ATLANTIC
FLORIDA COASTAL SEDIMENT
CONTAMINANTS ATLAS
A $ummary of Coastal
$ediment Quality $urveys
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
CULF
OF
MEXICO
OCEAN
K
,r'2rnii ;GeologIcal Survey
LIbrary
403 West Tennessee Stret
Xalishassse Florida 32304
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
1994
$ TRAIT
FL
1
4010
FDEP
1994
Atlas
Florida Department of Environmental Protection I
FLORIDA COASTAL SEDIMENT
CONTAMINANTS ATLAS
Thomas L. Seal, Fred D. Calder and Gail M. Sloane
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
and
Steven J. Schropp, Ph.D.
Taylor Engineering, Inc.
9086 Cypress Green Drive
Jacksonville, FL 32256
and
Herbert L. Windom, Ph.D.
Skidaway Institute of Oceanography
McWhorter Drive
Savannah, Georgia 31416
3Ql3 \AW ~ii~j 44_
1994
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Sediment quality is a useful indicator of aquatic environmental conditions. Sediments are the major reposi-
tory of contaminants in surface water systems, and play a significant part in influencing the fate and effects
of potentially toxic substances. The purpose of the Florida Coastal Sediment Contaminants Atlas is to
describe the spatial extent of chemical contamination in Florida's coastal waterbodies, and to assist in com-
paring contaminant levels and distributions between waterbodies. Most of the highest concentrations for
any particular contaminant are found at sites near Tampa, Pensacola, Miami, and Jacksonville. However,
high contaminant concentrations are occasionally found near other cities, and low to moderate levels of
contaminants are common adjacent to many less developed coastal areas. Sediment chemistry data indi-
cate the most common metal contaminants are lead, zinc, cadmium, and mercury, and the most common
class of organic contaminant is the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. Stormwater runoff appears to be
the major cause of contamination of sites identified in the Atlas. Regional monitoring of contaminants in liv-
ing resources and sediments, augmented by other assessments, is strongly recommended to keep a finger
on the pulse of Florida's coastal ecosystems.
Sediment information is used by local, state, and federal regulatory agencies for many purposes, including
trend monitoring, permitting, and restoration. To improve the use of this information, the FDEP initiated a
series of coastal sediment contaminants surveys in 1982. The Atlas provides the results of the surveys
through 1991. In addition to FDEP data, the Atlas has been strengthened by inclusion of statewide sedi-
ment data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Status and Trends
Program, as well as sediment data produced by the Mote Marine Laboratory, an independent marine
research facility located in Sarasota, Florida.
Sediment chemical data, presented on Atlas maps as barcharts, allow comparison of sediment contami-
nants levels within coastal areas, and between estuarine systems. The Atlas includes information on eight
trace metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, lead, nickel, and zinc), and five classes of
organic compounds chlorinated hydrocarbons, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinat-
ed biphenyls (PCBs), phenolic hydrocarbons, and aliphatic hydrocarbons. To interpret metals contamina-
tion, individual metal concentrations are reported using an interpretive statistical approach developed by
the Department. The total concentration of each class of organic compound is normalized to total organic
carbon to help account for differences in the tendency of sediments to accumulate organic contaminants.
A Technical Volume accompanies this Atlas and provides ancillary information for users of this document.
The Atlas qualitatively presents the extent of contamination of estuarine and marine habitats; however, it
should not be used without additional information to predict biological effects of contaminants.
2 Florida Department of Environmental Protection
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................... ............. 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................3
SECTION 1: PURPOSE OF THE FLORIDA
SEDIMENT CONTAMINANTS A TLAS
1.0 Introduction ................................... ................ ................. 4
1.1 How to Use the Florida Coastal Sediment
Contaminants Atlas ........................................... ............... 4
SECTION 2: SEDIMENT QUALITY ISSUES
2.0 Introduction................................... ..................................
2.1 Sediment Quality: An Indicator of Ecosystem Health.............4
SECTION 3: COASTAL SEDIMENT
CONTAMINANTS SURVEYS
3.0 Introduction................................... ................. ................. 4
3.1 FDEP Coastal Sediment Contaminants Surveys ....................
3.2 The FDEP Coastal Sediment Contaminants Database ..........5
3.3 NOAA and MOTE Marine Laboratory Sediment
Contaminants Surveys...................................... ............... 5
3.4 Spatial Analysis of Site Locations............................................5
SECTION 4: FLORIDA SEDIMENT
TRACE METALS DATA
4.0 Mineralogy and Trace Metals of
Florida Coastal Sediments .................................. ............. 5
4.1 The Metal to Aluminum Normalization Method
for Identifying Metal Enrichment in Florida Sediments...........5
SECTION 5: FLORIDA SEDIMENT TOXIC ORGANIC
CONTAMINANTS DATA
5.0 Introduction................................... .................................. 6
5.1 Interpretation of Organic Contaminants Data .......................6
SECTION 6: STATEWIDE COASTAL
CONTAMINANTS OVERVIEW AND DISCUSSION
OF ESTUARIES
6.0 Introduction ........................ ....... ..........................7
6.1 Statewide Summary of Coastal
Sediment Contaminants....................................................7
6.2 Estuaries of the Florida Panhandle Region..........................7.
6.2.1 Perdido Bay ................................. ................ ................. 7
6.2.2 Pensacola Bay .................................. .............. ................ 7
6.2.3 Choctawhatchee Bay....................................... ................ 8
6.2.4 St. Andrew Bay and St. Joseph Bay .....................................8
6.2.5 Apalachicola Bay .............................................. ............... 8
6.3 Estuaries of the Big Bend Region ...........................................8
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
Tam pa Bay................................... ................ ................. 8
Charlotte Harbor and Caloosahatchee River ..........................9
Everglades Region.......................................................... 9
Florida Bay and the Florida Keys ...........................................9
Southeast Region ............................................. .............. 9
East Central Region ...............................................................9
Northeast Region................................... ......... ............... 10
SECTION 7: CONCLUSION ...................................10
REFEREN CES.............................................................11
METAL CONTAMINANTS MAPS
PANHANDLE REGION
Map 1 Panhandle Region Index to Insets..................................12
Map 2 Panhandle Region Inset A Pensacola Bay and
Perdido Bay ................................................................... 13
Map 3 Panhandle Region Inset A-1 Pensacola Bay Area/
Pensacola Harbor ......................................... .............. 14
Map 4 Panhandle Region Inset A-2 Northern
Pensacola Bay............................................. ............... 15
Map 5 Panhandle Region Inset A-3 Southern
Pensacola Bay..................................................... .......... 16
Map 6 Panhandle Region Inset B Choctawhatchee Bay............17
Map 7 Panhandle Region Inset C St. Andrew Bay .....................18
Map 8 Panhandle Region Inset D St. Joseph Bay......................19
Map 9 Panhandle Region Inset E Apalachicola Bay .................20
BIG BEND REGION
Map 10 Big Bend Region Index to Insets....................................... 21
Map 11 Big Bend Region Inset A Apalachee Bay .......................22
Map 12 Big Bend Region Inset B Steinhatchee River .................23
Map 13 Big Bend Region Inset C Suwannee River and
Cedar Keys .................................................................. 24
Map 14 Big Bend Region Inset D Crystal River/
Homosassa Area.............................. ........... ............. 25
Map 15 Big Bend Region Inset E Anclote River ..........................26
TAMPA BAY REGION
Map 16 Tampa Bay Region Index to Insets ...................................27
Map 17 Tampa Bay Region Index to Inset Series A -
Hillsborough Bay.................................................. .........28
Map 18 Tampa Bay Region Inset A-1 Northwestern
Hillsborough Bay..................................................... 29
Map 19 Tampa Bay Region Inset A-2 Northeastern
Hillsborough Bay....................................... ............... 30
Map 20 Tampa Bay Region Inset A-3 West-central
Hillsborough Bay........................................ .............. 31
Map 21 Tampa Bay Region Inset A-4 East-central
Hillsborough Bay....................................... .............. 32
Map 22 Tampa Bay Region Inset A-5 Southern
Hillsborough Bay.................................................. .........33
Map 23 Tampa Bay Region Inset B Southern
Old Tam pa Bay ............................................................ 34
Map 24 Tampa Bay Region Inset C Western
Tampa Bay and Boca Ciega Bay .....................................35
Map 25 Tampa Bay Region Inset D Southeastern
Tam pa Bay ..................................................................... 36
Map 26 Tampa Bay Region Inset E Manatee River ....................37
CHARLOTTE HARBOR AND CALOOSAHATCHEE
RIVER REGION
Map 27 Charlotte Harbor and Caloosahatchee
River Region Index to Insets .............................................38
Map 28 Charlotte Harbor Region Inset A.......................................39
Map 29 Charlotte Harbor Region Inset B -
Southern Charlotte Harbor ............................................40
Map 30 Caloosahatchee River Region Inset C Fort Myers .........41
EVERGLADES REGION
Map 31 Everglades Region Index to Insets ...................................42
Map 32 Everglades Region Inset A Ten Thousand
Islands Area .................................................................43
Map 33 Everglades Region Inset B Cape Sable Area................44
FLORIDA BAY AND FLORIDA KEYS REGION
Map 34 Florida Bay and Florida Keys Region ...............................45
SOUTHEAST REGION
Map 35 Southeast Region Index to Insets .....................................46
Map 36 Southeast Region Inset A Homestead/
Fort Lauderdale Area ................................................47
Map 37 Southeast Region Inset A-1 Northern
Biscayne Bay..................................................................48
Map 38 Southeast Region Index to Inset Series A-2 -
M iam i/Biscayne Bay........................................................ 49
Map 39 Southeast Region Inset A-2a Miami River ......................50
Map 40 Southeast Region Inset A-2b Biscayne Bay ..................51
Map 41 Southeast Region Inset A-2c Biscayne Bay .................52
Map 42 Southeast Region Inset B Boynton Beach/
Jupiter Area ................................................................... 53
Map 43 Southeast Region Inset B-1 Riviera Beach Area ............54
EAST CENTRAL REGION
Map 44 East Central Region Index to Insets..................................55
Map 45 East Central Region Inset A Indian River
Lagoon/Titusville Area...............................................56
Map 46 East Central Region Inset B Indian River
Lagoon/Banana River Area ...............................................57
Map 47 East Central Region Inset B-1 Port Canaveral ..............58
Florida Department of Environmental Protection 3
Map 48 East Central Region Inset C Indian River
Lagoon/Melbourne Area ...........................................59
Map 49 East Central Region Inset D Vero Beach/
Stuart Area ................................. .....................................60
NORTHEAST REGION
Map 50 Northeast Region Index to Insets......................................61
Map 51 Northeast Region Inset A Amelia Island Area................62
Map 52 Northeast Region Index to Inset Series B -
Lower St. Johns River ...............................................63
Map 53 Northeast Region Inset B-1 Blount Island Area..............64
Map 54 Northeast Region Inset B-2 Trout River Area.................65
Map 55 Northeast Region Inset B-3 Jacksonville Area ...............66
Map 56 Northeast Region Inset B-4 Orange Park Area...............67
Map 57 Northeast Region Inset C Green Cove Springs
A rea ................................... ............................................ 68
Map 58 Northeast Region Inset D Palatka Area..........................69
Map 59 Northeast Region Inset E Mayport/ Jacksonville
Beach Area............................... ......................................70
Map 60 Northeast Region Inset F St. Augustine Area.................71
Map 61 Northeast Region Inset G Flagler Beach Area ..............72
Map 62 Northeast Region Inset H Daytona Beach Area.............73
Map 63 Northeast Region Inset I Mosquito Lagoon Area...........74
TOXIC ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS MAPS
PANHANDLE REGION
Map 64 Panhandle Region Index to Insets ....................................75
Map 65 Panhandle Region Inset A Pensacola Bay and
Perdido Bay....................................................... ........... 76
Map 66 Panhandle Region Inset A-1 Pensacola Bay
Area/Pensacola Harbor.............................................77
Map 67 Panhandle Region Inset A-2 Southern
Pensacola Bay.................................................. ...........78
Map 68 Panhandle Region Inset B Choctawhatchee Bay ..........79
Map 69 Panhandle Region Inset C St. Andrew Bay ...................80
Map 70 Panhandle Region Inset D Apalachicola Bay ................81
BIG BEND REGION
Map 71 Big Bend Region ................................................. ...... 82
TAMPA BAY REGION
Map 72 Tampa Bay Region Index to Insets ...................................83
Map 73 Tampa Bay Region Inset A Hillsborough Bay ................84
Map 74 Tampa Bay Region Inset B Old Tampa Bay .................85
Map 75 Tampa Bay Region Inset C Southeast Tampa
Bay/Little Manatee River ...........................................86
CHARLOTTE HARBOR AND CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER
REGION
Map 76 Charlotte Harbor and Caloosahatchee River
Region Index to Insets ........................................ .... 87
Map 77 Charlotte Harbor Area Inset A ...........................................88
Map 78 Caloosahatchee River Area Inset B .................................89
EVERGLADES REGION
Map 79 Everglades Region ............................................... .....90
SOUTHEAST REGION
Map 80 Southeast Region Index to Insets .....................................91
Map 81 Southeast Region Homestead/Fort Lauderdale Area ......92
Map 82 Southeast Region Inset A Northern Biscayne Bay.........93
Map 83 Southeast Region Index to Inset Series B ........................94
Map 84 Southeast Region Inset B-1 Miami River ........................95
Map 85 Southeast Region Inset B-2 Biscayne Bay ..................96
Map 86 Southeast Region Inset B-3 Biscayne Bay ....................97
Map 87 Southeast Region Lake Worth Lagoon Area ...................98
EAST CENTRAL REGION
Map 88 East Central Region Index to Insets..................................99
Map 89 East Central Region Inset A Titusville/
M erritt Island Area .......................................................... 100
Map 90 East Central Region Inset A-1 Cape Canaveral............101
Map 91 East Central Region Inset B Indian River Lagoon ........102
NORTHEAST REGION
Map 92 Northeast Region Index to Insets...............................103
Map 93 Northeast Region Index to Inset Series A Lower
St. Johns River ............................................................ 104
Map 94 Northeast Region Inset A-1 Blount Island Area..........105
Map 95 Northeast Region Inset A-2 Trout River Area..............106
Map 96 Northeast Region Inset A-3 Jacksonville Area ..........107
Map 97 Northeast Region Inset A-4 Orange Park Area...........108
Map 98 Northeast Region Inset B Green Cove
Springs Area................................................................ 109
Map 99 Northeast Region Inset C Palatka Area ......................10
Map 100 Northeast Region Inset D Jacksonville
Beach Area .................................................................. 111
Map 101 Northeast Region Inset E Flagler Beach Area............112
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Florida Coastal Sediment Contaminants Atlas is the product of
considerable effort by many individuals concerned with improving
information on the condition of Florida's coastal environment. In
particular, Lou Burney, Kathleen Swanson and Graham Lewis made
significant contributions in collecting and interpreting statewide sed-
iment chemistry data. Appreciation is extended to the following
individuals and their respective government agencies: Dana Morton
and Betsy Deuerling of the City of Jacksonville Water Quality
Division; Gary Molina of the Dade County Department of
Environmental Resource Management; Rick Alleman of the South
Florida Water Management District; and Paul Davis and Carmen
Vare of the Palm Beach County Department of Environmental
Resources Management.
The Center for Spatial and Environmental Analysis in the University
of South Florida Department of Geography produced the maps
included in this atlas. The Center's faculty, especially Dr. Mark
Lindberg and graduate students, went beyond contract require-
ments to ensure the quality of the maps and data presentation. We
appreciate the assistance of the Marine Research Institute and the
Stormwater and Nonpoint Source Section of the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection in funding a major portion
of the first printing. NOAA provided funding for contaminant sur-
veys through the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management, under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as
amended.
4 Florida Department of Environmental Protection
SECTION 1: PURPOSE OF
THE FLORIDA COASTAL SEDIMENT
CONTAMINANTS ATLAS
1.0 Introduction
The purpose of this atlas is to describe the spatial
extent of chemical contamination in sediments of
Florida's coastal waterbodies, and to assist in com-
paring contaminant levels and distributions
between these waterbodies. Sediments are the
major repository of contaminants in aquatic envi-
ronments, and sediment quality data, as a direct
indicator of the health of coastal aquatic habitats,
are increasingly relied on by federal, state, and
local agencies to support resource management
programs.
The Florida Coastal Sediment Contaminants Atlas
summarizes results of coastal sediment contami-
nants surveys conducted from 1982 to 1991 by the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP). The Atlas also includes sediment chemistry
data from surveys conducted by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Status and Trends Programs, and a survey
in the Lower St. Johns River estuary by the Mote
Marine Laboratory. The Atlas permits a broader use
of data gathered by these surveys in environmental
management decisions. Presented in an easy-to-
interpret map and graphical format, information in
the Atlas can be employed by many users, includ-
ing urban planning and regulatory agencies, indus-
tries (e.g. permit applicants), and scientists. The
public may find this document useful in assessing
impacts of development in coastal areas.
In a 1990 report entitled Managing Troubled
Waters: The Role of Marine Environmental
Monitoring, the United States National Research
Council emphasized that localized permit compli-
ance monitoring, while meeting limited objectives,
does not address public concerns about environ-
mental degradation in the coastal environment.
The report recommended that regional monitoring
programs are needed to define the extent and
severity of coastal contamination, determine the
effectiveness of regulations, and help guide policies
and programs in protecting the marine and estuar-
ine environment. This recommendation clearly
reflects the objectives of the Florida Coastal
Sediment Contaminants Atlas.
1.1 How to Use the Florida Coastal Sediment
Contaminants Atlas
The Atlas contains sediment contaminants data
placed in a spatial reference framework. An
attempt has been made to present map areas that
display complete hydrographic regions defined by
coastal water circulation patterns. Coastal areas
are subdivided into nine geographic regions: 1) the
panhandle, which includes Pensacola Bay,
Choctawhatchee Bay, St. Andrews Bay, St. Joseph
Bay, and Apalachicola Bay; 2) the Big Bend region,
which covers the area between Apalachee Bay and
Tarpon Springs; 3) Tampa Bay; 4) Charlotte Harbor
and Caloosahatchee River; 5) the Everglades;
6) the Florida Keys; 7) the southeast region
(Biscayne Bay to Jupiter); 8) the east-central region
(Indian River Lagoon); and 9) the northeast region
(Daytona Beach to Fernandina Beach). In
intensively sampled areas, such as Tampa Bay or
the Lower St. Johns River, inset maps provide more
detail on individual sediment sampling locations.
Different site symbols are employed to indicate
which group of researchers (FDEP, red triangle;
NOAA, green star; Mote Marine Laboratory, blue
flag) produced the sediment chemistry data. The
barchart format allows for quick discernment of
trace metal enrichment or the presence of organic
contaminants at individual sites. A color-coded
legend for the barcharts is included on the first map
of each region. Trace metal barcharts present
enrichment values between 1 and 10 times the
expected background value. If the concentration of
a trace metal in sediment at a site falls within the
expected natural range, no bar is plotted. A bar is
plotted if the trace metal enrichment factor is
greater than 1.0. If a sediment sample is enriched
by a factor of 10 times above expected natural
levels, a "+" sign above the bar indicates this
condition.
As with the metals data, organic contaminants data
are normalized; however, the organic concentration
is normalized to total organic carbon (TOC) to
account for possible biological effects. The
resulting normalized values are plotted on barcharts
which use a logarithmic scale. The larger the bar
representing a class of organic contaminants, the
more likely the impact on benthic organisms at the
site.
If a particular trace metal or class of organic
contaminants was not analyzed, an open circle is
placed under the barchart in the appropriate
column. For explanations of the trace metal
enrichment factors and organic contaminants
normalization procedure, please see Sections 4.1
and 5.1, as well as the Technical Volume that
accompanies this publication.
SECTION 2: SEDIMENT QUALITY ISSUES
2.0 Introduction
Florida is the fourth most populous state, with a
growing population of nearly 14 million. Most resi-
dents live near the coast, and population density in
these regions is expected to increase by over 30
percent in the next twenty years (Culliton et al.
1990). This growth may result in increased dis-
charges of contaminants and nutrients into coastal
systems despite pollution control efforts. The
state's nearly 11,000 miles of tidal shoreline, com-
bined with the rate of coastal development, compli-
cates the process of monitoring the health of
Florida's coastal ecosystems, and makes it difficult
to measure the progress of pollution control efforts.
Florida coastal waters receive trace (heavy) metals
and various toxic organic compounds from a variety
of sources, including natural contributions from
rivers and streams, direct discharges of treated
effluent from sewage treatment facilities, industrial
sources, and non-point sources such as urban
stormwater, agricultural runoff, and atmospheric
deposition.
2.1 Sediment Quality: An Indicator of Ecosystem
Health
Coastal monitoring programs based solely on water
column measurements do not effectively indicate
coastal and estuarine contamination. Sediment
quality information is useful as an indicator of
ecosystem health, as sediments play a significant
role in influencing the fate and effects of many toxic
substances. Many trace metals and toxic organic
compounds rapidly adsorb (attach) to suspended
particles. The particles settle in estuarine and
marine ecosystems and become incorporated in
sediments. Measurements of contaminants in the
water column often show that contaminant concen-
trations are within state water quality standards,
while concurrent measurements of sediments may
show the site to be highly contaminated. As such,
sediments integrate contaminant inputs over time
and may become sources of contamination long
after original discharges cease.
Sediments link chemical and biological processes
in benthic (sediment-dwelling) communities.
Sediments provide essential habitat for spawning,
incubation, and other biological processes. Direct
contact with or ingestion of contaminated sedi-
ments may affect the health and behavior (feed-
ing/burrowing) of benthic organisms. As contami-
nants accumulate in these organisms, subsequent
bioconcentration may occur if the contaminants are
transferred to consumer organisms such as fish,
birds, and humans. Elevated levels of toxic conta-
minants have been observed in fish and wildlife
from many locations in the United States, and con-
cern over the risk of consuming contaminated
seafood and fish has increased public awareness of
the issues of sediment contamination and coastal
pollution.
The protection of unimpacted sediments and man-
agement of contaminated sediments is critical to
maintaining marine and estuarine ecosystem
health. The presentation of sediment quality in this
document not only provides a statewide perspec-
tive on contaminants levels, but also provides a
context for local assessment of sediment quality
conditions.
SECTION 3: COASTAL SEDIMENT
CONTAMINANTS SURVEYS
3.0 Introduction
This section describes the objectives of the Florida
coastal sediment contaminants surveys and sum-
marizes computer mapping procedures, sampling
procedures, laboratory analyses, and the sediment
chemistry database. Detailed information on these
topics is included in a separate Technical Volume.
In addition to the FDEP coastal sediment contami-
nants surveys, other agencies and research groups
have collected Florida sediment chemistry data
(Section One, Technical Volume). In evaluating and
comparing such databases, a principle concern is
to ensure that sampling and analytical methods are
comparable (Section Two, Technical Volume). The
Atlas includes data from two additional sediment
chemistry databases which are comparable to the
FDEP database. Insufficient funds were available to
evaluate and include additional sediment data sets.
3.1 FDEP Coastal Sediment Contaminants Surveys
Results presented in the Atlas do not represent a
spatially unbiased view of sediment contamination.
The majority of the sampling locations in the Atlas
represent areas adjacent to highly developed
coastal areas. However, the Atlas also includes sed-
iment information on areas likely to experience
growth and areas likely to remain isolated from
development.
The FDEP surveys contributing data for the Atlas
were conducted under different projects (Section
One, Technical Volume). For the Deepwater Ports
Project (1983-1984), most sites were located to
assess commercial navigation channels and berths.
These sites are near densely developed areas and
are located in areas likely to accumulate contami-
Florida Department of Environmental Protection 5
nants. A second type of survey (1985-1991)
focused on parts of estuaries likely to be contami-
nated based on tributary inflow and land use pat-
terns or likely to receive contaminants due to future
development. In a third type of survey conducted to
develop data on unperturbed sediments, sites were
located in remote areas removed from known or
suspected contaminant sources. These reference
or "clean" sites represent the wide variety of coastal
sediment types in Florida. Given the above site
selection objectives, the results presented in the
Atlas do not represent a spatially unbiased view of
sediment contamination. Thus, the proportion of
coastal contamination cannot be estimated. Rather,
the database represents a statewide overview of
sediment conditions in areas ranging from pristine
to highly contaminated.
3.2 The FDEP Coastal Sediment Contaminants
Database
The FDEP sediment contaminants database used in
the Atlas includes information on nearly 700 sites
visited between 1983 and 1992. Some sites were
resampled. Sediment samples were analyzed using
comparable techniques (Section Two, Technical
Volume). Although the Atlas reports data for
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury,
nickel, lead and zinc, the FDEP sediment database
also contains concentration data on other metallic
and nonmetallic elements (barium, iron, lithium,
manganese, silver, titanium, and vanadium). The
FDEP sediment database also includes measure-
ments of grain size, nutrients (total Kjeldahl nitrogen,
total phosphorous, and total organic carbon), and
toxic organic contaminants, such as polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), polynuclear aromatic hydrocar-
bons (PAHs), phenolic and aliphatic hydrocarbons,
and chlorinated pesticides (e.g. DDT).
Measurement of trace metal concentrations is stan-
dard in sediment surveys because of the prevalence
of processes which can result in metals contamina-
tion. Section Four of the Technical Volume lists
common uses and sources of inetal contaminants
examined in the Atlas. Most metals examined in the
FDEP sediment surveys are present in the micro-
gram per gram (parts per million, ppm) range.
However, mercury occurs in the nanogram per gram
(parts per billion, ppb) range in virtually all pristine
estuarine sediments. State-of-the-art analytical tech-
niques are therefore required for mercury measure-
ments to obtain meaningful detection limits and
accurate concentration values. Near urban centers,
the presence of high levels of metals often signals
the presence of organic contaminants but, due to
high analytical costs, not every site measured for
metals was analyzed for organic contaminants.
Virtually all of the organic contaminants occur in the
ppb concentration range.
All sediment chemistry data are stored in the FDEP
sediment database in DBASE IV format. Station
coordinates, water column parameters (conductivity,
dissolved oxygen, temperature, and salinity), and
visual sediment descriptions are also entered in the
FDEP sediment database. Metals, toxic organic
compounds, and water column parameters in the
FDEP database are listed in Section Three of the
Technical Volume.
3.3 NOAA and MOTE Marine Laboratory Sediment
Contaminants Surveys
Data from two sediment chemistry databases
besides FDEP have been incorporated into the
Florida Coastal Sediment Contaminants Atlas. Since
1984, the National Status and Trends Program of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) has monitored the concentrations of metals
and toxic organic contaminants in bottom-feeding
fish, shellfish and sediments at United States coastal
sites. Forty-two NOAA sites are located in Florida
coastal waters. NOAA analyzed a suite of metals
and toxic organic compounds similar to those in the
FDEP surveys and employed comparable analytical
methods (NOAA 1991).
The Mote Marine Laboratory (MML), based in
Sarasota, Florida, conducted a sediment quality
study of the Lower St. Johns River estuary in 1987
and 1988. The project, entitled Characterization of
Baseline Conditions of the Physical, Chemical, and
Microbiological Environments in the St. Johns River
Estuary, produced sediment metals and toxic organ-
ic contaminants data for 33 sites, as well as other
environmental data. The MML sampling and analyti-
cal methods were consistent with FDEP methods.
3.4 Spatial Analysis of Site Locations
Atlas maps were prepared by the Center for Spatial
and Environmental Analysis in the University of
South Florida Department of Geography. The sedi-
ment contaminants data and station notation infor-
mation were plotted with the ARC-INFO program on
base maps taken from a Geographical Information
Systems (GIS) database. Station notation informa-
tion and metal and organic contaminants data of the
FDEP, NOAA, and MML were graphically expressed
through the use of ARC-INFO software. Coordinates
for sampling locations were rectified with original
chart-plotted station locations to ensure accurate
identification.
SECTION 4: FLORIDA SEDIMENT TRACE
METALS DATA
4.0 Mineralogy and Trace Metals of Florida
Coastal Sediments
Florida coastal sediments are composed of sand,
silt, clay, carbonate minerals, and organic debris.
Metals are natural components of these diverse sed-
iments, and their concentration varies significantly.
Therefore, interpretation of sediment trace metals
data is not straightforward. To identify metal conta-
mination, anthropogenic trace metal enrichment
must be distinguished from a variable natural back-
ground.
Florida estuarine sediments are produced primarily
by three sedimentation processes: 1) erosion and
redeposition of coastal and upland sediments
deposited during previous high sea level stands; 2)
in situ production and weathering of plant and ani-
mal material (e.g. shell material and reef fragments);
and 3) inshore movement of fine-grained sediment
from the open ocean. In Florida, the sediments
formed by these processes span a significant geo-
chemical range, from the silica- and aluminum-rich
sediments of northern and central Florida to the car-
bonate-rich, aluminum-poor sediments of southern
Florida and the Florida Keys.
Coastal sediments in northern and central Florida
consist of the weathering debris of exposed rocks of
the southeastern United States, as well as unconsol-
idated sediments of the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal
Plain in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. These sedi-
mentary (clastic) materials contain aluminosilicate
minerals transported to estuaries by rivers such as
the Perdido, Choctawhatchee, Apalachicola,
Ochlockonee, Suwannee, and St. Johns.
Sediments in the northern part of the state, except
for the Tarpon Springs to Big Bend area discussed
below, consist mainly of a mixture of quartz sand
and silt, and variable proportions of clay and organic
matter. The aluminum-rich clay minerals represent
weathering products of other aluminosilicate mineral
groups, such as feldspar, micas, pyroxene, and
amphibole. Because of the weathering of these
metal-bearing minerals, trace metal and aluminum
concentrations in sediments are much higher in
northern Florida than in the southern part of the
state.
Sediments along the Gulf of Mexico coast from the
Tarpon Springs area north to the Big Bend area
receive material transported by numerous spring-fed
rivers. Much of this part of Florida is a low-relief
karstic plain, with limestone and dolostone compris-
ing most of the exposed geologic formations. The
average aluminum concentration of sediments in
this region is lower than in other North Florida
coastal regions, reflecting the influence of carbonate
rocks in these drainage basins.
Sediments of Florida Bay and the Florida Keys con-
tain significant quantities of calcium carbonate.
These sediments have slowly formed from the
remains of the subtropical and tropical marine flora
and fauna. Modern and ancient coral reefs provide
a source of carbonate sedimentary material, but a
minor amount of quartz and clay material is con-
tributed by riverine and salt marsh systems. South
Florida is the only coastal sedimentary province of
the conterminous United States that is dominated by
carbonate sediments. In contrast to North Florida
sediments, south Florida estuarine sediments usual-
ly contain low levels of metals.
4.1 The Metal to Aluminum Normalization
Method for Identifying Metal Enrichment in
Florida Sediments
Interpretation of sediment metal data is complicated
by the fact that natural metal concentrations in sedi-
ments vary by orders of magnitude depending on
the sediment source region. Thus it is impossible to
quantify the amount of anthropogenic contamination
based solely on absolute metal concentrations. This
observation is important because the lack of
accounting for natural metals burdens often has led
to incorrect interpretation of contamination. In the
past, large variations in metal concentrations were
incorrectly interpreted as reflecting anthropogenic
inputs.
To distinguish natural variability from variability
induced by contamination and to compare Florida's
diverse coastal areas described above, the FDEP
developed an interpretive statistical tool based on
normalization of metal concentrations to the concen-
tration of aluminum in Florida sediments (Schropp
and Windom 1988; Windom et al. 1989; Schropp et
al. 1990). The interpretive tool corrects for natural
metal background levels in sediments. The barchart
presentation method in the Atlas identifying metal
6 Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Cadmium
Total number of samples = 1463
1 I c I
Cl
ci
IUUUu
Copper
Total number of samples = 1'
t0o
1000
100- 4 1
*o li,
Illllll
- MT--P InI I
Enrichment Factors
Enrichment Factors
Enrichment Factors
Enrichment Factors
contamination is based on the metal to aluminum
normalization method. The bars indicate the
amount of metal present above expected natural
concentrations for each location.
At present the FDEP does not have confidence that
mercury enrichment can be identified through a rela-
tionship with aluminum. To present mercury enrich-
ment information, a maximum mercury concentra-
tion associated with uncontaminated estuarine areas
is assumed typical of natural sediments.
Interpretation of the barcharts was discussed in
Section One of the Atlas. Section 2.3 of the
Technical Volume contains a detailed explanation of
the aluminum normalization method and trace metal
barchart presentations.
Figure 1 Statewide comparison of FDEP sediment samples that contain metals levels above expected natural back-
ground. Bars are expressed as enrichment factors above background (e.g. a factor of 3 to 4 represents metals concentra-
tion 3 to 4 times above expected background). The number above each bar is the percentage of samples analyzed for
that element that fall in that enrichment factor range.
SECTION 5: FLORIDA SEDIMENT TOXIC
ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS DATA
5.0 Introduction
Toxic organic contaminants can be classified based
on their chemical structure and presence or
absence of certain elements (e.g. chlorine). The
FDEP database contains five separate classes of
toxic organic contaminants: pesticides (e.g. DDT,
dieldrin), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polynu-
clear (sometimes referred to as polycyclic) aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), phenolic compounds, and
aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons. Section Five of
the Technical Volume summarizes potential sources
of the five toxic organic compound classes.
Chlorinated organic and phenolic compounds are
man-made, therefore detection of these compounds
indicates anthropogenic input or contamination.
Certain PAHs and aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons
are produced by natural processes such as forest
fires and underwater petroleum seeps. However,
the presence of these compounds in Florida coastal
sediments can be attributed almost entirely to
human activities such as the use of petroleum deriv-
atives in asphalt road construction or crude oil and
fuel spills (Eisler 1987; NOAA 1991). Careful consid-
eration is needed concerning laboratory preparation
of sediment samples. Since some organic contami-
nants are toxic in the parts per billion range
(MacDonald 1993), laboratory methods must have
adequate detection limits to produce useful sedi-
ment data.
5.1 Interpretation of Organic Contaminants Data
As with the sediment metal data, organic contami-
nants data also are normalized, in this case to the
concentration of total organic carbon (TOC) in the
sample (see Section 2.4, Technical Volume).
Naturally occurring organic molecules on sediment
particle surfaces enhance adsorption of organic
contaminants, thus sediments with elevated TOC
levels have a greater capacity to chemically bond
with organic contaminants. Thus, high TOC concen-
trations tend to reduce the bioavailability of organic
toxicants. The concentration of organic contami-
nants is normalized to account for the influence of
organic carbon upon bioavailability, and, therefore,
the potential for toxicity. High concentrations of
organic toxicants may not pose toxicity problems if
they are effectively sequestered by the TOC of the
46
0
C- IC C
.6 -7
I I
I' ll
-9 "41
Florida Department of Environmental Protection 7
sediment. On the other hand, relatively sandy sedi-
ments with moderate to low concentrations of TOC
may be toxic.
The concentrations of all analyzed compounds in an
organic contaminants class are summed together
for plotting purposes. For example, individual chlori-
nated pesticides are first measured as separate
compounds. Then the individual pesticides are
summed into a single category, which is normalized
to the TOC concentration in the sample. Similar
procedures are performed for the other organic con-
taminants classes. In the Atlas, the larger the bar
representing a certain category of organic contami-
nants the greater the potential impact on the benthic
organisms at that site. An important point to realize
is that even extremely low concentrations of organic
contaminants therefore plot on these barcharts.
SECTION 6: STATEWIDE COASTAL
CONTAMINANTS OVERVIEW AND
DISCUSSION OF ESTUARIES
6.0 Introduction
This section provides a statewide summary of
coastal sediment quality, as well as a synopsis of
sediment quality of selected estuarine systems. The
discussions, based on information shown in the
trace metals and organic contaminants maps, do
not provide detailed analysis of estuarine water qual-
ity, watershed features, or land use practices.
However, general physical characteristics such as
mean water depth, estuarine surface area, and estu-
arine drainage area (EDA), are listed for each estuar-
ine system. The EDA is the land and water compo-
nent of the watershed that directly affects an estuary
(NOAA 1985).
6.1 Statewide Summary of Coastal
Sediment Contaminants
The coastal contaminants surveys primarily were
established to help identify contaminated sites. For
this reason, the sample survey strategies were
biased, with the majority of samples collected from
sites adjacent to or near developed areas.
Therefore, the sites do not represent a spatially unbi-
ased view, and we cannot make estimates of the
proportion of the coast as a whole that may be cont-
aminated. Nevertheless, in our opinion, the surveys
provide a useful picture of estuaries affected by
development, and in that vein, allow a qualitative
statewide coastal summary.
With respect to the eight metals measured (arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, lead
and zinc), enrichment above expected natural levels
of these elements was most frequently observed for
cadmium, mercury, lead and zinc (Figure 1, page 6).
At least one of the five classes of organic contami-
nants is present in measurable concentrations in
almost 75 percent of the sites evaluated for organic
contaminants (Figure 2). As might be expected,
sites closer to shore tend to have higher contami-
nants levels and, for both metals and organic conta-
minants, stormwater runoff appears to be the major
cause of contamination of sites identified in the
Atlas. However, organic contaminants occasionally
are detected at locations far from urban areas, and
this type of contamination may be due to agricultural
and atmospheric inputs.
6.2 Estuaries of the Florida Panhandle Region
In the Atlas, the Panhandle of Florida consists of the
area that extends west from the Ochlockonee River
drainage basin to the Florida-Alabama boundary
(Map 1). Sediments of Florida Panhandle estuaries
consist mostly of quartz sand and silt, clay minerals,
and organic debris. The rivers which form these
estuaries arise in drainage basins in southern
Alabama and southern Georgia, as well as west
Florida counties.
6.2.1 Perdido Bay
Located at the boundary of Florida and Alabama,
Perdido Bay has an estuarine surface area of 86 mi2
and an average depth of just over seven feet. The
Perdido Bay estuarine drainage area (EDA) encom-
passes 1205 mi2 in the Coastal Plain in parts of
Baldwin and Escambia Counties in Alabama, and
western Escambia County in Florida (NOAA 1985).
Streams in the upper basin feed the Perdido River
and its two major tributaries, the Styx and
Blackwater Rivers. Lower in the watershed,
Elevenmile Creek and numerous small streams
enter the bay. Several facilities, including waste-
water treatment facilities and a paper mill
(Champion International), are located in the Perdido
Bay watershed.
Slight lead and zinc enrichment has been observed
in sediments of Bayou Marcus, with slight zinc
enrichment in sediments of Elevenmile Creek
(Map 2). Stormwater runoff from urban areas may
be the source of lead and zinc contamination in
Bayou Marcus (Schropp et al 1991). PAHs are pre-
sent at every FDEP site within the Perdido Bay sys-
tem, PCBs are present at three sites, and
aliphatic hydrocarbon compounds are pre-
sent at four sites (Map 65).
6.2.2 Pensacola Bay
The four major subdivisions of the
Pensacola Bay estuarine system are
Escambia Bay, Pensacola Bay, Blackwater
Bay, and East Bay. Together these water-
bodies form one of the largest estuarine
systems of Florida, encompassing over
152 mi2 of estuarine surface water area.
The EDA of these four bays covers
3480 mi2 of Escambia, Santa Rosa,
Okaloosa and Walton Counties, and parts
of some southern Alabama counties.
Average water depth in the estuary is 19
feet (NOAA 1985). Major tributaries of the
estuary include the Yellow, Blackwater and
Escambia Rivers as well as several smaller
streams. Santa Rosa Sound, located north
of Santa Rosa barrier island, provides a
hydrologic connection between the
Pensacola Bay and the Choctawhatchee
Bay estuaries.
The Pensacola Bay System is one of the
more heavily impacted estuarine systems
of Florida. Escambia Bay and East Bay
have experienced extreme submerged
vegetation losses, and there have been
widespread fluctuations in fish and shellfish
harvests (Pensacola Bay SWIM Plan 1990).
Land uses within the system's watershed
include urban development, recreation,
conservation, silviculture and agriculture.
The western part of the Pensacola Bay sys-
tem is predominantly urban whereas the
eastern portion is mostly undeveloped.
The urban center of Pensacola contains
extensive industrial, commercial, and resi-
dential development. Industrial facilities
are located along Bayou Chico, the
Escambia River, and near Escambia Bay.
Slight trace metal contamination is present
at many sites throughout the Pensacola
Bay area (Maps 2-5). However, high levels
of metal contamination have been
observed in certain parts of the bay sys-
tem. Sediments in Bayou Grande show
moderate to high enrichment factors in
several metals, particularly cadmium, lead
and zinc (Map 3). The highest metal
SUMMARY
Aromatic Hydrocarbons 70%
Chlorinated Pesticides 28%
Polychlorinated Biphenyls ss%
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
Naphthalene 7%
2- Methylnaphthalene 3%
1- Methylnaphthalene
Biphenyl
2,6 Dimethylnaphthalene 2%
Acenaphthene 11%
Acenaphthylene 2%
2,3,5- Trimethylnaphthalene
Fluorene 8%
Dibenz (a,h) anthracene 15%
Indo (1,2,3-cd) pycene 16%
Phenanthrene 57%
Anthracene 40%
1 Methylphenanthrene 56%
Fluoranthene 64%
Pyrene 61%
Chrysene 44%
Benz (a) anthracene 33%
Benzo (b) fluorenthene 32%
Benzo (k) fluorenthene
Benzo (ghi) perylene 14%
Benzo (e) pyrene 34%
Benzo (a) pyrene 35%
Perylene 80%
CHLORINATED PESTICIDE
Aldrin
Chlordane
2,4- DDD
4,4-DDE
2,4-DDE
4,4-DDT
2,4-DDT
4,4-DDT
Dieldrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Lindane
Mirex
trans Nonchlor
Endrin
Number of
Samples
0 100 200 300 4
I I I I I I I
a I
I-
I I
I I
mr
-IzJ
3% 1 I
16% I
46% E
22% ]
28%
28%
0% m
7% m m
4% I I
2% 1 I
2%I
80% w
S I
" Numbers left of bars represent the percent of samples having detectable levels of contaminants
Figure 2 Statewide comparison of FDEP sediment samples that contain
detectable levels of toxic organic contaminants. The total number of samples
analyzed for each class of organic contaminant is determined using the num-
bered graph at the top of the figure.
8 Florida Department of Environmental Protection
enrichment factors in the Pensacola Bay system are
at sites in Bayou Chico (Map 4), where two sites
have chromium and zinc enrichment greater than
ten times the expected background value. Bayou
Chico sediments also are contaminated with PAHs
and PCBs (Maps 66 and 67). These FDEP observa-
tions in Bayou Chico are supported by sediment
data of other research groups (Stone and Morgan
1991). In Pensacola Bay, PAHs and PCBs were
detected close to shore and in the central part of the
bay. Pesticides were detected at two sites and phe-
nolic compounds were detected at one site near
Pensacola Harbor (Maps 65, 66, and 67).
6.23 Choctawhatchee Bay
The Choctawhatchee Bay estuary has an estuarine
surface area of 123 mi2, and an EDA of 2259 mi2
located in portions of Okaloosa, Walton, Holmes,
Washington and Bay counties, and parts of southern
Alabama. The Choctawhatchee River is the major
tributary, but several creeks also empty into the
estuary. Average water depth is about 22 feet
(NOAA 1985). With the exception of a site near
Destin and a lead enriched site near Valparaiso, no
metal enrichment has been observed in this bay
system (Map 6). PAHs were detected at the site
near Destin, and PAHs, PCBs and pesticides were
detected at NOAA sites near Valparaiso and in east-
ern Choctawhatchee Bay (Map 68).
6.2.4 St. Andrew Bay and St. Joseph Bay
St. Andrew Bay has an estuarine surface area of
98 mi2, and an EDA of 1130 mi2 in Bay, Washington,
Jackson, Calhoun, and Gulf counties. The average
depth of the bay is 27 feet (NOAA 1985). The main
source of elevated trace metals appears to be
stormwater runoff from urbanized areas in and
around Panama City. Lead and zinc enrichment
was detected at seven sites. Mercury, cadmium,
copper and chromium enrichment was detected
(Map 7). Sediments in Watson Bayou, Massalina
Bayou, and near Sulphur Point exhibit slight to mod-
erate trace metal enrichment. PAHs,,PCBs, and
pesticides were detected at three NOAA sites, one in
the North Bay and two in St. Andrew Bay (Map 69).
East of St. Andrew Bay, St. Joseph Bay is partly sep-
arated from the Gulf of Mexico by the northward-
trending St. Joseph Spit. Some of the FDEP sites in
this system were located to detect contaminants
associated with paper mill operations, urban runoff
and marine industries. Slight to moderate mercury,
cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc enrichment is pre-
sent in this system (Map 8).
6.2.5 Apalachicola Bay
Formed by the largest river system in Florida, the
Apalachicola Bay estuary is unusual in that this sys-
tem is composed of a river delta developing behind
a sequence of barrier islands. This geomorphic situ-
ation will eventually eliminate the estuary by sedi-
ment infilling (Donoghue 1988). The Apalachicola
River is formed by the confluence of the
Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers near Bainbridge,
Georgia, and water quality of the river has been
affected by agricultural and nonpoint source runoff
from both Georgia and Alabama, as well as Florida.
The estuary is highly productive, providing over 90%
of the Florida oyster harvest, as well as supporting
shrimp and commercial fishing industries.
The Apalachicola estuarine system covers an area
of about 210 mi2 and has an average depth of over
27 feet. The EDA of the estuary in Florida covers
2970 mi2 and occupies parts of Gulf, Franklin,
Liberty, Jackson and Calhoun counties (NOAA
1985). The estuary is bounded by four barrier
islands: St. Vincent Island, Cape (or Little) St.
George Island, St. George Island, and Dog Island.
Apalachicola Bay sediments have the highest aver-
age aluminum concentrations observed in Florida
estuarine systems and also have the highest trace
metals background concentrations in Florida.
Virtually no trace metal enrichment was detected by
the FDEP or NOAA surveys (Map 9). However the
NOAA survey detected PAHs, PCBs, and pesticides
at three sites (Map 70). A recent estuarine sediment
study (Livingston 1983) indicated that overall the
sediments were relatively free of anthropogenic
impact, except in some near-shore areas where cad-
mium, chromium, and zinc appeared to be slightly
enriched above predicted background values.
6.3 Estuaries of the Big Bend Region
For purposes of the Atlas, the Big Bend Region
extends from Apalachee Bay south along the coast
to the area near the Anclote River (Map 10). The
estuaries of the Big Bend region appear to be the
least impacted systems in the state. With the excep-
tion of the Suwannee River, riverine systems in the
Big Bend may be classified as spring-fed rivers and
even the Suwannee River discharge is greatly
increased by contributions from springs. The Big
Bend estuaries have developed over an ancient
shallow-water carbonate platform (the Floridan
Platform). Geologically the Big Bend coastline is
described as a sand-starved, low wave energy sys-
tem dominated by coastal marshes (Hine et al.
1988). Compared to other Florida coastal areas,
there is little urban development in this region.
No metal contamination was detected in the FDEP
or NOAA sites in Apalachee Bay (Map 11),
Steinhatchee River estuary (Map 12), or Suwannee
River estuary (Map 13). Very slight cadmium enrich-
ment was present at a site near Cedar Key (Map 13).
The NOAA surveys detected PAHs, PCBs, and pesti-
cides at sites in Apalachee Bay, the West Pass of
the Suwannee River, and near Cedar Key (Map 71).
Six of the nine FDEP stations in the Crystal River
estuary exhibit copper enrichment (Map 14).
Copper enrichment is almost certainly due to use of
copper-bearing herbicides to control aquatic weed
growth in parts of the estuary. The FDEP survey
also determined slight to moderate cadmium,
chromium, lead and zinc enrichment in the Crystal
River-Kings Bay estuarine sediments. The United
States Fish and Wildlife Service conducted a sedi-
ment survey in the Crystal River area to evaluate
metal enrichment by utilizing the metal-to-aluminum
normalization method. Copper enrichment was
detected at every USFW site, and arsenic and zinc
were elevated at some sites. Concern was
expressed that high copper concentrations in this
system may adversely impact the West Indian man-
atee population in this area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1991).
No metal enrichment was detected in the
Chassahowitzka River system (Map 14). Four of
nine sites in the Anclote River estuary near Tarpon
Springs show slight to moderate enrichment in the
following metals: cadmium, copper, mercury, lead
and zinc (Map 15). No metal enrichment was
observed in the Pithlachascotee River estuary.
6.4 Tampa Bay
The Tampa Bay estuarine system, with an estuarine
surface area of just over 400 mi2, is the largest estu-
ary in Florida. The Y-shaped estuary has an EDA of
1860 mi2 which covers parts of Pasco, Polk, Pinellas,
Hillsborough, Hardee, Manatee, and Sarasota coun-
ties. The bay, with an average depth of just over 16
feet, receives runoff from nine rivers, the largest of
which include the Hillsborough, Alafia, Little
Manatee, and Manatee Rivers (NOAA 1985). Four
major urban centers (Tampa, Clearwater, St.
Petersburg, and Bradenton) occupy portions of the
EDA, and agricultural activities occur in the Little
Manatee and Manatee River watersheds. Tampa
Bay is an highly urbanized estuary which contains
three major ports, several ship repair facilities, and
numerous marinas.
In the Atlas metal contaminants maps, the Tampa
Bay region is subdivided into five sections:
Hillsborough Bay, Old Tampa Bay, western Tampa
Bay and Boca Ciega Bay, southeastern Tampa Bay,
and the Manatee River area (Map 16). Hillsborough
Bay is itself subdivided into five sections (Map 17).
In the organic contaminants maps, the Tampa Bay
region is subdivided into three sections (Map 72).
Stormwater runoff from urban and residential areas
around the bay is an important non-point source of
contaminants. Significant metal contamination is
present in parts of Hillsborough Bay. The major
source of this contamination is likely stormwater dis-
charges, although atmospheric inputs of contami-
nants also occurs. In northwestern Hillsborough
Bay, numerous sites exhibit metal enrichment (Map
18). Perhaps the most heavily impacted area is the
Ybor shipping channel where the lead enrichment
factor exceeds ten times the maximum expected
background value. Every metal is enriched at one
or more of the sites in this map area, and most sites
exhibit enrichment of several metals. Metal enrich-
ment is present at many sites along the western
shore of the Davis Islands. As is often the case
adjacent to urban shorelines, high metal levels sig-
nal the presence of toxic organic contaminants. As
such, PAHs, PCBs, and pesticides were detected at
the NOAA site south of Davis Islands (Map 73). A
joint study conducted by NOAA and the FDEP has
identified sites toxic to test organisms within the
Ybor Channel as well as in other areas of Tampa
Bay (Long et al. 1991; Long etal. in preparation).
In northeastern Hillsborough Bay, including East
Bay and McKay Bay, every site exhibits metal
enrichment to some degree (Map 19). Enrichment
factors are lower in west-central Hillsborough Bay
(Map 20) than in northern Hillsborough Bay. In east-
central Hillsborough Bay, some sites exhibit moder-
ate enrichment factors while others exhibit no metal
enrichment (Map 21). The Alafia River sediments
exhibit elevated levels of metals, especially cadmi-
um, lead, and zinc (Map 21), as well as the pres-
ence of PAHs, PCBs, and pesticides (Map 73). In
southern Hillsborough Bay, one site has extremely
high enrichment of cadmium, copper, and lead
(Map 22). Slight metal enrichment also occurs at
other sites in this part of the bay.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection 9
--
In southern Old Tampa Bay, metal enrichment fac-
tors were for the most part fairly low (Map 23).
Cadmium is a common metal contaminant at these
sites. Sites in Bayboro Harbor near downtown St.
Petersburg exhibit enrichment in many metals. The
NOAA sediment survey detected PAHs, PCBs, and
pesticides at sites close to shore, as well as in the
center of Old Tampa Bay (Maps 71 and 74). Slight
levels of metal enrichment, as well as PAHs, PCBs
and pesticides, were detected at NOAA sites in
Boca Ciega Bay (Maps 24 and 72). Slight metal
enrichment was detected in southeastern Tampa
Bay and in the Little Manatee River sediments (Map
25). PAHs, PCBs, and pesticides were detected in
Cockroach Bay (Map 75). Agricultural areas adja-
cent to Cockroach Bay likely provided the source of
pesticides within this waterbody. In the Manatee
River area, lead and zinc enrichment is present at
several sites near Bradenton (Map 26).
6.5 Charlotte Harbor and Caloosahatchee River
The southwest Florida coast has one of the highest
population growth rates in the state. The Charlotte
Harbor/Caloosahatchee River estuarine system is
the second largest estuary in the state and supports
highly productive sport and commercial fisheries.
Charlotte Harbor, formed by the marine inundation
of the Myakka and Peace Rivers, has an EDA of
5030 mi2 which contains all or parts of Sarasota, De
Soto, Hardee, Charlotte, and Lee counties. This part
of the system has an average depth of over eight
feet. The EDA for the Caloosahatchee River estuary,
at just over 1400 mi2, is located in parts of Charlotte,
Glades, Lee and Hendry counties. Average depth is
just over six feet (NOAA 1985). Two cities, Port
Charlotte and Punta Gorda, are located in the
Charlotte Harbor drainage basin, while the cities of
Fort Myers and Cape Coral are located in the
Caloosahatchee River drainage basin (Maps 27 and
76).
Sites in the Charlotte Harbor and Caloosahatchee
River estuaries exhibit slight metal enrichment
(Maps 28, 29, and 30). Slight lead and zinc enrich-
ment is present in the Caloosahatchee River near
Fort Myers. However, FDEP and NOAA surveys
detected PAHs, PCBs, and pesticides in Charlotte
Harbor and the Caloosahatchee River (Maps 77 and
78). PCBs were detected at six out of seven sites in
San Carlos Bay and the Caloosahatchee River (Map
78).
6.6 Everglades Region
In the Atlas, the Everglades region is defined as the
geographic area between Naples and Cape Sable
(Map 31). Numerous small rivers drain the extensive
marshlands of the western Everglades and flow into
the Ten Thousand Islands area. Average water
depth in the Ten Thousand Islands estuary is
extremely shallow, at just over four feet (NOAA
1985). Although limited metal enrichment was
detected (Maps 32 and 33), the FDEP and NOAA
sediment surveys detected PAHs, PCBs, and pesti-
cides at four of five sites (Map 79). Estuarine and
freshwater sediment quality studies by the Collier
County Pollution Control Department identified cad-
mium enrichment at certain sites. Organic contami-
nants such as pesticides were also identified. These
data are not plotted in the Atlas but are available
from the Collier County Pollution Control
Department (Grabe 1991a; 1991 b).
6.7 Florida Bay and the Florida Keys
As noted earlier, sediments of Florida Bay and the
Florida Keys are mineralogically different from sedi-
ments in other parts of Florida. Carbonate minerals
such as calcite and aragonite (both CaCO,) consti-
tute a larger percentage of sediment in this part of
Florida. However, clay minerals and fine-grained
quartz sand and silt are also present. Although the
natural metals burden (background) in these sedi-
ments is much lower than sediments in the rest of
the state, the metal-to-aluminum geochemical rela-
tionship still allows for determination of the degree
of anthropogenic contamination. Metal enrichment
is present near urbanized areas in the Keys (Map
34), but no metal enrichment was detected in the
open areas of Florida Bay. No organic contami-
nants were detected at FDEP sites evaluated in this
region, therefore no map for these substances was
generated.
6.8 Southeast Region
In the Atlas, the southeast region encompasses the
area from the Loxahatchee River estuary near
Jupiter south through Biscayne Bay to Barnes
Sound (Maps 35 and 80). The Biscayne Bay estuar-
ine drainage area of 1850 mi2 is located in Dade and
Broward counties. The bay has an average depth of
7.5 feet (NOAA 1985). Numerous sediment types
have been identified in Biscayne Bay, indicating the
highly variable nature of this bay system. The bay
represents the area where predominantly carbonate
sedimentary environments of the Florida Keys and
Florida Bay meet the predominantly plastic sedimen-
tary environments of eastern Florida. Adjacent to
the largest population center in Florida, Biscayne
Bay has experienced significant degradation.
The FDEP conducted intensive sediment sampling
in the vicinity of Miami, as well as sampling near Fort
Lauderdale and in the Card Sound area of southern
Biscayne Bay (Maps 36, 38, 81 and 83). Metal
enrichment was identified in a marina in Card Sound
in southern Biscayne Bay. This is one of the few
areas in the state where significant arsenic enrich-
ment is present. Slight lead and zinc enrichment
was detected in Biscayne Bay near the mouth of
Snapper Creek. The FDEP survey did not detect
organic contaminants in sediments of Snapper
Creek, which drains a large residential area of cen-
tral and southern Dade County. The NOAA survey
detected PAHs, PCBs, and pesticides at a site in
south-central Biscayne Bay (Map 81).
In the FDEP and NOAA surveys, the Miami River
contains the most contaminated sediments in the
state (Map 39). Every site in the river (canal) system
has at least one metal enriched more than ten times
the expected background value. Two sites have two
metals over ten times the expected background,
seven sites have three metals over ten times back-
ground, and two sites have four metals over ten
times background. One site (MIR-3) has a lead
enrichment factor of over 110 times the expected
background value. Lead and zinc are commonly
ten times above expected background in Miami
River sediments, but cadmium, chromium, copper,
and mercury are also enriched to concentrations ten
times above background. PAHs and PCBs are pre-
sent at every Miami River site, and pesticides were
detected at two sites (Map 84). The FDEP survey
detected metal and organic compound contamina-
tion at sites south and east of Claughton Island and
near the Port of Miami, as well as in open areas of
Biscayne Bay (Maps 40, 41, 85, and 86). Although
there are numerous potential sources of contami-
nants in this area, the FDEP sites appear to show a
sediment contaminant "plume" in Biscayne Bay
stemming from the Miami River. These findings are
significant because these data indicate areas in the
Bay well removed from sources of contaminants
(e.g. stormwater outfalls) are experiencing
encroachment of contaminants.
Sites in the Little River and in adjacent areas of
northern Biscayne Bay are enriched in every mea-
sured metal. As in the Miami River, some Little River
sites have lead and zinc enrichment factors more
than ten times above expected background (Map
37). PAHs and PCBs are present at every Little
River site and virtually every site in Biscayne Bay
near the mouth of the river. Pesticides were detect-
ed at one site in the Little River (Map 82). Similar to
the Miami River, but to a lesser extent, the Little
River appears to be contributing significant contami-
nants loading to adjacent areas of Biscayne Bay.
Extensive residential and urban development has
occurred in the Fort Lauderdale area, resulting in
significant degradation of the coastal and estuarine
habitats. Metal contamination is present in the New
River sediments near Fort Lauderdale, with particu-
larly high levels of lead and zinc. Enrichment of
chromium, copper, mercury, and nickel also was
detected (Map 36). Some of the highest levels of
PAHs and PCBs in the FDEP database are found in
the New River sites. Pesticides were also detected
in these sediments (Map 81).
Both metal and organic contaminants are ubiquitous
north of Fort Lauderdale, but are usually present in
much lower levels than at sites near Miami and Fort
Lauderdale. Lead and zinc enrichment is present at
most sites, and mercury enrichment also occurs at
many sites. A few sites in the Lake Worth Lagoon
north of the city of Lake Worth have significant
enrichment in metals, particularly at a site just north
of the entrance of the West Palm Beach Canal to the
Lagoon (Maps 42 and 43). PAHs and PCBs also
were detected slightly south of West Palm Beach
(Map 87).
6.9 East Central Region
The east central region represented in the Atlas con-
sists of the Indian River Lagoon (IRL) system, which
is composed of three interconnected estuarine
lagoons Mosquito Lagoon, Indian River Lagoon,
and Banana River Lagoon all protected by a series
of barrier islands. The lagoonal system extends for
a distance of over 150 miles through six counties,
from Volusia County in the north to Palm Beach
County in the south It varies in width between 0.5
to 5.5 miles (Maps 44 and 88), and contains both
true estuarine subsystems (e.g. St. Lucie estuary)
and lagoonal systems (e.g. Mosquito Lagoon). The
IRL estuarine drainage area is nearly 1250 mi2 and
the average depth is just under six feet (NOAA
1985).
Significant alteration of the original water circulation
patterns of the IRL system has occurred from con-
struction of bridges, causeways, navigation chan-
nels, and upland drainage facilities. Wide fluctua-
10 Florida Department of Environmental Protection
tions in freshwater entering the estuarine system
produce biologically undesirable salinity variations
and increases in sedimentation. Habitat and
species diversity in the IRL system has been
adversely affected by declining water and sediment
quality, and loss of seagrass habitat. Numerous
marinas and boat yards contribute to locally elevat-
ed levels of metals and organic contaminants
(Indian River SWIM Plan, 1989).
Little metal enrichment has been detected in the
northern region of the IRL system (Map 45). In the
central part of the lagoon system, near the southern
part of Merritt Island, slight to moderate metal
enrichment is present (Map 46). Pesticides were
detected at two sites near Cocoa (Map 89).
Enrichment in cadmium, copper, and zinc was
detected in the United States Navy turning basin in
the Port Canaveral area (Maps 47 and 90).
Pesticides were also detected in the turning basin.
Cadmium, copper, mercury, lead, and zinc enrich-
ment was detected at a site near Eau Gallie, and
lead and zinc enrichment was detected near
Sebastian (Map 48). Slight metal enrichment, usual-
ly lead, was detected near Fort Pierce (Map 49).
PAHs, PCBs, and pesticides were detected by
NOAA in the IRL system north of the city of
Sebastian (Map 91).
6.10 Northeast Region
The largest estuarine waterbody in the northeast
part of Florida is the St. Johns River system, which
extends over a distance of 300 miles from St. Lucie
County northward to Duval County. The EDA is over
6500 mi2 and the average depth of the estuary is 14
feet. Tidal influence is observed slightly upstream of
Lake George, a distance of over 120 miles from the
Atlantic Ocean (NOAA 1985). As is the case with
Florida estuaries adjacent to urban centers, the St.
Johns River estuary is affected by point and non-
point source pollution. Deteriorating water and sedi-
ment quality are problems which have approached
a critical state in certain areas of the estuary (Lower
St. Johns River SWIM Plan 1992).
The sampling programs of the FDEP, NOAA, and
Mote Marine Laboratory (MML) were located in the
portion of the river system referred to as the Lower
St. Johns River (LSJR). Site locations of the FDEP
and MML extended well into the freshwater zone,
with the most inland site located in the northern end
of Lake George in Putnam County (Maps 50 and
92). The high number of sampling sites in the LSJR
system in Duval County required separate index
maps for metal and organic contaminants (Maps 52
and 93).
Slight metal enrichment was detected in five of
twelve sites in the Blount Island/Mill Cove area
downstream of Jacksonville, but PAHs, PCBs, pesti-
cides, and aliphatic hydrocarbon compounds were
detected at many of these sites (Maps 53 and 94).
Slight to moderate trace metal enrichment was
detected in the LSJR near the City of Jacksonville at
the confluence of St. Johns and Trout Rivers, but
PAHs, PCBs, and pesticides are present at virtually
every site (Maps 54 and 95). The MML site located
in the Trout River has elevated levels of cadmium,
copper, mercury, lead, and zinc. This tributary to
the St. Johns River receives stormwater runoff from
parts of northern Jacksonville.
Metal enrichment is present at most sites near
downtown Jacksonville (Map 55). Organic contami-
nants also are present at numerous sites in this area
(Map 96). Upstream of downtown Jacksonville,
slight metal enrichment was detected in the open
river sections of the LSJR, but high levels of metals
enrichment were detected in the MML sites in the
Ortega River. One or more classes of organic cont-
aminants were detected at every site in this map
area (Maps 56 and 97). Slight metal enrichment,
usually lead and zinc, was detected in the central
part of the LSJR system in Clay and Putnam
Counties (Maps 57 and 58), but two or more classes
of organic contaminants were detected at every site
in this area (Maps 98 and 99). Aliphatic hydrocar-
bons were detected at five FDEP sites in southern
Clay and northern Putnam counties.
Low levels of metal contamination were detected in
sites located near the river mouth (Map 59). Slight
copper enrichment was detected at sites in Pablo
Creek and lead enrichment was detected at a site
west of Mayport. PAHs, PCBs, and pesticides were
detected at sites near the river mouth by both NOAA
and MML. PAHs and PCBs were detected in Pablo
Creek, and PAHs were detected in the Tolomato
River north of South Ponte Vedra Beach (Map 100).
Metal enrichment was detected occasionally at sites
along the Atlantic coastline from the mouth of the
SJR in Duval County south to Mosquito Lagoon in
northern Brevard County (Maps 60, 61, 62 and 63).
Enrichment in copper, lead and zinc occurs fre-
quently in this coastal area. PAHs were detected at
every site in the Matanzas or Halifax Rivers in St.
Johns, Flagler, and Volusia Counties. PCBs also are
present at many of these sites, and pesticides were
detected at one site in St. Johns County (Map 101).
Generally other sites sampled in the northeast
region exhibit lower levels of contamination.
Virtually no metal contamination was detected at the
three sites in the St. Marys River estuary in Nassau
County, indicative of the relatively unimpacted
nature of this estuarine system (Map 51).
SECTION 7:
CONCLUSION
Most of the highest concentrations for any particular
contaminant are found at sites near Tampa,
Pensacola, Miami, and Jacksonville. However, high
contaminant concentrations are occasionally found
near other cities. For example, some of the highest
organic contaminants levels occur in the New River
in Fort Lauderdale. Perhaps surprisingly, contami-
nants are common in less developed areas. For
example, PAHs, PCBs and pesticides have been
detected in the Charlotte Harbor-Caloosahatchee
River area, and elevated levels of copper occur in
sediments of the Crystal River National Wildlife
Refuge.
Analysis of the FDEP sediment chemistry database
indicates that statewide the most common metal
contaminants are (listed in decreasing degree of
contamination) lead, zinc, mercury, cadmium, cop-
per, chromium, nickel, and arsenic. The most com-
monly encountered class of organic contaminant is
the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, followed by
polychlorinated biphenyls.
Stormwater runoff appears to be the major cause of
contamination of sites identified in the Atlas. As a
result of pollution control efforts by local, county,
state, and federal agencies, the practices resulting
in coastal contamination may be abating, but they
have not stopped. Major accomplishments have
been made in controlling point sources of pollution
and, more recently, environmental protection pro-
grams have increased efforts to control urban
stormwater discharges and agricultural land runoff.
Monitoring the effectiveness of these controls is a
challenge that will face the state for many years. As
this document illustrates, sediment monitoring
efforts in combination with other assessment activi-
ties are essential in keeping a finger on the pulse of
coastal ecosystems of Florida.
An initial evaluation of the potential for biological
effects associated with contaminants levels at sites
represented in the Atlas is provided in the document
Development of an Approach to the Assessment of
Sediment Quality in Florida Coastal Waters
(MacDonald 1993). This report can be obtained
from the authors of the Atlas.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection 11
REFERENCES
Culliton, T.J., Warren, T.R., Goodspeed, T.R., Remer, D.R., Blackwell,
C.M. and McDonough, J.J., 1990. Fifty years of population change
along the nation's coast: 1960-2010. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. Rockville, Maryland. 41 pp.
Donoghue, J.F., 1988. Evaluation of sediment loading processes in
the Apalachicola Bay Estuary. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Technical Memorandum NOS-MEMD,
72 pp.
Eisler, R., 1987. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon hazards to fish,
wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Biological Report 85 (1.11), 81 pp.
Grabe, S., 1991a, Sediment quality in estuarine waters of Collier
County: April and August 1991. Collier County Pollution Control
Department. 14 pp.
Grabe, S., 1991b. Inland sediment quality annual report, 1991. Collier
County Pollution Control Department. 15 pp.
Hine, A.C., Belknap, D.F., Hutton, J.G., Osking, E.B. and Evans, M.W.,
1988. Recent geological history of modern sedimentary processes
along an incipient, low-energy, epicontinental-sea coastline: north-
west Florida. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, vol. 58,
567-579.
Indian River Lagoon SWIM Plan, 1989. St. Johns River Water
Management District and the South Florida Water Management
District. 100 pp.
Livingston, R.J., 1983. Identification and analysis of sources of pollu-
tion in the Apalachicola River and Bay system. As cited in the
Apalachicola River and Bay Management Plan, Northwest Florida
Water Management District.
Long, E.R., MacDonald, D. and Cairncross, C., 1991. Status and
trends in toxicants and the potential for their biological effects in
Tampa Bay, Florida. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 58, 77 pp.
Long, E.R. et al., in preparation. Magnitude and extent of sediment
toxicity in Tampa Bay, Florida. National Status and Trends
Program, Bioeffects Assessment Program.
Lower St. Johns River SWIM Plan, 1992. St. Johns River Water
Management District.
MacDonald, D.D., 1993. Development of an approach to the assess-
ment of sediment quality in Florida coastal waters. Prepared for the
Department of Environmental Regulation. Two volumes.
Mote Marine Laboratory Report, 1988. Characterization of Baseline
Conditions of the Physical, Chemical, and Microbiological
Environments in the St. Johns River Estuary. Prepared by Pierce,
R.H., Dixon, L.K., and Brown, R.C. under contract with the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation. 111 pp. plus appen-
dices.
National Research Council, 1990. Managing troubled waters: the role
of marine environmental monitoring. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C. 125 pp.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 1985.
National Estuarine Inventory Data Atlas. Volume 1. Strategic
Assessment Branch, Ocean Assessment Division, NOAA,
Washington, D.C.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 1991.
Second summary of data on chemical contaminant in sediments
from the National Status and Trends Program, NOAA Technical
Memorandum NOS OMA 59. 148 pp. Rockville, Maryland.
Pensacola Bay System SWIM Plan, 1990. Northwest Florida Water
Management District. 173 pp. plus appendices.
Schropp, S.J. and Windom, H.L., 1988. A guide to the interpretation of
metal concentration in estuarine sediments. Coastal Zone
Management Section, Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation, 44 pp.
Schropp, S. J., Calder, F.D., Sloane, G.M. and Windom, H.L., 1990.
Interpretation of metal concentration in estuarine sediments of
Florida using aluminum as a reference element. Estuaries, v. 13,
227-235.
Schropp, S.J., Calder, F.D., Sloane, G.M., Swanson. K.O., Carlton,
J.C., Halcomb, G.L., Windom, H.L., Huan, F., Taylor, R.B., and
Hull, T., 1991. A report on physical and chemical processes affect-
ing the management of Perdido Bay: Results of the Perdido Bay
Interstate Project. Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation, 323 pp.
Stone, G.W. and Morgan, J.P., 1991. Heavy metal concentrations in
subsurface sediments, Bayou Chico, Pensacola, Florida. Report
prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
by the Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Research, The University
of West Florida, Pensacola.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 1991. Copper and other cont-
aminants in King's Bay and Crystal River (Florida) sediments: impli-
cations for impact on the West Indian Manatee. Prepared by C.F.
Facemire. 45 pp, 1 appendix.
Windom, H.L., Schropp, S.J., Calder, F.D., Ryan, J.D., Smith, R.G., Jr.,
Burney, L.C., Lewis, F.G., and Rawlinson, C.H., 1989. Natural trace
metal concentrations in estuarine and coastal marine sediments of
the southeastern United States. Environmental Science and
Technology, vol. 23, 314-320.
Map 1 Panhandle Region Index to Insets
Map 2 Panhandle Region Inset A -
Pensacola Bay and Perdido Bay
Map 3 Panhandle Region Inset A-1 -
Pensacola Bay Area/Pensacola Harbor
Map 4 Panhandle Region Inset A-2 -
NorthernPensacola Bay
-----------.-
\ 5.0
5.0"
LO -L
A
5.0
I'VN CS
A-
t.L-
5,0
86PEN1
to -
too
S.0
1.0
"I' ,
S" l~f-
5.0
to
I' [ 2
5.0
10 _ ---
to': o
f%.' C9
A 5.0
to - i-
) I "o
\ 5.0
1.0 1
i % 1 4o
Fair Point
Pensacola
Shores
Map 5 Panhandle Region Inset A-3 -
Southern Pensacola Bay
5.0
0
PNB 5
0 0.5 1.0 km
to
.I- %..-r
5.0
.o0 L
wi' ', ~~l
Panhandle Region
Inset A
-3
Southern Pensacola Bay
Metal Contaminants
I ~ I ~------ ----~ ---~ ~
~ -
5.0
Li~. -d~
1.0 ", -0
r N-- 4835'
) 0
Map 6 Panhandle Region Inset B -
Choctawhatchee Bay
-4
3 D
-U
(DIF
* m
o
'0
0
i-4
5.0
1.0 L
SJB 8
S t
to
0
SJB 3
5.0
J L
to L
SJB 7
-O -
SJB 10 8/86
5.0
1.0 L
SJB 10 7/90
5.0
1.0 L _
o
86 A Pf'P
5.0
87 .1 '/'
GULF
OF
oseph
Bay
SJB 9
Cape San Bias
Panhandle Region
M EXICO I0 nset D
SSt. Joseph Bay
Metal Contaminani
0 2 4 6 km
-o
-0
00)
CD
::Y
TI
0
Co
03
0CD
IMI
'II
1SJB
SJB 6
tO
0
SJB I
ts
SJB 4
Map 9 Panhandle Region Inset E -
Apalachicola Bay
Hiriliilt n (
J.-frIc.r .i rI (
Modisoni (C
TavI oiv Co
LJUWtiiflet' Co
Frcirjkli [Co .... i-
S: LaFvette Co
Dixie Co
Big I3end Regionr
Index for Inset Series
Metal Contaminants c
Gnkhrnh1t ~i'i
Le% .' Co
Barcharts represent the enrichment factor.
which is the ratio of the measured metal
concentration in the sediment to the
maximum expected natural concentration
i00
NOTE When no bar is shown, metal
concentration is within the expected natural
range A circle below a bar indicates that
no data were available, A cross above a bar
Indicates that metal concentration exceeded
IOx the maximum expected natural value
Hernando Co.
Pasco Co
20 0 20 40 km
I f I 1 l.-
- I
/1 L~~
__
-~-";
Wikul] Co
larc hi .i I',
20 0
20 40 kmn
Map 11 Big Bend Region Inset A -
Apalachee Bay
CD
0 :3
CD m
CS,)
Mco
cnn
CD
'-4
wr
Big Bend Region
Inset B
Steinhatchee River
Metal Contaminants
0 4 8 12 km
Lafayette Co.
a
CE.
Piney Point
5.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
.- I 2
Deadman
STR 3
Bay
10.0
5.0
1.0
STR
STR 4
- -- S:
t 3/91 ,.
"i.
~C
e; -c'' "
Pepperfish Keys
L-.
O
Dixie Co.
Horseshoe
Cove
0 2 4 6 km
88S!1'0 P
5.0
1.0
SWR I Suwanneee
Sound
5.0
1.0 ...
to
5.0
1.0
C) 87CK'?,
5.0o
WCaccasassa
Bay
CKY 4
CKY 3
Big Bend Region
Inset C
5.0
1.0 -
CKY I
Suwannee River and Cedar Keys
Metal Contaminants
S .
5.0
1.0
CKY 2
CA,
w
a CD
w0-.
CD0
C')
ET
Cf)
CD
CD
__
Levy Co.
d7
3C*
vo
ac
ID
m~
(o
(DSn
cn
w0
0O
o
Map 15 Big Bend Region Inset E -
Anclote River
CO
--0
0-
-o
CD
Cetal Contaminants
CD
3
"0
0
co
5-
CQ
CO)
16-
rTampa Bay Region
C St Petersburg A AA *
A A
D
00
Hillsborough Co
Barcharts represent the enrichment factor,
which is the ratio of the measured metal
concentration in the sediment to the
maximum expected natural concentration.
range. A circle below a bar indicates that
Sno data were available. A cross above a bar
Bradenton I -D
indicates that metal concentration exceeded
S10x the maximum expected natural value.
O 6 12 18 km
-0
-.
C)
0 -C
05-
1Q-
O
W ,
0
5-
(1) co
z
"r
00
3D
0a"
513
C)3
-r -
0
0-(0
SI
0
CD--
-CD
Itb
1!
rbi~
00
o
-w
-r~r
I/)
a-
-r
Co
Co
57l
co cn
>e
-0
O--
CD
co-
TIW
*-oo
CQc
C
m
-4.
Map 22 Tampa Bay Region Inset A-5 -
Southern Hillsborough Bay
N,
0-
CD
1-3
-Of*
!t
< -a
Be0
(D
3
_0
o
O 3
_O
05
--7
05
CD
^<
Map 25 Tampa Bay Region Inset D -
Southeastern Tampa Bay
37
Map 26 Tampa Bay Region Inset E -
Manatee River
0
;o
CDl
OD
5."
.-'o
CD ,
50
CDW
a) 0
CDE=
to C
S-r
2,
0-
x O
rT
Map 28 Charlotte Harbor Region Inset A
Map 29 Charlotte Harbor Region Inset B -
Southern Charlotte Harbor
Map 30 Caloosahatchee River Region
Inset C Fort Myers
Barcharts represent the enrichment factor.
which is the ratio of the measured metal
concentration in the sediment to the
maximum expected natural concentration
Naples / 1 [
10.0
10 I I
NOTE: When no bar is shown, metal
concentration is within the expected natural
range. A circle below a bar Indicates that
no data w-re available. A cross above a bar
indicates ,hat metal concentration exceeded
SlOx the maximum expected natural value.
A Everglades City
SCollier Co.
A Mon r o e Co.
A
KI've
Everglades Region P Sable
Index to Insets
Metal Contaminants 6
B
"0
fir
0 10 20 30 km
CA)
CD
CD
I
CD
o
5.
5-
a
(D
co
r.
CD
C^ pt
1\
_0
-1
-m
CQD
g.
no
-I *
C(D
*0-
o-
cXa
m
r"
CD
CD
( CI.
cO
CD m
> CD
CD
w 0
3n
Map 34 Florida Bay and Florida Keys Region
Southeast Region
Index to Insets
Metal Contaminants
West Pair
Beach
Lake
Worth
3 14 28 42 km
Polrn Beach Co
Fort La
Broward
Dade Co.
Miami
Rtsmyne
Homestead
Martin Co.
Barcharts represent the enrichment factor,
which is the ratio of the measured metal
concentration in the sediment to the
maximum expected natural concentration.
.0 ii .
10.0
5.0
Lii
NOTE: When no bar is shown, metal
concentration is within the expected natural
range. A circle below a bar indicates that
no data were available. A cross above a bar
indicates that metal concentration exceeded
lOx the maximum expected natural value.
3 c
CD0)
I,.
a c
CD
-W "-
CD
CD
cn
co
>B
Map 37 Southeast Region Inset A-1 -
Northern Biscayne Bay
Map 38 Southeast Region Index to Inset
Series A-2 Miami/Biscayne Bay
Map 39 Southeast Region Inset A-2a -
Miami River
_0
0
0
CO
CD
r)
co"
(D
5r-
0
Map 41 Southeast Region Inset A-2c -
Biscayne Bay
I0
4-0
C/)
0
0
oo&
c(D_
c0
c- D
CD
0
O
0
Map 43 Southeast Region Inset B-1 -
Riviera Beach Area
S. East Central Region
volusia co. Index to Insets
I Organic Contaminants
-Seminole Co.
- Titus hville A
S Cape Kennedy
Orange Co.
Osceola Co.
^I \ I
-- I \ -
A Melbourne
K I
Brevard Co. L B
Polk Co.
2_ Vero B,1n-h
Hardee Co. Okeechobee Co. In
SIndian River Co -.
B-rchart P reprPnr, Itre ratil, o. rmenR urged For Pierc
orgrnnc Itlaminnn coruntenltrblu ton lo FIo Pi r
mr ,asurrd I.onrrrlrat.rr, c, total orgarir
c 3rbor, I IT,('
1C
S s..' -,
4 .i '
NOTE I nen nc. Oar is *r.o n no urganic St. Lucie Co.
ccritorm nantl detected A ,.,rcle belo I lhe
tar indicated n. la.'in ,err hi4latCle A .'rc -- -...- L
above the bar Indir.lecs he normalized value
of Il.e mIeauri.il jiJgrirl ciio nla rn anr
L..anen ratI.i, .. .de d .d.je Of 10
,bo.e 2r,. 0 12 24" 36 km
0-1 36 km Martin Co.
-o
m
0
-0
(D
0
a
CD
.*
rl-
30
East Central Region
Inset A
Indian River Lagoon/Titusville
Metal Contaminants
0 4 8 12 km
5.0
to------
1.0
.'i 14 9 .',
5.0
1.0-_
IRL 14 9 'i
Volusia Co.
Brevard
Co.
N
\i
\
Titusville
Merritt
Island
CD
CD
c C
> (
Ci)-'
1CD~
ca
rCD
CLC
Area
5.0
1.0
IRL 9
IRL tO
1.0
IRL 10
5.0
1.0
IRL 21
IRL 21
!IL 22
5.0
1.0 L
IRL 23
"
*I
IL
g
d
Map 46 East Central Region Inset B Indian
River Lagoon/Banana River Area
Map 47 East Central Region Inset B-1 -
Port Canaveral
CD
0
05
0o
0
-4.
go
5.
Qa
IB'
70
o
Cmt
CD
0D0
Ir+
>0
)r
CD
01
_0
z
0
Z
0
CD
(0
0-
0.
(D
0"
(D
rc0
n
CD
>2
CD
o
B.33
>(Qr
0'
jD
o0
0
CD'
C) CD
00:
?O(
( 0-
CD
CO
CD
cn
70
U Z
:3
o
(D
CD
CD
DO
Map 54 Northeast Region Inset B-2 -
Trout River Area
Map 55 Northeast Region Inset B-3 -
Jacksonville Area
"O
(n
OZ
-o
CD -
0
CD
(D c
-U--
-'0
CD
Cl
_0
-4
z
0
O.
o :,
(Dp,
raln
cDr
(no
CD
CD
CD
CD
Duval Co.
St Johns Co.
5.0
tO L-EL
SJR 18
5.0
to0 -
Orangedale
SJR 19
Springs
5.0
M25 5/87
5.0
M'' 9/87
SJR 17
Bayard Pt
Northeast Region
Inset C
Green
Cove
Springs
Metal Contaminants
\^
Clay
Co.
Putnam Co.
SJR 16
Racy Pt
Cedar Pt
0 2 4 6 km
SJR 25
M27 51,,
Area
- --~
A 9," 1"
---- -B_-
CD
CD
0
0
cD
IQ
-o
O(0
cZ
0
O(D
0 c-
:m
,- C
-)
C)
0
oz
>o
=3-7
CCD
-I>
c3
>-n
01
Ti
FZ
co
CD
on
CD
0
G)
CD
N)
0 *
0
(D
on
CD
:r C
(O
CD
"-
I
o
o)
o c
I3
CD
O! 5
Map 64 Panhandle Region Index to Insets
Map 65 Panhandle Region Inset A -
Pensacola Bay and Perdido Bay
Map 66 Panhandle Region Inset A-1 -
Pensacola Bay Area/Pensacola Harbor
Map 67 Panhandle Region Inset A-2 -
Southern Pensacola Bay
10"
00
PNSMIBI
10'
10'
00
PA I'lid
10'
10
Pensaco
10'
lot
.,0
PND 7
10'
102I
PNB 8
PNB 8
10"
10'
10 I
BCO 4
\
10'
10
10'
o
P't 9
Panhandle Region
Inset A-2
Southern Pensacola Bay
Organic Contaminants
la
10"
10'
PSTC
PNST2C?
10'
10*
0 0
j',B I
10".
00
'" oi '
e n s a c o I a
a y
0 0
PNB 4
Map 68 Panhandle Region Inset B -
Choctawhatchee Bay
"0
O
> 0)
cn
0- C
CD
0m
0
So
Map 70 Panhandle Region Inset D -
Apalachicola Bay
.k'fferson .'o
Leon I.'
L Madison Co
akulld Co Taylor Co Suwannee Co
St Marks
Bay
o10 Lafayette Co.
oo Dixie Co.
Deadman
Bay
"" Suwannee
Big Bend Region 10l
Organic Contaminants 'o 0
oo
88SRW P
J1o Suwannee
10,
Sound *
00
^ Cedar
1 0 '1
0 oo
00
Barcharts represent the ratio of measured
organic contaminant concentration to the
measured concentration of total organic
carbon (TOC)
IOB
10 III
NOTE: When no bar is shown, no organic 2
contaminant was detected. A circle below the
bar indicates no data were available. A cross
above the bar indicates the normalized value 10
of the measured organic contaminant
concentration exceeded a value of 106 8
above zero. i-
20 0 20 40 km
-a
(o
(.
CD
=3
(D
(0
0
"3
Gilchrist (
SLevy Co.
ai
Keys
Crystal
Bay
^s!
Co.
- _. Alachua Co
1I
Pasco Co.
IHillsborough Co.
~KI,
-J
_, ___ _. ~__ _
_ _. . ............~ _
I
I
STampa Bay Region
SIndex to Insets
S1 Organic Contaminants
f^ 1 Tampa a m
II r/
Manatee
lot A Hillsborough Co.
B_ Manatee Co.
u- 0
Barcharts represent the ratio of measured
organic contaminant concentration to the
measured concentration of total organic
t^ i ^ \carbon (TOC).
o Bradenton
U LF NOTE When no bar is shown, no organic
contaminant was detected, A circle below the
bar indicates no data were available. A cross
above the bar indicates the normalized value
of the measured organic contaminant
SF concentration exceeded a value of 108
above zero.
MEXICO
0 4 8 12 km
",4
3
CV
51
0
CD
OCO
s*+ 812k
-.4
ow
CD
0
wcs
<0
C*
(In
CD
g^.
-O
J:
-0
oJ
0 l0
CD
co
Map 75 Tampa Bay Region Inset C -
Southeast Tampa Bay/Little Manatee River
0
0
-0
-4
CD- C-
CD
ZO
on
*II
-'r
0)
CD
0c"
0,
(3
-1
70
-*1
(D
0
3-
CD
Charlotte Harbor Area
10' Inset A 1
0)0
MYK 3 Organic Contaminants
De Soto Co.
-0 '
0 0 0
S010
P1 CHlCR 1 -
SPort "1
SCharlotte
Charlotte Co. o
10, Punta
100 10'
0 110 Gord
10' 0 102 A ,
10' -4/ Lb
10' 000 0
0000 10 CHH 2
10',
(711.1 5 ii h
S10 0
10'
,.. 10'10
86Lor3 C h a r l o t t e 0o
------
S"0 10'
oi 10'
So5lo
S* -10' 0
L R0 A 10
00
10" 'o a r b o r .2 ,
85LOTI
C . ,. ,r.
85, 00
10
10'o'4 10
H 42 6 km
Map 78 Caloosahatchee River Area Inset B
0
CD
Q-
CD
CD
m
(0
010
10
Organic Contaminants
00 Barcharts represent the ratio of measured
organic contaminant concentration to the
measured concentration of total organic
10 carbon (TOC).
a I2 Ie
N a p les li 0 ,,21
Io -r oo
100
10 NOTE When no bar is shown, no organic
contaminant was detected. A circle below the
bar indicates no data were available, A cross
above the bar indicates the normalized value
0 >of the measured organic contaminant
0 0 concentration exceeded a value of 106
"' :,. above zero
S10'
0410
10.
010'
B. MR i. .- 10"
Marco 4
CL
Is a n d Mooo
0N' 42 km Monroer Co.
O
C()
0
C
c
0
CD
X
r,
3T
5-
(D
x
r-t-
CD
-o
C
0
c
(D
i. (i
0
m
(P
CD
Ol
-n
0
11
o0
31
Map 82 Southeast Region Inset A -
Northern Biscayne Bay
Map 83 Southeast Region
Index to Inset Series B
Map 84 Southeast Region Inset B-1 -
Miami River
Map 85 Southeast Region Inset B-2 -
Biscayne Bay
00
ClD
0O
0
ao
o3
CD
0 (9
Co,
2.
r-o
2) SD
0
/,)
0 E
> CD
to
CD
E_.
-3
Co., East Central Region
.-. volusiaco. \ Index to Insets
I Organic Contaminants
Seminole Co.
Titusville A
S\ Cape Kennedy
Orange Co.
Osceola Co.
|Melbourne
:I L
Brevard Co
Polk Co.
2 Vero Beach
I
Hardee Co. Okeechobee Co.
*I Indian River Co.
Barcharts represent the ratio of measured Fort Pilre
organic contaminant concentration to theerce
measured concentration of total organic
carbon (TOC). I
108
N 102 C
NOTE: When no bar is shown, no organic St. Lucie Co.
contaminant was detected. A circle below the
bar indicates no data were available. A cross - ........ .....
above the bar indicates the normalized value
of the measured organic contaminant
concentration exceeded a value of 106
above zero. 0 12 24. 36 km
S _j Martin Co.
-0
03
CD
0
:
CD
(D.
554 CD
RSS
HIDE
