 169 169 Cl-T mg/L 10 11 A 14 12 11 8.5 8.5 7 6.7 6.6 F-T mg/L 0.076 I 0.13 0.19 0.17 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.099 I 0.099 I Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 32.6 69 141 196 210 202 202 200 188 193 SO4 mg/L 2.5 10 A 44 33 14 16 16 13 11 11 TOC mg/L 33 26 15 1.9 1.1 1.3 1.3 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U METAL As-T ug/L 0.82 0.99 1.03 1.5 1.62 0.73 0.73 0.45 0.42 0.47 B-T ug/L 23 22.2 2 U 20.6 18.8 14.6 14.6 12.1 11.9 12 Ca-T mg/L 8.39 19.3 42.2 66.3 74 69 69 68.2 64.2 66.1 Cu-T ug/L 0.65 I 0.49 I 0.3 I 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U Fe-T ug/L 980 620 380 30 U 30 U 30 U 30 U 30 U 30 U 30 U K-T mg/L 1.2 I 1.2 I 1 I 0.84 I 0.74 I 0.63 I 0.63 I 0.56 I 0.59 I 0.49 I Na-T mg/L 6.5 6.5 8.5 7.9 7 4.7 4.7 3.5 3.3 3.4 Mg-T mg/L 2.83 5.07 8.71 7.3 6.14 7.23 7.23 7.17 6.68 6.83 Zn-T ug/L 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NITROGEN NH4-N mg/L 0.02 0.015 0.014 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.004 I NOx-N mg/L 0.099 0.22 0.44 0.74 0.36 1.8 1.8 2.6 2.6 2.4 TKN mg/L 1.2 0.82 0.55 0.23 0.23 0.28 0.28 0.15 I 0.18 I 0.21 PHOSPHORUS OrthoP mg/L 0.096 0.12 0.11 0.086 0.081 0.054 0.054 0.033 0.031 0.03 TP mg/L 0.2 0.15 0.14 0.091 0.083 0.056 0.056 0.033 0.033 0.033 PHYSICAL Color CPU 410 310 190 12 4.6 I 8.6 8.6 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U pH SU 7.1 7.23 7.4 7.38 7.54 7.5 7.65 7.44 7.55 SpCond umhos/cm 86.4 160.2 324.9 434.3 436.1 416.7 427.3 409 391.5 390.3 Turb NTU 7.4 A 3.4 2.5 0.35 0.35 0.5 0.5 0.4 1.1 0.7 SOLID TDS mg/L 125 144 211 244 A 219 A 211 211 230 A 208 190 TSS mg/L 9 I 3 I 5 I 2 UA 2 IA 2 U 2 U 2 IA 3 I 2 I TEMPERATURE Wtr Temp C 23.3 22.9 24 22.6 22.5 22.6 22.6 22.5 22.7 22.6


61

DEP Herbicide and Insecticide Analysis for Segment 3 of the Santa Fe River for October 2018

PARAMETER UNITS SFR at

Worthington Spring

O'Leno State Park

Santa Fe River Rise

Hornsby Spring

Poe Spring

Johnson Spring

Rum Island Spring

Naked Spring

Gilchrist Blue

Spring Run

Little Blue

Spring

4,4'-DDD ng/L 3.1 U 3 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.2 U 3.9 U 3.9 U 3.3 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 4,4'-DDE ng/L 3.1 U 3 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.2 U 3.9 U 3.9 U 3.3 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 4,4'-DDT ng/L 3.1 U 3 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.2 U 3.9 U 3.9 U 3.3 U 3.1 U 3.1 U a-BHC ng/L 2.1 U 2 UJ 2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Acesulfame K ng/L 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Acetochlor ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U a-Chlordane ng/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1.3 U 1.3 U 1.1 U 1 U 1 U Alachlor ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U Aldrin ng/L 4.1 UJ 4.1 UJ 4.1 UJ 4.1 UJ 4.2 UJ 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ 4.3 UJ 4.1 UJ 4.2 UJ Ametryn ng/L 0.31 U 0.31 U 0.31 U 0.32 U 0.32 U 0.31 U 0.31 U 0.31 U 0.31 U 0.31 U AMPA ug/L 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Atrazine ng/L 1 0.77 I 0.58 I 0.77 I 1.9 0.47 I 0.47 I 0.45 I 0.45 I 0.45 I Atrazine Desethyl ng/L 1.4 U 1.4 U 1.4 U 1.5 U 1.7 I 2 I 2 I 1.5 I 1.4 I 1.7 I Azinphos Methyl ng/L 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U b-BHC ng/L 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 5.1 U 5.1 U 4.3 U 4.1 U 4.2 U Bromacil ng/L 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U Butylate ng/L 0.38 U 0.39 U 0.38 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.38 U 0.39 U Carbophenothion ng/L 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 5.1 U 5.1 U 4.3 U 4.1 U 4.2 U Chlordane ng/L 2.6 U 2.5 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 4.1 I 4.1 I 2.7 U 2.6 U 2.6 U Chlorothalonil ng/L 2.1 U 2 U 2 UJ 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Chlorpyrifos Ethyl ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U Chlorpyrifos Methyl ng/L 0.095 U 0.097 U 0.096 U 0.098 U 0.098 U 0.097 U 0.097 U 0.097 U 0.096 U 0.097 U Cyanazine ng/L 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U Cypermethrin ng/L 21 U 20 U 20 U 21 U 21 U 26 U 26 U 22 U 21 U 21 U d-BHC ng/L 4.1 U 4.1 UJ 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 5.1 U 5.1 U 4.3 U 4.1 U 4.2 U Decachlorobiphenyl ng/L 25700 24700 29700 32200 30900 27200 --- 27600 30800 29000 Demeton ng/L 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 2 U 2 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 UJ 1.9 U 1.9 U Diazinon ng/L 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U Dicofol ng/L 31 U 30 U 31 U 31 U 32 U 39 U 39 U 33 U 31 U 31 U Dieldrin ng/L 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 5.1 U 5.1 U 4.3 U 4.1 U 4.2 U Dimethenamid ng/L 0.095 U 0.097 U 0.096 U 0.098 U 0.098 U 0.097 U 0.097 U 0.097 U 0.096 U 0.097 U Disulfoton ng/L 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U Dithiopyr ng/L 0.095 U 0.097 U 0.096 U 0.098 U 0.098 U 0.097 U 0.097 U 0.097 U 0.096 U 0.097 U Endosulfan I ng/L 4.1 U 4.1 U 324.9 4.1 U 4.2 U 416.7 5.1 U 4.3 U 6.15 4.2 U Endosulfan II ng/L 4.1 U 4.1 U 24 4.1 U 4.2 U 5.1 U 5.1 U 4.3 U 3.28 4.2 U Endosulfan sulfate ng/L 2.1 U 2 U 4.56 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.2 U 0.5 2.1 U Endothall ug/L 0.25 U 0.25 U 416.7 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 5.4 0.25 U Endothall-d6 ug/L 4.98 4.85 50.8 4.12 3.6 5.37 --- 4.25 4.78 4.3 Endrin ng/L 2.1 U 2 U 7.44 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.2 U 4.41 2.1 U Endrin aldehyde ng/L 2.1 U 2 UJ 22.7 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.2 U 0.33 2.1 U Endrin Ketone ng/L 2.1 U 2 U 72.1 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U EPTC ng/L 1.2 U 1.2 U 86.4 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2 U


62


Worthington Spring

O'Leno State Park

Santa Fe River Rise

Hornsby Spring

Poe Spring

Johnson

Spring

Rum Island Spring

Naked Spring

Gilchrist Blue

Spring Run

Little Blue

Spring

Ethion ng/L 0.14 U 0.14 U 0.23 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.14 U 0.14 U 0.15 U 0.14 U 0.14 U Ethoprop ng/L 0.095 U 0.097 U 38 0.098 U 0.098 U 0.097 U 0.097 U 0.097 U 0.096 U 0.097 U Fenamiphos ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 427.3 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U Fipronil ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 22.5 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U Fipronil Desulfinyl ng/L 0.12 UJ 0.12 UJ 0.5 0.12 UJ 0.12 UJ 0.12 UJ 0.12 UJ 0.12 UJ 0.12 UJ 0.12 UJ Fipronil Sulfide ng/L 0.14 U 0.14 U 7.38 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.14 U 0.14 U 0.15 U 0.14 U 0.14 U Fipronil Sulfone ng/L 0.14 U 0.14 U 22.9 0.15 U 0.31 I 0.14 U 0.14 U 0.15 U 0.14 U 0.14 U Fonofos ng/L 0.19 U 0.19 U 7.23 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.19 U g-BHC ng/L 4.1 UJ 4.1 UJ 22.5 4.1 UJ 4.2 UJ 5.1 UJ 5.1 UJ 4.3 UJ 4.1 UJ 4.2 UJ g-Chlordane ng/L 1 U 1 U 4.78 1 U 1.1 U 1.3 U 1.3 U 1.1 U 1 U 1 U Glufosinate ng/L 0.1 U 0.1 U 7.65 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Glyphosate ug/L 0.1 U 0.1 U 51.1 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Glyphosate 13C 15N ng/L 4.64 4.44 390.3 3.85 3.88 2.86 --- 3.64 3.76 3.81 Heptachlor ng/L 1.5 UJ 1.5 UJ 0.33 1.5 UJ 1.6 UJ 1.9 UJ 1.9 UJ 1.6 UJ 1.6 UJ 1.6 UJ Heptachlor epoxide ng/L 2.1 U 2 U 7.38 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Hexazinone ng/L 1.5 I 1.2 I 0.95 I 0.85 I 0.97 I 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.53 I 0.48 U Malathion ng/L 0.33 U 0.34 U 0.33 U 0.34 U 0.34 U 0.34 U 0.34 U 0.34 U 0.34 U 0.34 U Metalaxyl ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U Methoxychlor ng/L 4.1 U 4.1 UJ 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 5.1 U 5.1 U 4.3 U 4.1 U 4.2 U Metolachlor ng/L 5.1 8 0.72 I 0.52 I 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.41 I 0.65 I 0.57 I Metribuzin ng/L 0.19 UJ 0.19 UJ 0.19 UJ 0.2 UJ 0.2 UJ 0.19 UJ 0.19 UJ 0.19 UJ 0.19 UJ 0.19 UJ Mevinphos ng/L 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U Mirex ng/L 2.1 U 2 U 2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Molinate ng/L 0.29 U 0.29 U 0.29 U 0.29 U 0.29 U 0.29 U 0.29 U 0.29 U 0.29 U 0.29 U Norflurazon ng/L 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U Oxadiazon ng/L 0.095 U 0.097 U 0.096 U 0.098 U 0.098 U 0.097 U 0.097 U 0.097 U 0.096 U 0.097 U Parathion Ethyl ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U Parathion Methyl ng/L 0.24 UJ 0.24 UJ 0.24 UJ 0.24 UJ 0.24 UJ 0.24 UJ 0.24 UJ 0.24 UJ 0.24 UJ 0.24 UJ PCNB ng/L 30400 28100 36700 38400 54100 55300 --- 41200 34300 49200 Pendimethalin ng/L 0.95 U 0.97 U 0.96 U 0.98 U 0.98 U 0.97 U 0.97 U 0.97 U 0.96 U 0.97 U Permethrin ng/L 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 11 U 13 U 13 U 11 U 10 U 10 U Phorate ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 22.6 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U Prodiamine ng/L 0.17 U 0.17 U 0.17 U 0.17 U 0.17 U 0.17 U 0.17 U 0.17 U 0.17 U 0.17 U Prometon ng/L 0.86 U 0.87 U 0.86 U 0.88 U 0.88 U 0.87 U 0.87 U 0.87 U 0.86 U 0.87 U Prometryn ng/L 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.19 U Simazine ng/L 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.49 I 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U Simazine-d10 ng/L 21100 16700 19900 19000 17500 18300 --- 17800 19500 21900 Sucralose ug/L 0.12 0.11 0.055 0.18 0.13 0.017 I 0.017 I 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.01 U Sucralose-d6 ng/L 6.39 6.19 6.35 5.89 5.38 5.37 --- 6.27 5.42 5.62 Tebuconazole ng/L 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U Terbufos ng/L 0.095 U 0.097 U 0.096 U 0.098 U 0.098 U 0.097 U 0.097 U 0.097 U 0.096 U 0.097 U Terbufos-d10 ng/L 19500 16900 18200 16900 15700 16100 --- 16000 16500 17900 Terbuthylazine ng/L 0.41 U 0.41 U 0.41 U 0.41 U 0.42 U 0.41 U 0.41 U 0.41 U 0.41 U 0.41 U Tetrachloro-m-xylene ng/L 24200 21100 30900 29400 31400 32300 --- 28800 34000 32000 Toxaphene ng/L 31 U 30 U 31 U 31 U 32 U 39 U 39 U 33 U 31 U 31 U Trifluralin ng/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1.3 U 1.3 U 1.1 U 1 U 1 U


63

Santa Fe River Springs and Tributaries Detailed Chemical Analysis – November 6, 2018

GROUP PARAMETER UNITS Ichetucknee Head Spring

Cedar Head

Spring Run

Blue Hole Spring

ICH Midpoint

ICH South

Take-out LIR-15 Betty

Spring Troop Spring

SFR at US 129 Trail Spring

DISSOLVED OXYGEN DO % 45.9 50.3 27.6 69.5 75.7 78 43.1 28.2 68.6 22.6 DO mg/L 4.02 4.4 2.4 5.99 6.57 6.79 3.72 2.44 5.95 1.95

GENERAL INORGANIC Alk mg/L as CaCO3 162 A 158 150 A 152 152 153 157 156 160 160

Cl-T mg/L 4.5 4.9 5.5 6.5 A 6.4 6.4 12 33 11 11 F-T mg/L 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.082 I 0.073 I 0.15 0.068 I


SO4 mg/L 8.6 5.5 4.8 10 A 11 12 53 100 29 35 TOC mg/L 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.51 I 1.4 2.7 0.79 I METAL Ca-T mg/L 62.1 60.3 57.5 55.5 59.1 60.2 92.3 135 67.6 81.3 K-T mg/L 0.3 U 0.3 U 0.43 I 0.44 I 0.49 I 0.5 I 4.4 34 0.8 I 9.7 Mg-T mg/L 2.7 3 3.6 4.2 4.4 4.3 3.6 28.5 6.2 7.4 Na-T mg/L 6.56 5.97 5.53 6.81 7.29 7.29 6.42 15.9 8.23 7.18 NITROGEN NH4-N mg/L 0.002 U 0.002 I 0.002 U 0.005 0.005 I 0.006 0.002 U 0.002 I 0.004 I 0.003 I NOx-N mg/L 0.82 0.88 0.8 0.66 0.63 0.63 A 8 52 1 12 TKN mg/L 0.11 I 0.1 I 0.13 I 0.094 I 0.13 I 0.13 I 0.08 U 0.8 U 0.25 0.16 U PHOSPHORUS OrthoP mg/L 0.02 0.031 0.043 0.042 0.044 0.044 0.049 0.072 0.061 0.051 TP mg/L 0.023 0.035 0.046 0.062 0.062 0.057 0.051 0.076 0.072 0.052 PHYSICAL Color CPU 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.9 I 21 A 3.3 I pH SU 7.69 7.67 7.55 7.84 8.17 7.78 7.46 7.32 7.67 7.41 SpCond umhos/cm 339.6 330.7 318 332.6 333.2 336.7 504 1001 399.9 496.2 Turb NTU 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.55 0.75 0.8 0.3 0.9 1.1 A 0.35 SOLID TDS mg/L 170 163 153 164 169 177 284 715 224 292 A TSS mg/L 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 I 3 I 2 I 2 IA TEMPERATURE Wtr Temp C 21.9 21.9 21.7 22.7 22.4 22.2 22.6 22.3 22.4 22.5


64

Santa Fe River Springs and Tributaries Detailed Chemical Analysis – December 12 & 13, 2018


Santa Fe Spring

Hornsby Spring

Poe Spring

Johnson Spring

Naked Spring


Run

Devil's Eye

Spring

Ginnie Spring

Run

Cow Creek at CR 138

DISSOLVED OXYGEN DO % 82.2 80.1 4.5 10.9 53.6 54.5 62.4 44.2 47.9 87.1 DO mg/L 9.15 8.64 0.39 0.95 4.63 4.71 5.42 3.82 4.16 9.49 GENERAL INORGANIC Alk mg/L as CaCO3 1.4 I 8.5 146 189 180 177 172 177 153 52 Cl-T mg/L 9.7 12 A 13 11 7.3 7.1 7 7.4 6.2 7.8 F-T mg/L 0.063 I 0.077 I 0.17 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.098 I 0.1 0.086 I 0.036 I Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 22.1 32.1 215 214 215 218 204 215 --- 72 SO4 mg/L 1.1 3.2 A 32 13 14 13 12 13 9.8 0.51 I TOC mg/L 41 34 1.9 1.3 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U --- 32 METAL Ca-T mg/L 5.28 7.8 73 75.5 73.5 74.5 69.9 73.4 --- 26.8 K-T mg/L 0.31 I 1.4 0.97 I 0.81 I 0.63 I 0.64 I 0.56 I 0.65 I --- 0.3 U Mg-T mg/L 4.8 5.6 8 6.2 3.3 3.3 3.1 3.6 --- 3.3 Na-T mg/L 2.17 3.07 8.08 6.24 7.61 7.83 7.12 7.62 --- 1.22 NITROGEN NH4-N mg/L 0.002 I 0.002 I 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U --- 0.004 I NOx-N mg/L 0.007 I 0.018 0.72 0.3 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.2 1.32 0.009 I TKN mg/L 1.1 1 0.29 0.19 I 0.14 I 0.16 I 0.13 I 0.14 I --- 0.93 PHOSPHORUS OrthoP mg/L 0.11 0.13 0.086 0.079 0.035 0.032 0.031 0.038 0.034 0.014 TP mg/L 0.15 0.17 0.088 0.082 0.036 0.034 0.032 0.04 --- 0.03 PHYSICAL Color CPU 390 340 9 4.2 I 2.5 UA 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 280 pH SU 5.85 5.52 6.84 7.55 7.53 7.55 7.53 7.46 7.93 8.28 SpCond umhos/cm 62.2 82.8 436.4 432.5 417.1 409.9 396.6 409.7 349.5 134.3 Turb NTU 3.1 2.9 0.15 0.25 0.4 0.35 0.25 0.4 0.15 1 SOLID TDS mg/L 116 126 250 230 226 A 210 212 213 164 154 TSS mg/L 3 I 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 UA 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U TEMPERATURE Wtr Temp C 10.6 11.9 22.5 22.4 22.5 22.6 22.3 22.5 22.3 11.5


65

Santa Fe River Detailed Chemical Analysis – January 17, 2019


Worthington Spring

SFR at I-75 O'Leno State Park

Santa Fe River Rise

SFR at US-441

SFR at US-27

SFR at SR-47

SFR above ICH

SFR at US-129

SFR at 39th Ave

DISSOLVED OXYGEN DO % 80 69.2 71 53.3 60.1 60.4 56 56.2 48 47.6 DO mg/L 8.72 7.11 7.31 5.24 5.71 5.81 5.28 5.45 4.73 4.75 GENERAL INORGANIC Alk mg/L as CaCO3 13 36 36 53 89 A 77 119 113 115 111 Cl-T mg/L 13 11 11 13 13 13 11 11 10 10 F-T mg/L 0.073 I 0.1 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 34.9 59.9 58.9 94.9 139 118 159 148 146 142 SO4 mg/L 3.5 7.4 7.2 23 29 27 23 20 17 17 TOC mg/L 32 28 29 26 18 21 13 14 14 15 METAL Ca-T mg/L 9.09 16.8 16.6 28.4 44 36.9 52.6 49 48.4 47.1 K-T mg/L 1.2 I 1 I 0.95 I 1 I 1.1 I 0.99 I 0.85 I 0.83 I 0.76 I 0.8 I Mg-T mg/L 6.9 6.4 6.3 7.4 7.8 7.3 6.3 6.1 5.9 5.8 Na-T mg/L 2.96 4.35 4.26 5.85 6.97 6.34 6.68 6.2 6.16 5.94 NITROGEN NH4-N mg/L 0.015 0.015 0.014 0.015 0.012 0.013 0.009 0.011 0.019 0.015 NOx-N mg/L 0.094 0.15 0.14 0.17 0.26 0.23 0.65 0.57 0.46 0.45 TKN mg/L 1 0.9 1 0.87 0.57 0.67 0.53 0.45 0.53 0.57 PHOSPHORUS OrthoP mg/L 0.082 0.098 0.098 0.094 0.087 0.088 0.072 0.071 0.076 0.073 TP mg/L 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.12 0.12 0.091 0.09 0.097 0.091 PHYSICAL Color CPU 340 310 310 290 200 230 140 150 A 150 160 pH SU 6.4 6.82 6.84 6.9 7.22 7.12 7.26 7.2 7.2 7.21 SpCond umhos/cm 89.6 132.2 130.3 204.3 281.7 254.1 319.3 302.7 294.3 286.8 Stage ft --- --- --- 4.99 --- --- --- --- --- --- Turb NTU 3 2.8 2.1 2.8 1.7 1.7 A 2 1.4 1.5 0.9 SOLID TDS mg/L 119 128 127 163 198 174 200 202 182 189 TSS mg/L 2 U 2 U 2 U 4 I 2 U 2 U 3 I 2 U 2 I 2 U TEMPERATURE Wtr Temp C 11.5 14 14 16.1 17.8 17.2 18.2 16.8 15.9 15.5


66

Santa Fe River Springs and Tributaries Detailed Chemical Analysis – February 18, 2019


Santa Fe Spring

Hornsby Spring

Poe Spring

Johnson Spring

Naked Spring

Gilchrist Blue

Spring Run

Little Blue

Spring

Devil's Eye

Spring

Ginnie Spring

Run

DISSOLVED OXYGEN DO % 80 4.8 4.8 5.3 63.9 66.4 69.7 56.2 57.1 48.9 DO mg/L 7.8 0.4 0.4 0.5 5.5 5.7 6 4.9 4.8 4.2 GENERAL INORGANIC Alk mg/L as CaCO3 1.5 I 164 A 131 175 183 171 179 198 A 173 152 Cl-T mg/L 8.5 13 A 9.7 7 7.4 6.8 A 7.1 12 7.2 6.4 F-T mg/L 0.064 I 0.17 0.22 0.1 0.11 0.096 I 0.1 0.12 0.098 I 0.086 I Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 17.7 212 167 204 214 199 209 223 197 171 SO4 mg/L 0.32 I 42 A 25 12 14 11 A 13 15 12 10 TOC mg/L 37 2.5 5.8 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 1.3 0.61 I 0.5 U METAL Ca-T mg/L 4.27 70.9 50.2 69.9 73.3 68.4 71.6 78.7 67.8 59.4 K-T mg/L 0.3 U 1 I 0.86 I 0.62 I 0.67 I 0.57 I 0.62 I 0.79 I 0.59 I 0.39 I Mg-T mg/L 4.1 7.4 5.4 3.1 3.3 2.9 3.1 6.1 3.2 2.7 Na-T mg/L 1.7 8.46 10 7.12 7.62 6.86 7.35 6.4 6.71 5.59 NITROGEN NH4-N mg/L 0.01 0.002 U 0.01 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.004 I 0.002 U NOx-N mg/L 0.011 0.61 0.56 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.4 0.36 2 1.6 TKN mg/L 1 0.29 0.3 0.32 0.093 I 0.08 U 0.084 I 0.16 I 0.21 0.09 I PHOSPHORUS OrthoP mg/L 0.1 0.082 0.12 0.031 0.032 0.031 0.032 0.08 0.037 0.033 TP mg/L 0.13 0.086 0.13 0.033 0.035 0.033 0.034 0.077 0.042 0.034 PHYSICAL Color CPU 440 16 A 54 A 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 4.8 I 2.5 U 2.5 U pH SU 4.87 7.09 7.08 7.06 7.24 7.26 7.31 7.24 7.23 7.38 SpCond umhos/cm 53.5 344.4 450.2 446.9 423.9 416.7 407.2 396.7 400.9 349.3 Stage ft --- --- --- 2.36 --- --- --- --- --- --- Turb NTU 2.2 0.15 0.45 0.35 0.5 A 0.15 0.2 0.15 0.2 0.15 SOLID TDS mg/L 107 261 203 207 203 192 A 225 238 198 182 TSS mg/L 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 UA 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U TEMPERATURE Wtr Temp C 16.8 20.5 22.5 22.3 22.6 22.7 22.8 22.5 22.5 22.5


67

Santa Fe River and its’ Springs and Tributaries Detailed Chemical Analysis – March 13, 2019

GROUP PARAMETER UNITS SFR below

Olustee Creek

Santa Fe

Spring

SFR at I-75

Hornsby Spring

SFR at US-27

Gilchrist Blue

Spring

SFR at SR-47

SFR above ICH LIR-15 SFR at

US-129

DISSOLVED OXYGEN DO % 76 3.7 59.9 4 57.7 57.9 58.7 63.3 71.9 63.8 DO mg/L 7.07 0.33 5.47 0.34 5.32 5 5.28 5.61 6.41 5.72 GENERAL INORGANIC Alk mg/L as CaCO3 13 134 43 166 92 178 128 127 155 128 Cl-T mg/L 12 9.8 11 13 13 5.8 11 11 6.6 A 11 F-T mg/L 0.084 I 0.26 0.13 0.17 0.15 0.1 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.13 Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 32.7 187 70.6 227 142 204 176 174 186 170 SO4 mg/L 2.1 31 9.5 38 31 9.3 25 24 13 A 22 TOC mg/L 32 5.3 24 2.2 17 0.5 U 10 11 0.8 I 9.1 METAL As-T ug/L 0.53 1.34 0.71 1.34 0.87 0.3 0.78 0.76 1.07 0.74 B-T ug/L 16.8 16.9 17.6 21 18.1 11.1 16.7 16.4 12.3 15.4 Ca-T mg/L 8.35 54.2 19.6 76.6 44.4 70.2 58.1 57.6 62 56.5 Cu-T ug/L 0.46 I 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.48 I 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U Fe-T ug/L 690 77 I 530 30 U 340 30 U 230 220 32 I 200 K-T mg/L 0.88 I 0.88 I 0.84 I 1.1 I 0.9 I 0.54 I 0.84 I 0.78 I 0.39 I 0.79 I Na-T mg/L 6.7 6.6 6.8 8.8 8.2 3.5 7.1 6.9 4.5 6.3 Mg-T mg/L 2.88 12.6 5.25 8.65 7.45 7.12 7.5 7.28 7.66 7.05 Zn-T ug/L 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NITROGEN NH4-N mg/L 0.025 0.009 0.023 0.006 0.011 0.002 U 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.008 NOx-N mg/L 0.11 0.48 0.18 0.57 0.35 2.4 0.78 0.74 0.49 0.69 TKN mg/L 1 0.21 0.81 0.18 I 0.59 0.08 U 0.47 0.43 0.1 I 0.39 PHOSPHORUS OrthoP mg/L 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.082 0.093 0.031 0.079 0.074 0.04 0.07 TP mg/L 0.17 0.13 0.16 0.069 0.12 0.033 0.093 0.091 0.048 0.083 PHYSICAL Color CPU 360 51 A 300 11 190 2.5 U 110 110 3.4 I 100 pH SU 6.05 7.13 6.79 7.08 7.07 7.26 7.19 7.22 7.57 7.15 SpCond umhos/cm 83.8 364 150.8 447.5 293.7 393.6 338.7 335 352.1 334.8 Turb NTU 3.6 A 0.6 3.1 0.2 1.5 0.1 I 1.2 1.1 0.85 1.9 SOLID TDS mg/L 111 224 136 258 A 197 208 A 217 219 196 216 TSS mg/L 3 I 2 U 2 U 2 UA 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U TEMPERATURE Wtr Temp C 18.8 21.2 19.7 22.5 19.2 22.6 20.4 20.4 21.1 20.7


68

DEP Herbicide and Insecticide Analysis for March 2019

PARAMETER UNITS SFR below

Olustee Creek

Santa Fe

Spring

SFR at I-75

Hornsby Spring

SFR at US-27

Gilchrist Blue

Spring

SFR at SR-47

SFR above

ICH LIR-15 SFR at

US-129

4,4'-DDD ng/L 8.4 U 8.5 U 8.3 U 8.6 U 8.4 U 8.5 UJ 8.8 U 8.4 U 8.7 U 8.3 U 4,4'-DDE ng/L 8.4 U 8.5 U 8.3 U 8.6 U 8.4 U 8.5 UJ 8.8 U 8.4 U 8.7 U 8.3 U 4,4'-DDT ng/L 11 U 11 U 10 U 11 U 11 U 11 UJ 11 U 10 U 11 U 10 U a-BHC ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 UJ 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U Acesulfame K ng/L 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Acetochlor ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.25 U a-Chlordane ng/L 1.1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 UJ 1.1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1 U Alachlor ng/L 0.84 I 0.24 U 0.6 I 0.24 U 0.31 I 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.25 U Aldrin ng/L 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.3 UJ 4.4 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.1 U Ametryn ng/L 0.57 U 0.59 U 0.58 U 0.58 U 0.58 U 0.58 U 0.59 U 0.59 U 0.58 U 0.59 U AMPA ug/L 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Atrazine ng/L 4.8 0.36 I 3.6 0.41 I 5.1 0.26 I 3.3 3.3 0.24 U 3.5 Atrazine Desethyl ng/L 1.4 U 1.5 U 1.5 U 1.4 U 1.5 U 1.5 I 1.5 U 1.5 U 1.5 U 1.5 U Azinphos Methyl ng/L 4.8 U 4.9 U 4.8 U 4.8 U 4.8 U 4.9 U 4.9 U 5 U 4.9 U 4.9 U b-BHC ng/L 11 U 11 U 10 U 11 U 11 U 11 UJ 11 U 10 U 11 U 10 U Bifenthrin ng/L 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.3 UJ 4.4 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.1 U Bromacil ng/L 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.56 I 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.49 U 0.5 U 0.49 U 0.49 U Butylate ng/L 0.38 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.4 U 0.39 U 0.39 U Carbophenothion ng/L 13 UJ 13 UJ 12 UJ 13 UJ 13 UJ 13 UJ 13 UJ 13 UJ 13 UJ 12 UJ Chlordane ng/L 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.2 U 5.4 U 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.5 U 5.2 U 5.4 U 5.2 U Chlorothalonil ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 UJ 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U Chlorpyrifos Ethyl ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.25 U Chlorpyrifos Methyl ng/L 0.096 U 0.098 U 0.097 U 0.096 U 0.097 U 0.097 U 0.098 U 0.099 U 0.097 U 0.098 U Cis-Nonachlor ng/L 1.1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 UJ 1.1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1 U Cyanazine ng/L 3.1 U 3.2 U 3.2 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.2 U 3.2 U 3.2 U 3.2 U 3.2 U Cypermethrin ng/L 21 U 21 U 21 U 21 U 21 U 21 U 22 U 21 U 22 U 21 U d-BHC ng/L 11 U 11 U 10 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 10 U 11 U 10 U Decachlorobiphenyl ng/L 16300 22700 18100 30500 17800 32900 20500 24200 28800 22500 Demeton ng/L 6.7 U 6.8 U 6.8 U 6.7 U 6.8 U 7 U 6.9 U 6.9 U 6.8 U 6.9 U Diazinon ng/L 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U Dicofol ng/L 32 U 32 U 31 U 32 U 32 U 32 U 33 U 31 U 33 U 31 U Dieldrin ng/L 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.4 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.1 U Dimethenamid ng/L 0.096 U 0.098 U 0.097 U 0.096 U 0.097 U 0.1 U 0.098 U 0.099 U 0.097 U 0.098 U Disulfoton ng/L 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.5 U 0.49 U 0.5 U 0.49 U 0.49 U Dithiopyr ng/L 0.096 U 0.098 U 0.097 U 0.096 U 0.097 U 0.1 U 0.098 U 0.099 U 0.097 U 0.098 U Endosulfan I ng/L 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.4 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.1 U Endosulfan II ng/L 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.4 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.1 U Endosulfan sulfate ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U Endothall ug/L 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U Endothall-d6 ug/L 7.33 5.15 7.16 4.51 7.05 4.71 5.67 5.94 5.11 5.58 Endrin ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U Endrin aldehyde ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U Endrin Ketone ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U EPTC ng/L 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2 U Ethalfluralin ng/L 3.2 U 3.2 U 3.1 U 3.2 U 3.2 U 3.2 U 3.3 U 3.1 U 3.3 U 3.1 U


69

PARAMETER UNITS SFR below

Olustee Creek

Santa Fe

Spring

SFR at I-75

Hornsby Spring

SFR at US-27

Gilchrist Blue

Spring

SFR at SR-47

SFR above

ICH LIR-15 SFR at

US-129

Ethion ng/L 0.14 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.14 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.15 U Ethoprop ng/L 0.096 U 0.098 U 0.097 U 0.096 U 0.097 U 0.1 U 0.098 U 0.099 U 0.097 U 0.098 U Fenamiphos ng/L 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.5 U 0.49 U 0.5 U 0.49 U 0.49 U Fipronil ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.25 U Fipronil Desulfinyl ng/L 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U Fipronil Sulfide ng/L 0.14 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.14 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.15 U Fipronil Sulfone ng/L 0.14 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.14 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.15 U Fonofos ng/L 0.19 U 0.2 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.19 U 0.2 U g-BHC ng/L 11 U 11 U 10 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 10 U 11 U 10 U g-Chlordane ng/L 1.1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1 U Glufosinate ng/L 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Glyphosate ug/L 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Glyphosate 13C 15N ng/L 4.45 3.58 4.5 3.49 4.4 3.43 3.54 3.43 3.68 3.6 Heptachlor ng/L 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U Heptachlor epoxide ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U Hexachlorobenzene ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U Hexazinone ng/L 0.48 U 0.52 I 0.48 U 0.59 I 0.48 U 0.5 U 0.51 I 0.5 U 0.49 U 0.49 U Malathion ng/L 0.33 U 0.34 U 0.34 U 0.34 U 0.34 U 0.35 U 0.34 U 0.35 U 0.34 U 0.34 U Metalaxyl ng/L 0.29 U 0.29 U 0.29 U 0.29 U 0.29 U 0.3 U 0.29 U 0.3 U 0.29 U 0.29 U Methoxychlor ng/L 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.4 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.1 U Metolachlor ng/L 1.4 I 0.49 U 1.1 I 0.48 U 0.55 I 0.64 I 0.49 U 0.5 U 0.49 U 0.49 U Metribuzin ng/L 0.72 U 0.73 U 0.73 U 0.72 U 0.73 U 0.75 U 0.73 U 0.74 U 0.73 U 0.74 U Mevinphos ng/L 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.5 U 0.49 U 0.5 U 0.49 U 0.49 U Mirex ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U Molinate ng/L 0.29 U 0.29 U 0.29 U 0.29 U 0.29 U 0.3 U 0.29 U 0.3 U 0.29 U 0.29 U Norflurazon ng/L 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.5 U 0.49 U 0.5 U 0.49 U 0.49 U Oxadiazon ng/L 0.096 U 0.098 U 0.097 U 0.096 U 0.097 U 0.097 U 0.098 U 0.099 U 0.097 U 0.098 U Parathion Ethyl ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.25 U Parathion Methyl ng/L 0.53 U 0.54 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.54 U 0.54 U 0.55 U 0.54 U 0.54 U PCNB ng/L 33300 32600 36600 40100 30000 38000 27100 34200 33800 31700 Pendimethalin ng/L 0.96 U 0.98 U 0.97 U 0.96 U 0.97 U 0.97 U 0.98 U 0.99 U 0.97 U 0.98 U Permethrin ng/L 11 U 11 U 10 U 11 U 11 U 11 UJ 11 U 10 U 11 U 10 U Phorate ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.25 U Prodiamine ng/L 0.17 U 0.17 U 0.17 U 0.17 U 0.17 U 0.17 U 0.17 U 0.17 U 0.17 U 0.17 U Prometon ng/L 0.86 U 0.88 U 0.87 U 0.87 U 0.87 U 0.9 U 0.88 U 0.89 U 0.88 U 0.88 U Prometryn ng/L 0.19 U 0.2 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.19 U 0.2 U Simazine ng/L 0.97 I 0.49 U 0.64 I 0.48 U 0.49 I 0.49 U 0.49 U 0.5 U 0.49 U 0.49 U Simazine-d10 ng/L 14600 18700 16900 17000 18000 16800 17600 15000 19900 19500 Sucralose ug/L 0.034 I 0.011 I 0.027 I 0.09 J 0.06 0.01 U 0.04 0.044 0.01 U 0.042 Sucralose-d6 ng/L 3.67 3.84 3.7 3.66 3.87 4.05 3.88 3.85 4.01 3.83 Tebuconazole ng/L 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.5 U 0.49 U 0.5 U 0.49 U 0.49 U Terbufos ng/L 0.096 U 0.098 U 0.097 U 0.096 U 0.097 U 0.097 U 0.098 U 0.099 U 0.097 U 0.098 U Terbufos-d10 ng/L 14500 17700 16200 16800 18300 15800 17300 13400 17700 17900 Terbuthylazine ng/L 0.41 U 0.42 U 0.41 U 0.41 U 0.41 U 0.41 U 0.42 U 0.42 U 0.41 U 0.42 U Tetrachloro-m-xylene ng/L 20500 23500 23300 30500 23300 33500 21000 25900 26400 24500 Toxaphene ng/L 32 U 32 U 31 U 32 U 32 U 32 U 33 U 31 U 33 U 31 U Trans-Nonachlor ng/L 1.1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 UJ 1.1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1 U Trifluralin ng/L 2.6 U 2.7 U 2.6 U 2.7 U 2.6 U 2.7 UJ 2.7 U 2.6 U 2.7 U 2.6 U


70

Santa Fe River Springs and Tributaries Detailed Chemical Analysis – April 17, 2019

GROUP PARAMETER UNITS Rum Island Spring

Wilson Spring

ICH Head

Spring


Blue Hole Spring

ICH Tube Takeout LIR-15 Betty

Spring Troop Spring

Trail Spring

DISSOLVED OXYGEN DO % 46.7 6.5 60.5 51.5 24.4 90.5 67.5 62.5 22.5 7.8 DO mg/L 4.03 0.58 5.35 4.49 2.14 7.91 5.99 5.49 1.97 0.69 GENERAL INORGANIC Alk mg/L as CaCO3 188 Y 140 Y 162 AY 158 Y 151 Y 153 Y 156 Y 163 Y 170 Y 166 Y Cl-T mg/L 8.2 11 4.7 5.2 5.8 6.6 A 6.7 11 26 11 F-T mg/L 0.12 0.16 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.08 I 0.13 Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 230 201 188 184 175 180 188 224 355 219 SO4 mg/L 16 Y 36 Y 8.9 Y 5.9 Y 4.9 Y 11 AY 13 Y 35 Y 78 Y 29 Y TOC mg/L 0.5 U 3.3 0.51 I 0.5 U 1 I 0.55 I 0.5 U 1.7 1.6 1.9 METAL Ca-T mg/L 78.8 66.8 64.1 63.5 60.4 59.9 62.8 76.5 121 73.9 K-T mg/L 0.77 I 0.75 I 0.3 U 0.36 I 0.51 I 0.46 I 0.48 I 1.8 24.7 1.7 Mg-T mg/L 4.6 6.5 2.8 3.1 3.9 4.4 4.4 5.9 21.5 6.6 Na-T mg/L 7.95 8.43 6.78 6.25 5.96 7.49 7.65 7.92 12.9 8.35 NITROGEN NH4-N mg/L 0.002 U 0.003 I 0.008 0.003 I 0.012 0.005 I 0.002 U 0.005 I 0.027 0.006 NOx-N mg/L 1.9 0.64 0.57 0.85 0.69 0.51 0.79 2.5 36 2.2 TKN mg/L 0.18 I 0.19 I 0.08 U 0.08 U 0.094 I 0.089 I 0.08 U 0.25 0.4 U 0.23 PHOSPHORUS OrthoP mg/L 0.047 0.085 0.023 0.032 0.046 0.04 0.04 0.059 0.075 0.058 TP mg/L 0.052 0.09 0.051 0.038 0.07 0.06 0.026 0.064 0.082 0.066 PHYSICAL Color CPU 2.5 U 32 A 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 11 5.8 I 13 pH SU 7.27 7.1 7.37 7.47 7.44 7.9 7.63 7.41 7.05 7.07 SpCond umhos/cm 429.6 389.7 355.4 337.5 322.7 338.6 350.5 440 854 485.6 Turb NTU 0.15 0.3 0.15 0.4 0.15 0.45 0.35 0.45 A 0.5 0.55 SOLID TDS mg/L 243 Y 231 Y 195 Y 192 Y 187 Y 185 Y 196 Y 258 Y 614 AY 249 Y TSS mg/L 2 UY 2 UY 2 UY 2 UY 2 UY 2 IY 2 UY 2 UY 2 IAY 2 IY TEMPERATURE Wtr Temp C 22.7 21.3 21.5 22.1 21.7 22 21.1 21.8 21.8 21.6


71

Santa Fe River Springs and Tributaries Detailed Chemical Analysis – May 16, 2019

GROUP PARAMETER UNITS Cow

Creek at CR 138

Wilson Spring

ICH Head

Spring

Cedar Head

Spring Run

Blue Hole

Spring

ICH Midpoint

ICH Tube Takeout LIR-15 Troop

Spring Trail

Spring

DISSOLVED OXYGEN DO % 75.2 5.8 147.1 52.3 25 106.6 61.5 67.8 27.6 14.5 DO mg/L 6.62 0.51 4.12 4.56 2.19 9.03 5.4 5.95 2.41 1.27 GENERAL INORGANIC Alk mg/L as CaCO3 223 142 160 A 157 149 150 153 154 164 165

Cl-T mg/L 5.4 11 4.5 5 5.7 6.5 A 6.5 6.4 25,25 10 F-T mg/L 0.058 I 0.18 0.095 I 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.07 I 0.11 Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 229 196 173 167 155 163 167 171 317 202 SO4 mg/L 0.2 U 43 8.6 5.8 4.8 9.8 A 11 12 77,77 29 TOC mg/L 7.9 2.4 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.6 I 0.66 I 0.56 I 1.3 1.5 METAL As-T ug/L 0.065 I 0.96 0.59 0.81 0.85 1.1 1.07 1.08 0.56 0.74 B-T ug/L 10.4 15.6 9.5 10.3 11 11.9 12.5 12.2 41 17.8 Ca-T mg/L 87.7 63.4 59 57.3 53.6 54.2 55.6 56.9 107 68.7 Cu-T ug/L 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.54 I 0.4 U Fe-T ug/L 230 30 U 30 U 76 I 30 U 40 I 44 I 83 I 30 U 30 I K-T mg/L 0.3 U 0.69 I 0.3 U 0.3 U 0.36 I 0.41 I 0.44 I 0.45 I 24.6 3 Na-T mg/L 3.1 6.3 2.5 2.7 3.2 3.8 3.9 3.9 17.8 5.7 Mg-T mg/L 2.45 9.17 6.35 5.79 5.23 6.7 6.93 6.98 11.9 7.4 Zn-T ug/L 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NITROGEN NH4-N mg/L 0.028 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 I 0.002 U 0.007 0.006 0.012 0.002 U 0.009 NOx-N mg/L 0.084 0.69 0.78 0.83 0.76 0.55 0.55 0.56 34 3.1 TKN mg/L 0.39 0.08 U 0.08 U 0.08 U 0.08 U 0.08 U 0.08 U 0.08 U 0.4 U 0.11 I PHOSPHORUS OrthoP mg/L 0.052 0.082 0.019 0.031 0.04 0.039 0.038 0.035 0.066 0.051 TP mg/L 0.073 0.085 0.024 0.052 0.047 0.054 0.055 0.087 0.073 0.057 PHYSICAL Color CPU 40 20 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.9 I 7.7 A pH SU 7.64 7.21 7.43 7.27 7.43 7.99 7.44 7.65 7.12 6.99 SpCond umhos/cm 439.2 408 348.1 337.2 322.9 333.1 340.6 346.2 475.4 475.4 Turb NTU 1.8 0.2 0.1 I 0.8 0.2 0.45 0.55 1.2 A 0.8 0.9 SOLID TDS mg/L 250 A 227 174 175 170 174 183 185 A 508 241 TSS mg/L 3 IA 2 U 2 I 2 I 2 U 2 U 2 U 3 IA 2 I,3 I 2 I TEMPERATURE Wtr Temp C 21.7 21.6 21.9 21.6 21.9 22.2 21.5 23.6 21.8 21.7


72

DEP Herbicide and Insecticide Analysis for May 2019


Worthington Spring

SFR at I-75

O'Leno State Park

Santa Fe

River Rise

SFR at US-441

SFR at US-27

SFR at SR-47

SFR above

ICH

SFR at US-129

SFR at 39th Ave

4,4'-DDD ng/L 6.3 U 6.6 U 6.4 U 6.6 U 6.3 U 6.5 U 6.3 U 6.4 U 6.4 U 6.4 U 4,4'-DDE ng/L 6.3 U 6.6 U 6.4 U 6.6 U 6.3 U 6.5 U 6.3 U 6.4 U 6.4 U 6.4 U 4,4'-DDT ng/L 7.3 U 7.7 U 7.4 U 7.6 U 7.4 U 7.5 U 7.4 U 7.5 U 7.4 U 7.5 U a-BHC ng/L 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Acesulfame K ng/L 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U --- 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Acetochlor ng/L 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.26 U a-Chlordane ng/L 1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U Alachlor ng/L 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.26 U Aldrin ng/L 4.2 U 4.4 U 4.2 U 4.4 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.3 U 4.3 U Ametryn ng/L 0.62 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.65 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.64 U 0.62 U 0.63 U AMPA ug/L 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U --- 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Atrazine ng/L 0.26 I 0.44 I 0.35 I 0.63 I 0.48 I 0.55 I 0.46 I 0.53 I 0.62 I 1.1 Atrazine Desethyl ng/L 1.5 UJ 1.6 UJ 1.6 UJ 1.6 UJ 1.6 UJ 1.6 UJ 1.6 UJ 1.6 UJ 1.6 UJ 1.6 UJ Azinphos Methyl ng/L 5.2 U 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.2 U 5.4 U 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.2 U 5.2 U b-BHC ng/L 10 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U Bifenthrin ng/L 4.2 U 4.4 U 4.2 U 4.4 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.3 U 4.3 U Bromacil ng/L 0.52 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U 0.54 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U 0.52 U Butylate ng/L 0.41 U 0.42 U 0.42 U 0.42 U 0.43 U 0.42 U 0.42 U 0.42 U 0.42 U 0.42 U Carbophenothion ng/L 10 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U Chlordane ng/L 5.2 U 5.5 U 5.3 U 5.5 U 5.4 U 5.4 U 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.4 U Chlorothalonil ng/L 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Chlorpyrifos Ethyl ng/L 0.26 U 0.35 I 0.26 U 0.34 I 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.3 I 0.26 U 0.26 U Chlorpyrifos Methyl ng/L 0.1 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.1 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.1 UJ 0.1 UJ Cis-Nonachlor ng/L 1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U Cyanazine ng/L 3.4 UJ 3.4 UJ 3.4 UJ 3.4 UJ 3.5 UJ 3.4 UJ 3.4 UJ 3.5 UJ 3.4 UJ 3.4 UJ Cypermethrin ng/L 21 U 22 U 21 U 22 U 21 U 22 U 21 U 21 U 21 U 21 U d-BHC ng/L 8.4 U 8.8 U 8.5 U 8.7 U 8.4 U 8.6 U 8.4 U 8.5 U 8.5 U 8.6 U Decachlorobiphenyl ng/L 17300 17600 14300 17600 20700 20700 20900 19400 17600 22100 Demeton ng/L 7.2 UJ 7.4 UJ 7.4 UJ 7.3 UJ 7.6 UJ 7.4 UJ 7.4 UJ 7.4 UJ 7.3 UJ 7.3 UJ Diazinon ng/L 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U Dicofol ng/L 31 U 33 U 32 U 33 U 32 U 32 U 32 U 32 U 32 U 32 U Dieldrin ng/L 4.2 U 4.4 U 4.2 U 4.4 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.3 U 4.3 U Dimethenamid ng/L 0.1 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.1 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Disulfoton ng/L 0.52 UJ 0.53 UJ 0.53 UJ 0.52 UJ 0.54 UJ 0.53 UJ 0.53 UJ 0.53 UJ 0.52 UJ 0.52 UJ Dithiopyr ng/L 0.1 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.1 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Endosulfan I ng/L 4.2 U 4.4 U 4.2 U 4.4 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.3 U 4.3 U Endosulfan II ng/L 4.2 U 4.4 U 4.2 U 4.4 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.3 U 4.3 U Endosulfan sulfate ng/L 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Endothall ug/L 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U --- 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U Endothall-d6 ug/L 4.12 4.13 4.16 4.03 3.85 3.86 --- 3.22 3.41 3.48 Endrin ng/L 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Endrin aldehyde ng/L 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Endrin Ketone ng/L 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U EPTC ng/L 1.3 UJ 1.3 UJ 1.3 UJ 1.3 UJ 1.3 UJ 1.3 UJ 1.3 UJ 1.3 UJ 1.3 UJ 1.3 UJ Ethalfluralin ng/L 3.1 U 3.3 U 3.2 U 3.3 U 3.2 U 3.2 U 3.2 U 3.2 U 3.2 U 3.2 U


73


Worthington Spring

SFR at I-75

O'Leno State Park

Santa Fe

River Rise

SFR at US-441

SFR at US-27

SFR at SR-47

SFR above

ICH

SFR at US-129

SFR at 39th Ave

Ethion ng/L 0.15 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U Ethoprop ng/L 0.1 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.1 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.1 UJ 0.1 UJ Fenamiphos ng/L 0.52 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U 0.54 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U 0.52 U Fipronil ng/L 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.26 U Fipronil Desulfinyl ng/L 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U Fipronil Sulfide ng/L 0.15 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U Fipronil Sulfone ng/L 0.15 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U Fonofos ng/L 0.21 UJ 0.21 UJ 0.21 UJ 0.21 UJ 0.22 UJ 0.21 UJ 0.21 UJ 0.21 UJ 0.21 UJ 0.21 UJ g-BHC ng/L 8.4 U 8.8 U 8.5 U 8.7 U 8.4 U 8.6 U 8.4 U 8.5 U 8.5 U 8.6 U g-Chlordane ng/L 1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U Glufosinate ng/L 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U --- 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Glyphosate ug/L 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U --- 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Glyphosate 13C 15N ng/L 5.21 4.99 5.07 5.44 4.9 5.54 --- 5.12 5.04 5.52 Heptachlor ng/L 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U Heptachlor epoxide ng/L 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Hexachlorobenzene ng/L 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Hexazinone ng/L 0.52 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U 0.54 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U 0.52 U Malathion ng/L 0.36 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.38 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.36 U 0.37 U Metalaxyl ng/L 0.31 U 0.32 U 0.32 U 0.31 U 0.32 U 0.32 U 0.32 U 0.32 U 0.31 U 0.31 U Methoxychlor ng/L 4.2 UJ 4.4 UJ 4.2 UJ 4.4 UJ 4.2 UJ 4.3 UJ 4.2 UJ 4.3 UJ 4.3 UJ 4.3 UJ Metolachlor ng/L 0.72 I 0.63 I 0.65 I 0.75 I 0.63 I 0.9 I 0.56 I 0.63 I 0.52 U 0.95 I Metribuzin ng/L 0.77 UJ 0.79 UJ 0.79 UJ 0.78 UJ 0.81 UJ 0.79 UJ 0.79 UJ 0.8 UJ 0.78 U 0.78 UJ Mevinphos ng/L 0.52 UJ 0.53 UJ 0.53 UJ 0.52 UJ 0.54 UJ 0.53 UJ 0.53 UJ 0.53 UJ 0.52 UJ 0.52 UJ Mirex ng/L 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Molinate ng/L 0.31 UJ 0.32 UJ 0.32 UJ 0.31 UJ 0.32 UJ 0.32 UJ 0.32 UJ 0.32 UJ 0.31 UJ 0.31 UJ Norflurazon ng/L 0.52 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U 0.54 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U 0.52 U Oxadiazon ng/L 0.1 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.1 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Parathion Ethyl ng/L 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.26 U Parathion Methyl ng/L 0.57 U 0.58 U 0.58 U 0.58 U 0.59 U 0.58 U 0.58 U 0.58 U 0.57 U 0.58 U PCNB ng/L 45300 49400 42100 43100 45600 44900 46500 47200 50600 43400 Pendimethalin ng/L 1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1 U Permethrin ng/L 10 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U Phorate ng/L 0.26 UJ 0.26 UJ 0.26 UJ 0.26 UJ 0.27 UJ 0.26 UJ 0.26 UJ 0.27 UJ 0.26 UJ 0.26 UJ Prodiamine ng/L 0.18 U 0.18 U 0.19 U 0.18 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.18 U 0.19 U 0.18 U 0.18 U Prometon ng/L 0.93 U 0.95 U 0.95 U 0.94 U 0.97 U 0.95 U 0.95 U 0.96 U 0.93 U 0.94 U Prometryn ng/L 0.21 U 0.21 U 0.21 U 0.21 U 0.22 U 0.21 U 0.21 U 0.21 U 0.21 U 0.21 U Simazine ng/L 0.52 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.84 I 0.7 I 0.86 I 0.97 I 1 I 1 I 0.52 U Simazine-d10 ng/L 19900 21600 18100 19800 19000 21100 20200 20800 20800 19200 Sucralose ug/L 0.058 0.05 0.031 I 0.013 I 0.052 0.032 I --- 0.055 0.038 I 0.034 I Sucralose-d6 ng/L 3.86 4.11 3.93 3.4 4.04 3.7 --- 5.24 5.13 5.11 Tebuconazole ng/L 0.52 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U 0.54 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U 0.52 U Terbufos ng/L 0.1 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.1 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.1 UJ 0.1 UJ Terbufos-d10 ng/L 19100 21400 17700 20000 18100 19500 19700 18900 15400 16500 Terbuthylazine ng/L 0.44 U 0.45 U 0.45 U 0.44 U 0.46 U 0.45 U 0.45 U 0.45 U 0.44 U 0.44 U Tetrachloro-m-xylene ng/L 26600 27000 23200 26200 28500 25600 29000 25600 28200 27100 Toxaphene ng/L 31 U 33 U 32 U 33 U 32 U 32 U 32 U 32 U 32 U 32 U Trans-Nonachlor ng/L 1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U Trifluralin ng/L 2.6 U 2.7 U 2.7 U 2.7 U 2.6 U 2.7 U 2.6 U 2.7 U 2.7 U 2.7 U


74

Santa Fe River Detailed Chemical Analysis – June 13, 2019


Worthington Spring

SFR at I-75

O'Leno State Park

Santa Fe River Rise

SFR at US-441

SFR at US-27

SFR at SR-47

SFR above ICH

SFR at US-129

SFR at 39th Ave

DISSOLVED OXYGEN DO % 70.2 39.7 52.9 21.2 51.7 55.7 82.2 88.2 76.3 77.5 DO mg/L 5.92 3.41 4.52 1.78 4.4 4.75 7 7.48 6.49 6.6 GENERAL INORGANIC Alk mg/L as CaCO3 61 141 141 A 154 163 161 173 171 169 168 Cl-T mg/L 12 10 10 17 15 A 15 11 11 10 9.9 F-T mg/L 0.2 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.23 0.23 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.14 Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 82.1 191 194 266 239 240 222 222 214 210 SO4 mg/L 7.3 40 39 91 63 A 65 34 34 30 29 TOC mg/L 12 3.7 3.7 2.4 2.2 2.3 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.3 METAL Ca-T mg/L 19.5 53.6 54.5 80.1 75.8 76 74.2 74.1 71.7 70.4 K-T mg/L 1.7 0.88 I 0.9 I 1.1 I 1.1 I 1.1 I 0.81 I 0.81 I 0.76 I 0.84 I Mg-T mg/L 6.3 6.6 6.7 10.8 9.5 9.5 6.5 6.5 5.8 5.7 Na-T mg/L 8.09 13.8 14.1 16.1 12 12.2 9.01 8.95 8.57 8.24 NITROGEN NH4-N mg/L 0.056 0.021 0.02 0.006 0.005 I 0.012 0.007 0.012 0.021 0.021 NOx-N mg/L 0.37 0.21 0.18 0.49 0.53 0.5 1 0.95 0.92 0.98 TKN mg/L 0.58 0.26 0.23 J 0.26 0.23 0.27 J 0.2 I 0.2 0.22 0.16 I PHOSPHORUS OrthoP mg/L 0.24 0.12 0.12 0.086 0.083 0.086 0.055 0.056 0.053 0.051 TP mg/L 0.31 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.098 0.07 0.068 0.075 0.068 PHYSICAL Color CPU 110 29 A 29 17 14 15 7.4 8.8 6.5 6.9 pH SU 7.06 7.31 7.46 7.24 7.35 7.44 7.5 7.68 7.63 7.63 SpCond umhos/cm 183.9 384.6 382.6 533 489.2 478.6 438.7 434.1 417.7 416 Stage ft --- --- --- 2.46 --- --- --- --- --- --- Turb NTU 3.5 0.55 0.55 2.8 A 0.5 0.4 0.35 0.65 1.6 1.4 SOLID TDS mg/L 111 210 219 326 A 277 263 239 228 219 226 TSS mg/L 4 I 2 I 2 I 6 IA 2 I 2 U 2 I 2 I 6 I 3 I TEMPERATURE Wtr Temp C 23.9 22.8 23.2 23.8 23.4 23.3 23.3 23.6 23.3 23.3


75

Santa Fe River Springs and Tributaries Detailed Chemical Analysis – July 16, 2019


SFR below

Olustee

Santa Fe Spring

Hornsby Spring

Poe Spring

Johnson Spring

Rum Island Spring

Naked Spring

Gilchrist Blue

Spring Run

Little Blue

Spring

DISSOLVED OXYGEN DO % 63.3 71.1 3 3.6 7.7 53.9 40.9 54.1 56.8 34.2 DO mg/L 0.07 5.56 0.26 0.31 0.67 4.65 3.52 4.67 4.91 2.77 GENERAL INORGANIC Alk mg/L as CaCO3 23 152 29 172 198 187 A 193 184 178 144

Cl-T mg/L 9.4 9.9 11 13 11 A 7 8.3 7 6.7 7 F-T mg/L 0.14 0.31 0.13 0.17 0.13 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.086 I Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 41.5 204 48.2 214 223 220 220 211 209 208 SO4 mg/L 3.1 46 4.3 32 12 A 13 16 13 11 43 TOC mg/L 36 2.9 30 1.9 1.1 0.5 U 0.55 I 0.5 U 0.5 U 4.8 METAL Ca-T mg/L 10.7 56.6 12.2 72.7 78.9 75.2 75.4 71.9 71.5 71.5 K-T mg/L 1.1 I 0.85 I 1.3 1 I 0.8 I 0.69 I 0.72 I 0.65 I 0.64 I 1.1 I Mg-T mg/L 5.5 7 6.2 8.4 6.9 3.8 4.6 3.6 3.6 3.2 Na-T mg/L 3.59 15.2 4.33 7.88 6.24 7.85 7.81 7.52 7.48 7.15 NITROGEN NH4-N mg/L 0.03 0.026 0.026 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 I 0.037 NOx-N mg/L 0.12 0.13 0.18 0.68 0.35 2.4 1.8 2.6 2.6 0.1 TKN mg/L 1.1 0.2 I 1 0.23 0.2 I 0.18 I 0.17 I 0.2 0.14 I 0.49 PHOSPHORUS OrthoP mg/L 0.34 0.12 0.23 0.082 0.077 0.033 0.046 0.032 0.031 0.067 TP mg/L 0.38 0.12 0.28 0.08 0.075 0.035 0.05 0.037 0.04 0.085 PHYSICAL Color CPU 400 24 A 360 9.3 5.3 I 2.5 U 3.3 I 2.5 U 2.5 U 26 SpCond umhos/cm 71.6 112.5 414 436.4 435.2 419.5 432.7 412.7 397.7 399.6 pH SU 6.44 6.95 7.1 6.94 7.7 7.97 8.17 8.12 7.69 8.14 Stage ft --- --- 1.6 3.22 --- --- 4.14 --- --- --- Turb NTU 2.4 0.25 2 0.1 I 0.2 0.15 0.2 0.65 0.45 0.95 SOLID TDS mg/L 113 240 A 103 228 214 220 208 206 210 216 TSS mg/L 2 I 2 IA 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 3 I TEMPERATURE Wtr Temp C 26.7 28 22.3 22.5 22.5 22.6 22.9 22.5 22.6 26


76

Santa Fe River Detailed Chemical Analysis – August 21, 2019


Worthington Spring

SFR at I-75

O'Leno State Park

Santa Fe River Rise

SFR at US-441

SFR at US-27

SFR at SR-47

SFR above ICH

SFR at US-129

SFR at 39th Ave

DISSOLVED OXYGEN DO % 56 65.4 65.8 53.2 50.8 54.6 53.7 59.7 60.8 57.7 DO mg/L 4.63 5.38 5.42 4.38 4.25 4.47 4.46 4.93 5.04 4.79 GENERAL INORGANIC Alk mg/L as CaCO3 11 7.9 8 11 63 43 90 92 104 117 Cl-T mg/L 8.9 7.4 7.4 8 9.4 8.9 8.8 8.9 8.6 8.4 F-T mg/L 0.098 I 0.093 I 0.093 I 0.1 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 36.7 30.4 30.9 34.5 95.3 70.3 119 121 136 146 SO4 mg/L 2.5 2.2 2.2 4.1 16 11 13 14 15 18 TOC mg/L 45 42 41 38 26 32 21 20 16 12 METAL As-T ug/L 1.17 0.99 1.03 1 1.12 1.08 1.02 0.97 0.99 0.93 B-T ug/L 22.5 20.3 20.6 20.6 21 21.2 18.7 19.1 18 17.3 Ca-T mg/L 9.89 8.25 8.38 9.6 30.9 22.1 39.8 40.5 45.5 49.3 Cu-T ug/L 0.94 0.97 0.99 1.05 0.81 0.9 0.69 I 1.61 0.64 I 0.41 I Fe-T ug/L 1010 960 1000 850 590 740 500 470 430 290 K-T mg/L 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.3 Na-T mg/L 5.2 4.3 4.3 4.3 5.5 5 5.1 5 5 4.7 Mg-T mg/L 2.92 2.37 2.44 2.56 4.41 3.69 4.82 4.83 5.54 5.6 Zn-T ug/L 9.6 I 7.9 I 8.4 I 6.9 I 5.9 I 5.7 I 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NITROGEN NH4-N mg/L 0.028 0.024 0.023 0.021 0.015 0.019 0.011 0.012 0.014 0.014 NOx-N mg/L 0.049 0.031 0.033 0.037 0.21 0.14 0.5 0.48 0.52 0.51 TKN mg/L 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.4 0.97 1.1 0.81 0.86 0.63 0.6 PHOSPHORUS OrthoP mg/L 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.27 0.19 0.23 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 TP mg/L 0.3 0.31 0.33 0.35 0.27 0.32 0.24 0.22 0.19 0.15 PHYSICAL Color CPU 610 560 550 530 360 430 280 250 230 150 SpCond umhos/cm 80.5 67.9 67.8 79.1 196.5 148.7 237.6 245.3 268.7 277.5 pH SU 6.11 3.01 5.91 6.2 7.01 6.93 7.21 7.32 7.41 7.41 Turb NTU 2.2 3.3 3.7 3.4 3 3.8 A 3.4 3.4 3.7 1.9 SOLID TDS mg/L 156 136 124 127 175 161 176 178 186 210 A TSS mg/L 2 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 4 I 5 I 7 I 4 I 6 I 3 IA TEMPERATURE Wtr Temp C 25 25.2 25.2 25.2 24.4 25.5 24.8 24.9 24.7 24.7


77

DEP Herbicide and Insecticide Analysis for August 2019


Worthington Spring

SFR at I-75

O'Leno State Park

Santa Fe River

Rise

SFR at US-441

SFR at US-27

SFR at SR-47

SFR above

ICH

SFR at US-129

SFR at 39th Ave

4,4'-DDD ng/L 6.3 U 6.6 U 6.4 U 6.6 U 6.3 U 6.5 U 6.3 U 6.4 U 6.4 U 6.4 U 4,4'-DDE ng/L 6.3 U 6.6 U 6.4 U 6.6 U 6.3 U 6.5 U 6.3 U 6.4 U 6.4 U 6.4 U 4,4'-DDT ng/L 7.3 U 7.7 U 7.4 U 7.6 U 7.4 U 7.5 U 7.4 U 7.5 U 7.4 U 7.5 U a-BHC ng/L 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Acesulfame K ng/L 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U --- 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Acetochlor ng/L 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.26 U a-Chlordane ng/L 1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U Alachlor ng/L 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.26 U Aldrin ng/L 4.2 U 4.4 U 4.2 U 4.4 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.3 U 4.3 U Ametryn ng/L 0.62 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.65 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.64 U 0.62 U 0.63 U AMPA ug/L 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U --- 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Atrazine ng/L 0.26 I 0.44 I 0.35 I 0.63 I 0.48 I 0.55 I 0.46 I 0.53 I 0.62 I 1.1 Atrazine Desethyl ng/L 1.5 UJ 1.6 UJ 1.6 UJ 1.6 UJ 1.6 UJ 1.6 UJ 1.6 UJ 1.6 UJ 1.6 UJ 1.6 UJ Azinphos Methyl ng/L 5.2 U 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.2 U 5.4 U 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.2 U 5.2 U b-BHC ng/L 10 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U Bifenthrin ng/L 4.2 U 4.4 U 4.2 U 4.4 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.3 U 4.3 U Bromacil ng/L 0.52 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U 0.54 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U 0.52 U Butylate ng/L 0.41 U 0.42 U 0.42 U 0.42 U 0.43 U 0.42 U 0.42 U 0.42 U 0.42 U 0.42 U Carbophenothion ng/L 10 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U Chlordane ng/L 5.2 U 5.5 U 5.3 U 5.5 U 5.4 U 5.4 U 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.4 U Chlorothalonil ng/L 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Chlorpyrifos Ethyl ng/L 0.26 U 0.35 I 0.26 U 0.34 I 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.3 I 0.26 U 0.26 U Chlorpyrifos Methyl ng/L 0.1 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.1 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.1 UJ 0.1 UJ Cis-Nonachlor ng/L 1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U Cyanazine ng/L 3.4 UJ 3.4 UJ 3.4 UJ 3.4 UJ 3.5 UJ 3.4 UJ 3.4 UJ 3.5 UJ 3.4 UJ 3.4 UJ Cypermethrin ng/L 21 U 22 U 21 U 22 U 21 U 22 U 21 U 21 U 21 U 21 U d-BHC ng/L 8.4 U 8.8 U 8.5 U 8.7 U 8.4 U 8.6 U 8.4 U 8.5 U 8.5 U 8.6 U Decachlorobiphenyl ng/L 17300 17600 14300 17600 20700 20700 20900 19400 17600 22100 Demeton ng/L 7.2 UJ 7.4 UJ 7.4 UJ 7.3 UJ 7.6 UJ 7.4 UJ 7.4 UJ 7.4 UJ 7.3 UJ 7.3 UJ Diazinon ng/L 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U Dicofol ng/L 31 U 33 U 32 U 33 U 32 U 32 U 32 U 32 U 32 U 32 U Dieldrin ng/L 4.2 U 4.4 U 4.2 U 4.4 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.3 U 4.3 U Dimethenamid ng/L 0.1 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.1 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Disulfoton ng/L 0.52 UJ 0.53 UJ 0.53 UJ 0.52 UJ 0.54 UJ 0.53 UJ 0.53 UJ 0.53 UJ 0.52 UJ 0.52 UJ Dithiopyr ng/L 0.1 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.1 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Endosulfan I ng/L 4.2 U 4.4 U 4.2 U 4.4 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.3 U 4.3 U Endosulfan II ng/L 4.2 U 4.4 U 4.2 U 4.4 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.3 U 4.3 U Endosulfan sulfate ng/L 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Endothall ug/L 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U --- 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U Endothall-d6 ug/L 4.12 4.13 4.16 4.03 3.85 3.86 --- 3.22 3.41 3.48 Endrin ng/L 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Endrin aldehyde ng/L 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Endrin Ketone ng/L 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U EPTC ng/L 1.3 UJ 1.3 UJ 1.3 UJ 1.3 UJ 1.3 UJ 1.3 UJ 1.3 UJ 1.3 UJ 1.3 UJ 1.3 UJ Ethalfluralin ng/L 3.1 U 3.3 U 3.2 U 3.3 U 3.2 U 3.2 U 3.2 U 3.2 U 3.2 U 3.2 U


78


Worthington Spring

SFR at I-75

O'Leno State Park

Santa Fe River Rise

SFR at US-441

SFR at US-27

SFR at SR-47

SFR above

ICH

SFR at US-129

SFR at 39th Ave

Ethion ng/L 0.15 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U Ethoprop ng/L 0.1 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.1 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.1 UJ 0.1 UJ Fenamiphos ng/L 0.52 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U 0.54 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U 0.52 U Fipronil ng/L 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.26 U Fipronil Desulfinyl ng/L 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U Fipronil Sulfide ng/L 0.15 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U Fipronil Sulfone ng/L 0.15 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U Fonofos ng/L 0.21 UJ 0.21 UJ 0.21 UJ 0.21 UJ 0.22 UJ 0.21 UJ 0.21 UJ 0.21 UJ 0.21 UJ 0.21 UJ g-BHC ng/L 8.4 U 8.8 U 8.5 U 8.7 U 8.4 U 8.6 U 8.4 U 8.5 U 8.5 U 8.6 U g-Chlordane ng/L 1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U Glufosinate ng/L 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U --- 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Glyphosate ug/L 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U --- 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Glyphosate 13C 15N ng/L 5.21 4.99 5.07 5.44 4.9 5.54 --- 5.12 5.04 5.52 Heptachlor ng/L 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U Heptachlor epoxide ng/L 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Hexachlorobenzene ng/L 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Hexazinone ng/L 0.52 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U 0.54 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U 0.52 U Malathion ng/L 0.36 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.38 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.36 U 0.37 U Metalaxyl ng/L 0.31 U 0.32 U 0.32 U 0.31 U 0.32 U 0.32 U 0.32 U 0.32 U 0.31 U 0.31 U Methoxychlor ng/L 4.2 UJ 4.4 UJ 4.2 UJ 4.4 UJ 4.2 UJ 4.3 UJ 4.2 UJ 4.3 UJ 4.3 UJ 4.3 UJ Metolachlor ng/L 0.72 I 0.63 I 0.65 I 0.75 I 0.63 I 0.9 I 0.56 I 0.63 I 0.52 U 0.95 I Metribuzin ng/L 0.77 UJ 0.79 UJ 0.79 UJ 0.78 UJ 0.81 UJ 0.79 UJ 0.79 UJ 0.8 UJ 0.78 U 0.78 UJ Mevinphos ng/L 0.52 UJ 0.53 UJ 0.53 UJ 0.52 UJ 0.54 UJ 0.53 UJ 0.53 UJ 0.53 UJ 0.52 UJ 0.52 UJ Mirex ng/L 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Molinate ng/L 0.31 UJ 0.32 UJ 0.32 UJ 0.31 UJ 0.32 UJ 0.32 UJ 0.32 UJ 0.32 UJ 0.31 UJ 0.31 UJ Norflurazon ng/L 0.52 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U 0.54 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U 0.52 U Oxadiazon ng/L 0.1 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.1 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Parathion Ethyl ng/L 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.26 U Parathion Methyl ng/L 0.57 U 0.58 U 0.58 U 0.58 U 0.59 U 0.58 U 0.58 U 0.58 U 0.57 U 0.58 U PCNB ng/L 45300 49400 42100 43100 45600 44900 46500 47200 50600 43400 Pendimethalin ng/L 1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1 U Permethrin ng/L 10 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U Phorate ng/L 0.26 UJ 0.26 UJ 0.26 UJ 0.26 UJ 0.27 UJ 0.26 UJ 0.26 UJ 0.27 UJ 0.26 UJ 0.26 UJ Prodiamine ng/L 0.18 U 0.18 U 0.19 U 0.18 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.18 U 0.19 U 0.18 U 0.18 U Prometon ng/L 0.93 U 0.95 U 0.95 U 0.94 U 0.97 U 0.95 U 0.95 U 0.96 U 0.93 U 0.94 U Prometryn ng/L 0.21 U 0.21 U 0.21 U 0.21 U 0.22 U 0.21 U 0.21 U 0.21 U 0.21 U 0.21 U Simazine ng/L 0.52 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.84 I 0.7 I 0.86 I 0.97 I 1 I 1 I 0.52 U Simazine-d10 ng/L 19900 21600 18100 19800 19000 21100 20200 20800 20800 19200 Sucralose ug/L 0.058 0.05 0.031 I 0.013 I 0.052 0.032 I --- 0.055 0.038 I 0.034 I Sucralose-d6 ng/L 3.86 4.11 3.93 3.4 4.04 3.7 --- 5.24 5.13 5.11 Tebuconazole ng/L 0.52 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U 0.54 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U 0.52 U Terbufos ng/L 0.1 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.1 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.11 UJ 0.1 UJ 0.1 UJ Terbufos-d10 ng/L 19100 21400 17700 20000 18100 19500 19700 18900 15400 16500 Terbuthylazine ng/L 0.44 U 0.45 U 0.45 U 0.44 U 0.46 U 0.45 U 0.45 U 0.45 U 0.44 U 0.44 U Tetrachloro-m-xylene ng/L 26600 27000 23200 26200 28500 25600 29000 25600 28200 27100 Toxaphene ng/L 31 U 33 U 32 U 33 U 32 U 32 U 32 U 32 U 32 U 32 U Trans-Nonachlor ng/L 1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U Trifluralin ng/L 2.6 U 2.7 U 2.7 U 2.7 U 2.6 U 2.7 U 2.6 U 2.7 U 2.7 U 2.7 U


79

Santa Fe River Springs and Tributaries Detailed Chemical Analysis – September 17, 2019

GROUP PARAMETER UNITS Cow Creek at CR 138

Wilson Spring

ICH Head Spring


Blue Hole Spring

ICH Midpoint

ICH Tube Takeout LIR-15 Troop

Spring Trail

Spring DISSOLVED OXYGEN DO % 72.7 4.9 45.9 49.6 24.8 51.3 54.2 69.5 25.3 19.1 DO mg/L 6.02 0.42 4.02 4.36 2.16 4.49 4.76 6.07 2.2 1.66 GENERAL INORGANIC Alk mg/L as

CaCO3 6.5 28 161 170 151 154 160 155 51 167

Cl-T mg/L 1.6 0.5 4.6 4.8 5.7 6.4 6.3 6.4 0.35 11 F-T mg/L 70 A 91 0.096 I 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.13 5.2 I 0.069 I Hardness mg/L as

CaCO3 0.053 0.087 188 179 172 181 182 184 0.072 249

SO4 mg/L 0.06 I 0.17 8.8 5.9 4.8 10 11 12 0.07 I 37 TOC mg/L 0.5 Y 0.32 Y 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.53 I 0.54 I 0.8 UY 1.1 METAL Ca-T mg/L 227 191 64.2 61.6 59.7 60.8 61.1 61.6 419 86.9 K-T mg/L 2.37 9.19 0.3 U 0.3 U 0.43 I 0.46 I 0.47 I 0.49 I 16.9 10.4 Mg-T mg/L 87 61.3 6.65 6.03 5.59 7.12 7.14 7.26 140 7.69 Na-T mg/L 0.3 0.67 I 2.5 2.7 3.4 4 4 3.9 34.5 7.7 NITROGEN NH4-N mg/L 2 IA 2 U 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.008 0.007 0.007 2 I 0.002 U NOx-N mg/L 0.019 0.007 0.78 0.87 0.78 0.63 0.61 0.61 51 11 TKN mg/L 0.13 0.09 0.13 IY 0.11 IY 0.12 IY 0.13 I 0.12 IY 0.1 I 0.073 0.16 UY PHOSPHORUS OrthoP mg/L 11 7.7 0.023 0.032 0.045 0.044 0.043 0.041 1.5 0.058 TP mg/L 0.049 0.17 0.024 0.033 0.046 0.059 0.059 0.051 0.002

U 0.057

PHYSICAL Color CPU 5.7 12 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 34 5.3 I SpCond umhos/cm 412.6 391 347.4 339.8 324.5 340.1 342.3 348.1 1032 527 pH SU 7.73 7.35 7.52 7.55 7.49 7.66 7.69 7.74 7.21 7.24 Turb NTU 207 130 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.6 0.45 0.45 156 0.8 SOLID TDS mg/L 0.2 U 49 183 180 A 170 177 182 186 100 300 TSS mg/L 250 A 235 2 U 2 IA 2 U 2 I 2 I 2 U 716 2 I TEMPERATURE Wtr Temp C 24.9 22.4 21.9 21.7 21.7 21.9 21.8 22.6 22 22.3


80

Santa Fe River Springs and Tributaries Detailed Chemical Analysis – October 17, 2019


SFR below Olustee Creek

Santa Fe Spring

Hornsby Spring

Poe Spring

Johnson Spring

Naked Spring


Run

Little Blue Spring

DISSOLVED OXYGEN DO % 41.1 63.7 3.7 5.5 8 52.8 54.3 57.2 37.2 DO mg/L 3.52 5.39 0.33 0.47 0.69 4.56 4.69 4.94 3.23 GENERAL INORGANIC Alk mg/L as CaCO3 63 61 152 171 200 190.5 186 179 180 Cl-T mg/L 15 16 10 13 11 7.9 7.2 6.9 6.8 F-T mg/L 0.22 0.2 0.28 0.16 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.096 0.097 Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 83.4 78 197 200 212 214 207 200 199 SO4 mg/L 9.8 7.6 42 32 13 15 13 11 11 TOC mg/L 20 17 2.7 1.8 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.64 METAL As-T ug/L 0.62 0.58 1.25 1.23 1.21 0.44 0.32 0.29 0.32 B-T ug/L 20.3 21 16.1 18.4 15.5 11.45 10.4 10.4 10.8 Ca-T mg/L 20.9 18.8 56.6 68.4 75 73.25 70.8 68.8 68.2 Cu-T ug/L 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Fe-T ug/L 540 300 36 30 30 30 30 30 30 K-T mg/L 1.3 1.6 0.81 0.88 0.72 0.585 0.58 0.55 0.61 Na-T mg/L 7.6 7.9 6.5 7.3 6.1 3.75 3.3 3.2 3.1 Mg-T mg/L 7.6 7.54 13.6 7.02 5.92 7.53 7.38 6.98 6.92 Zn-T ug/L 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 NITROGEN NH4-N mg/L 0.033 0.019 0.014 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.007 NOx-N mg/L 0.17 0.35 0.39 0.78 0.4 2.15 2.5 2.5 1.9 TKN mg/L 0.75 0.67 0.18 0.28 0.26 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.33 PHOSPHORUS OrthoP mg/L 0.24 0.18 0.11 0.084 0.076 0.0385 0.032 0.03 0.026 TP mg/L 0.29 0.21 0.12 0.085 0.08 0.0415 0.034 0.032 0.039 PHYSICAL pH SU 6.93 7.22 7.08 7.27 7.22 7.39 7.37 7.41 7.38 Color CPU 190 160 21 8.8 4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 SpCond umhos/cm 190.9 188.1 394.6 418.8 422.1 405.8 399.7 384.7 383.4 Turb NTU 1.4 2.3 0.35 0.4 0.1 0.35 0.1 0.2 2 SOLID TDS mg/L 124 127 241 231 219 215.5 213 192 191 TSS mg/L 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 TEMPERATURE Wtr Temp C 23.1 23.7 22.2 22.5 22.4 22.6 22.5 22.5 22.3


81

DEP Herbicide and Insecticide Analysis for October 2019

PARAMETER UNITS Olustee Creek

SFR below

Olustee Creek

Santa Fe

Spring

Hornsby Spring

Poe Spring

Johnson Spring

Naked Spring

Gilchrist Blue

Spring Run

Little Blue Spring

4,4'-DDD ng/L 6.4 U 6.6 U 6.5 U 6.7 U 6.5 U 6.3 U 6.6 U 6.5 U 6.4 U 4,4'-DDE ng/L 6.4 U 6.6 U 6.5 U 6.7 U 6.5 U 6.3 U 6.6 U 6.5 U 6.4 U 4,4'-DDT ng/L 7.5 U 7.7 U 7.6 U 7.8 U 7.5 U 7.4 U 7.7 U 7.6 U 7.4 U a-BHC ng/L 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.1 U Acesulfame K ng/L 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Acetochlor ng/L 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.27 U 0.26 U a-Chlordane ng/L 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U Alachlor ng/L 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.27 U 0.26 U Aldrin ng/L 4.3 UJ 4.4 UJ 4.3 UJ 4.5 UJ 4.3 UJ 4.2 UJ 4.4 UJ 4.3 UJ 4.2 UJ Ametryn ng/L 0.63 U 0.64 U 0.64 U 0.64 U 0.63 U 0.62 U 0.64 U 0.64 U 0.63 U AMPA ug/L 0.13 I 0.13 I 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 UJ 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Atrazine ng/L 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.32 I 0.55 I 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.27 U 0.26 U Atrazine Desethyl ng/L 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 I 1.9 I 1.6 U 1.6 U Azinphos Methyl ng/L 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.2 U 5.3 U 5.3 U 5.2 U b-BHC ng/L 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U Bifenthrin ng/L 4.3 U 4.4 U 4.3 U 4.5 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.4 U 4.3 U 4.2 U Bromacil ng/L 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.68 I 0.53 U 0.52 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U Butylate ng/L 0.42 U 0.43 U 0.42 U 0.43 U 0.42 U 0.41 U 0.43 U 0.43 U 0.42 U Carbophenothion ng/L 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U Chlordane ng/L 5.4 U 5.5 U 5.4 U 5.6 U 5.4 U 5.3 U 5.5 U 5.4 U 5.3 U Chlorothalonil ng/L 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.1 U Chlorpyrifos Ethyl ng/L 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.27 U 0.26 U Chlorpyrifos Methyl ng/L 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.1 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.1 U Cis-Nonachlor ng/L 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U Cyanazine ng/L 3.4 U 3.5 U 3.4 U 3.5 U 3.4 U 3.4 U 3.5 U 3.5 U 3.4 U Cypermethrin ng/L 21 U 22 U 22 U 22 U 22 U 21 U 22 U 22 UJ 21 U d-BHC ng/L 8.6 U 8.8 U 8.7 U 8.9 U 8.6 U 8.4 U 8.8 U 8.7 U 8.5 U Decachlorobiphenyl ng/L 23100 24700 23000 19100 26100 21000 24900 25300 21700 Demeton ng/L 7.4 U 7.5 U 7.4 U 7.5 U 7.4 U 7.2 U 7.5 U 7.5 U 7.3 U Diazinon ng/L 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U Dicofol ng/L 32 U 33 U 32 U 33 U 32 U 32 U 33 U 33 U 32 U Dieldrin ng/L 4.3 U 4.4 U 4.3 U 4.5 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.4 U 4.3 U 4.2 U Dimethenamid ng/L 2 1.9 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.1 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.1 U Disulfoton ng/L 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U Dithiopyr ng/L 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.1 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.1 U Endosulfan I ng/L 4.3 U 4.4 U 4.3 U 4.5 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.4 U 4.3 U 4.2 U Endosulfan II ng/L 4.3 U 4.4 U 4.3 U 4.5 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.4 U 4.3 U 4.2 U Endosulfan sulfate ng/L 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.1 U Endothall ug/L 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U Endothall-d6 ug/L 4.73 4.34 4.63 4.56 4.36 4.18 4.17 4.33 4.42 Endrin ng/L 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.1 U Endrin aldehyde ng/L 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.1 U Endrin Ketone ng/L 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.1 U EPTC ng/L 1.3 U 1.3 U 1.3 U 1.3 U 1.3 U 1.3 U 1.3 U 1.3 U 1.3 U Ethalfluralin ng/L 3.2 U 3.3 U 3.2 U 3.3 U 3.2 U 3.2 U 3.3 U 3.3 U 3.2 U


82

PARAMETER UNITS Olustee Creek

SFR below

Olustee Creek

Santa Fe

Spring

Hornsby Spring

Poe Spring

Johnson Spring

Naked Spring

Gilchrist Blue

Spring Run

Little Blue Spring

Ethion ng/L 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U Ethoprop ng/L 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.1 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.1 U Fenamiphos ng/L 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U Fipronil ng/L 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.27 U 0.26 U Fipronil Desulfinyl ng/L 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.13 U Fipronil Sulfide ng/L 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U Fipronil Sulfone ng/L 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.26 I 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.16 U Fonofos ng/L 0.21 U 0.21 U 0.21 U 0.21 U 0.21 U 0.21 U 0.21 U 0.21 U 0.21 U g-BHC ng/L 8.6 U 8.8 U 8.7 U 8.9 U 8.6 U 8.4 U 8.8 U 8.7 U 8.5 U g-Chlordane ng/L 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U Glufosinate ng/L 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Glyphosate ug/L 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Glyphosate 13C 15N ng/L 5.19 4.55 4.62 3.76 4.26 3.94 3.78 4.16 4.05 Heptachlor ng/L 1.6 U 1.7 U 1.6 U 1.7 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U Heptachlor epoxide ng/L 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.1 U Hexachlorobenzene ng/L 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.1 U Hexazinone ng/L 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.89 I 0.53 U 0.52 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U Malathion ng/L 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.36 U 0.37 U 0.37 U 0.37 U Metalaxyl ng/L 0.32 U 0.32 U 0.32 U 0.32 U 0.32 U 0.31 U 0.32 U 0.32 U 0.31 U Methoxychlor ng/L 4.3 U 4.4 U 4.3 U 4.5 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.4 U 4.3 U 4.2 U Metolachlor ng/L 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U Metribuzin ng/L 0.79 U 0.8 U 0.79 U 0.8 U 0.79 U 0.78 U 0.8 U 0.8 U 0.78 U Mevinphos ng/L 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U Mirex ng/L 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.1 U Molinate ng/L 0.32 U 0.32 U 0.32 U 0.32 U 0.32 U 0.31 U 0.32 U 0.32 U 0.31 U Norflurazon ng/L 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U Oxadiazon ng/L 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.1 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.1 U Parathion Ethyl ng/L 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.27 U 0.26 U Parathion Methyl ng/L 0.58 U 0.59 U 0.58 U 0.59 U 0.58 U 0.57 U 0.59 U 0.59 U 0.58 U PCNB ng/L 49200 46500 48200 40700 44300 37500 42900 40700 40900 Pendimethalin ng/L 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1 U Permethrin ng/L 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U Phorate ng/L 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.27 U 0.26 U Prodiamine ng/L 0.18 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.18 U 0.18 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.18 U Prometon ng/L 0.95 U 0.96 U 0.95 U 0.96 U 0.95 U 0.93 U 0.96 U 0.96 U 0.94 U Prometryn ng/L 0.21 U 0.21 U 0.21 U 0.21 U 0.21 U 0.21 U 0.21 U 0.21 U 0.21 U Simazine ng/L 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U Simazine-d10 ng/L 21300 15900 14500 17600 16800 17200 20300 18300 19500 Sucralose ug/L 0.16 0.21 0.03 I 0.28 0.19 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.01 U Sucralose-d6 ng/L 4.26 4.14 4.93 5.53 5.06 5.05 5.18 5.27 4.92 Tebuconazole ng/L 0.53 I 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U 0.53 U 0.53 U 0.52 U Terbufos ng/L 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.1 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.1 U Terbufos-d10 ng/L 19100 14800 15300 18200 16700 16900 20600 17700 19400 Terbuthylazine ng/L 0.45 U 0.45 U 0.45 U 0.45 U 0.45 U 0.44 U 0.45 U 0.45 U 0.44 U Tetrachloro-m-xylene ng/L 24800 26100 27600 24200 28400 24300 30000 31800 22900 Toxaphene ng/L 32 U 33 U 32 U 33 U 32 U 32 U 33 U 33 U 32 U Trans-Nonachlor ng/L 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U Trifluralin ng/L 2.7 U 2.8 U 2.7 U 2.8 U 2.7 U 2.6 U 2.7 U 2.7 U 2.7 U


83

Santa Fe River and Springs Detailed Chemical Analysis – November 14, 2019


Worthington Spring

SFR at I-75

O'Leno State Park

Santa Fe River

Rise

SFR at US-441

SFR at US-27

SFR at SR-47

SFR above

ICH

SFR at US-129

SFR at 39th Ave

Trail Spring

DISSOLVED OXYGEN DO % 83.9 58.9 69.5 19.6 47.3 61.9 74.8 83.6 81.1 82 18.7 DO mg/L 8.64 5.46 6.62 1.69 4.17 5.53 6.65 7.52 7.33 7.45 1.62

GENERAL INORGANIC Alk mg/L as CaCO3 71 139 139 150 158 A 158 172 171 168 167 158 A

Cl-T mg/L 19 11 11 18 16 16 A 11 11,11 10 10 10 F-T mg/L 0.2 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.22 0.22 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.057 I

Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 94.6 190 197 261 236 238 225 223 213 216 218

SO4 mg/L 6.4 41 41 90 63 64 A 32 33 29 29 35 TOC mg/L 15 4.1 4.2 2.7 2.3 2.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 0.81 I METAL Ca-T mg/L 22.3 53 55.4 78.1 74.8 75.3 75.6 74.6 71.4 72.5 75.7 K-T mg/L 2 1.1 I 1.1 I 1.1 I 1 I 1.1 I 0.8 I 0.79 I 0.72 I 0.83 I 8.7 Mg-T mg/L 9.44 14 14.3 16.1 12.1 12.1 8.86 9 8.34 8.47 7.02 Na-T mg/L 10 7.2 7.3 11.3 9.8 9.9 6.6 6.6 5.9 6 6.8 NITROGEN NH4-N mg/L 0.018 0.014 0.01 0.005 I 0.005 I 0.006 0.004 I 0.005 0.007 0.009 0.002 U NOx-N mg/L 0.53 0.25 0.24 0.47 0.56 0.53 1.1 1 0.96 1 8.9 TKN mg/L 0.65 0.21 0.23 0.27 0.29 0.3 0.29 0.29 0.24 0.35 0.21 PHOSPHORUS OrthoP mg/L 0.2 0.12 0.12 0.094 0.087 0.083 0.058 0.056 0.052 0.052 0.05 TP mg/L 0.26 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.096 0.095 0.066 0.067 0.066 0.07 0.052 PHYSICAL Color CPU 150 32,32 31 19 15 15 6.2 6.9,6.4 5.1 I 5.7 I 2.5 U SpCond umhos/cm 214.3 377.1 377.7 517 470.8 473.2 426.9 424.6 407.3 407 495.7 pH SU 7.55 7.42 7.54 7.27 7.37 7.54 7.57 7.71 7.78 7.79 7.45 Turb NTU 2.9 0.5 0.55 0.5 0.35 0.5 0.3 0.65 0.55 1.3 A 0.1 U SOLID TDS mg/L 158 A 235 218 318 279 287 229 231 231 240 A 255 TSS mg/L 3 IA 2 I,2 I 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 I 2 U 2 I,2 I 2 U 4 IA 2 I TEMPERATURE Wtr Temp C 14 18.9 17.6 22.8 21.5 20.9 21.1 20.4 20.1 20 22.2


84

Santa Fe River Springs and Tributaries Detailed Chemical Analysis – December 11, 2019

GROUP PARAMETER UNITS COL917971 Wilson Spring

ICH Head

Spring

Cedar Head

Spring Run

Blue Hole

Spring

ICH Midpoint

ICH Tube

Takeout LIR-15 Betty

Spring Troop Spring

Trail Spring

DISSOLVED OXYGEN DO % 10.1 3.8 45.8 32.5 27 67.8 76.9 68.4 36.5 18.4 18.7 DO mg/L 0.9 0.33 4.03 2.86 2.34 5.99 6.83 6.08 3.16 1.63 1.62

GENERAL INORGANIC Alk mg/L as CaCO3 167 136 163 160 152 155 157 156 162 163 158 A

Cl-T mg/L 9.7 12 4.5 4.9 A 5.3 6.2 6.3 6.4 A 11 37,37 10 F-T mg/L 0.12 0.2 0.1 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.072 I 0.062 I 0.057 I

Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 209 206 180 168 163 170 165 176 248 421 218

SO4 mg/L 30 54 8.7 5.8 A 4.4 9.1 9.9 12 A 53 120 35 TOC mg/L 0.56 I 3.5 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.61 I 1.5 0.81 I METAL Ca-T mg/L 71 64.1 61 57.6 56 56.4 54.7 58.5 88.9 140 75.7 K-T mg/L 0.6 I 0.72 I 0.3 U 0.31 I 0.42 I 0.48 I 0.47 I 0.47 I 4.3 39.7 8.7 Mg-T mg/L 7.65 11 6.67 5.93 5.61 6.96 6.81 7.22 6.42 17.2 7.02 Na-T mg/L 5.8 7.5 2.7 2.9 3.5 4.2 4 4.3 3.6 29.5 6.8

NITROGEN NH4-N mg/L 0.004 I 0.005 I 0.002 U 0.002 I 0.002 U 0.005 0.005 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.005 I 0.002 U

NOx-N mg/L 0.63 0.5 0.8 0.88 0.8 0.67 0.64 0.59 6.4 55 8.9 TKN mg/L 0.08 U 0.2 I 0.08 U 0.14 I 0.093 I 0.12 I 0.097 I 0.19 I 0.2 J 0.099 IJ 0.21 PHOSPHORUS OrthoP mg/L 0.05 0.086 0.022 0.031 0.044 0.044 0.043 0.042 0.049 0.063 0.05 TP mg/L 0.058 0.097 0.024 0.036 0.048 0.065 0.061 0.053 0.051 0.076 0.052 PHYSICAL Color CPU 2.5 U 31 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 UA 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 3.3 I 2.5 U SpCond umhos/cm 421.5 426.6 353.2 332 330.2 343.8 344.9 350.5 518 1135 495.7 pH SU 7.5 7.43 7.5 7.66 7.68 7.93 8.01 7.8 7.36 7.2 7.45 Turb NTU 0.2 0.2 0.15 0.2 A 0.1 U 0.25 0.25 0.3 0.1 I 0.3 0.1 U SOLID TDS mg/L 232 A 239 175 170 155 176 176 A 175 278 704 255 TSS mg/L 2 UA 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 IA 2 U 2 U 3 I 2 I TEMPERATURE Wtr Temp C 21.8 22 21.7 21.6 21.7 21.4 21.1 21.1 22.4 21.3 22.2


85

Santa Fe River Detailed Chemical Analysis – January 30, 2020


Worthington Spring

SFR at I-75

O'Leno State Park

Santa Fe River Rise

SFR at US-441

SFR at US-27

SFR at SR-47

SFR above ICH

SFR at US-129

SFR at 39th Ave

DISSOLVED OXYGEN DO % 85.2 46.6 58.5 30 42.4 51.9 70 76.9 78.3 76.7

DO mg/L 9.2 4.48 5.71 2.73 3.83 4.75 6.27 6.94 7.09 6.96 GENERAL INORGANIC Alk mg/L as CaCO3 46 109 108 128 145 A 146 172 A 170 168 168 Cl-T mg/L 18 13 13 19 A 17 17 12 12 10 10 F-T mg/L 0.15 0.23 0.23 0.26 0.22 0.23 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 67.5 138 143 209 211 209 204 213 195 200 SO4 mg/L 6.5 28 28 80 63 63 33 34 29 29 TOC mg/L 24 12 12 9 6.2 6.3 2.8 2.7 2.2 2.2 METAL Ca-T mg/L 16.1 38.2 39.8 61.2 65.5 65.1 68.2 71.1 65.3 67.1 K-T mg/L 1 I 0.86 I 0.9 I 1 I 0.99 I 0.99 I 0.74 I 0.76 I 0.67 I 0.76 I Mg-T mg/L 6.65 10.4 10.7 13.7 11.5 11.2 8.22 8.72 7.84 7.99 Na-T mg/L 9.3 7.2 7.5 10.7 9.8 9.7 6.5 6.7 5.8 5.9 NITROGEN NH4-N mg/L 0.022 0.017 0.013 0.012 0.008 0.009 0.007 0.005 I 0.007 0.008 NOx-N mg/L 0.4 0.32 0.32 0.34 0.43 0.44 0.98 0.94 0.9 0.97 TKN mg/L 0.72 0.38 0.4 0.37 0.33 0.31 0.3 0.24 0.23 0.31 PHOSPHORUS OrthoP mg/L 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.1 0.095 0.097 0.071 0.064 0.06 0.06 TP mg/L 0.19 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.069 0.072 0.069 0.073 PHYSICAL Color CPU 230 120 110 81 53 A 53 22 20 15 16 SpCond umhos/cm 166.8 302.2 301.5 459.3 446.3 444.9 418.8 417.3 401.3 401.2 pH SU 8.04 7.27 7.04 7.25 7.13 7.28 7.39 7.55 7.63 7.55 Turb NTU 2.3 A 1.2 1.1 0.7 0.6 2.3 A 0.55 0.65 0.8 0.9 SOLID TDS mg/L 106 192 187 295 293 289 242 A 242 247 275 A TSS mg/L 3 I 2 I 2 U 2 U 2 U 12 2 IA 2 I 3 I 3 IA TEMPERATURE Wtr Temp C 11.9 17.11 16.5 19.8 20.2 19.6 20.7 20.3 20.2 20


86

Santa Fe River Springs and Tributaries Detailed Chemical Analysis – February 18, 2020

GROUP PARAMETER UNITS Cow

Creek at CR-138

Wilson Spring

ICH Head

Spring


Blue Hole Spring

ICH Midpoint

ICH Tube

Takeout LIR-15 Troop

Spring* Trail

Spring

DISSOLVED OXYGEN DO % 78.8 4.3 46.5 29.9 29.2 82.2 92 101.6 56.5 76.9

DO mg/L 7.13 0.38 4.07 2.62 2.59 7.08 7.99 8.75 5.15 6.75 GENERAL INORGANIC Alk mg/L as

CaCO3 184 131 163 160 152 154 155 155 170 169 Cl-T mg/L 7.9 13 A 4.4 4.7 5.3 6.1 6.1 6.1 10 9.8 F-T mg/L 0.049 I 0.21 0.099 IJ 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16


SO4 mg/L 0.2 U 51 A 8.8 5.7 4.7 9.1 9.8 11 30 28 TOC mg/L 15 7.5 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2.2 1.8 METAL Ca-T mg/L 77.1 63.5 62.7 61 58.1 58 58 59.1 71.4 69.3 K-T mg/L 0.3 U 0.65 I 0.3 U 0.3 U 0.4 I 0.45 I 0.51 I 0.45 I 1.7 0.79 I Mg-T mg/L 2.32 11.2 7.02 6.53 5.93 7.24 7.32 7.48 8.92 8.72 Na-T mg/L 4.4 8.3 2.9 3.2 3.8 4.5 4.5 4.6 7.2 6.7 NITROGEN NH4-N mg/L 0.004 I 0.006 0.002 U 0.004 I 0.002 U 0.005 I 0.005 0.006 0.017 0.007 NOx-N mg/L 0.005 I 0.37 0.81 0.87 0.8 0.65 0.6 0.59 0.79 0.87 TKN mg/L 0.56 0.25 0.08 UJ 0.1 I 0.08 U 0.11 I 0.08 U 0.11 I 0.34 0.23 PHOSPHORUS OrthoP mg/L 0.038 0.08 0.021 0.029 0.045 0.044 0.043 0.041 0.038 0.054 TP mg/L 0.051 0.093 0.03 0.038 0.048 0.058 0.06 0.059 0.063 0.062 PHYSICAL Color CPU 75 71 A 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 13 11 SpCond umhos/cm 380 413 355 331 330 344 345 348 432 424 pH SU 7.79 7.42 7.57 7.26 7.6 7.95 8.09 8.21 7.62 7.73 Turb NTU 0.65 0.25 0.2 0.3 0.1 I 0.2 0.55 0.45 1.4 0.5 SOLID TDS mg/L 210 247 170 177 160 184 A 176 172 215 215 TSS mg/L 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 UA 3 I 2 I 5 I 2 U TEMPERATURE Wtr Temp C 20.01 21.41 21.88 21.76 21.78 22.69 22.33 22.7 19.74 21.25

* Troop spring was not flowing A - Value Reported is the mean of two or more determinations I – The reported value is between the laboratory method detection limit and the laboratory practical quantitation limit J – Estimated value and/or the analysis did not meet established quality control criteria Q - Sample held beyond normal holding time U – Material was analyzed for but not detected. The reported value is the method detection limit for the sample analyzed


87

Appendix B Quarters 1-8 Fish Data

The following tables present the results of fish surveys at Hornsby Spring, Poe Spring, Gilchrist Blue Spring, Naked Spring, Devil’s Eye Spring, Ginnie Spring, Ichetucknee, Blue Hole Spring and the Lower Ichetucknee River throughout the eight quarters of Phase 2 of the Lower Santa Fe River Springs Project. Fish surveys include the system’s head spring and its run, except for Blue Hole which is only surveyed in the head spring and not past the fence into the run. Density and biomass are represented as number (#)/hectare and kilogram (kg)/hectare, respectively. Quarters with multiple fish counts have been averaged.

Hornsby Spring Fish Summary (Quarters 1-5)


88

Poe Spring Fish Summary (Quarters 1-8)


89

Gilchrist Blue Spring Fish Summary (Quarters 1-8)


90

Naked Spring Fish Summary (Quarters 1-8)


91

Devil’s Eye Spring (Ginnie Spring System) Fish Summary (Quarters 1-4)

Ginnie Spring Fish Summary (Quarters 1-3)


92

Ichetucknee Fish Summary (Quarters 1-8)

* Only Ichetucknee Head Spring data, all others are the head spring and its run


93

Blue Hole Spring Fish Summary


94

Lower Ichetucknee River Fish Summary (Quarters 2-4)


95

Appendix C Quarters 1-8 Vegetation Data

The following tables present detailed vegetation data for each transect within the ecological monitoring systems: Poe, Gilchrist Blue, Naked, Ichetucknee. Gilchrist Blue and Naked Springs were kept separate, while the Ichetucknee and Blue Hole (T-6) data were combined. Each table provides the minimum, maximum and average percent cover of bare ground, detritus, algae, as well as submerged aquatic, floating and emergent vegetation.

Detailed percent cover data at Poe Spring transects (April 2019 – March 2020)


96

Detailed percent cover data at Gilchrist Blue Spring (April 2018 – March 2020)


97

Detailed percent cover data at Naked Spring transects (April 2019 – March 2020)


98

Detailed percent cover data along the Ichetucknee River (T1 – T5) and Blue Hole Spring (T6) (April 2019 – March 2020)


99

Appendix D Quarters 1-8 Human Use Data

Poe Spring Detailed Human Use Survey Results – 5/22/2019

Detailed Human Use Survey Results – 6/4/2019


100




101




102




103




104




105


Gilchrist Blue Spring Detailed Human Use Survey Results – 6/27/218


106




107




108




109




110




111

Naked Spring Detailed Human Use Survey Results – 5/7/2019



112


Ichetucknee Head Spring



113




114




115




116


Blue Hole



117




118



Documents

Santa Fe River and Springs Environmental Analysis...Segments 1 and 2 (SFR at Worthington Spring to SFR at US-27) exhibited values that were typically lower than the springs numeric