1.0 Background

The Southwest Florida Feasibility Study (SWFFS) Water Quality (WQ) Issues Subteam has finalized a contractual Statement of Work (SOW) for the compilation, evaluation and archival of existing baseline data and information related to water quality in Southwest Florida. The primary goal of this SOW is to develop a single, integrated water quality data set for the southwest Florida region to serve as a tool for quantifying and qualifying responses to various SWFFS plan alternatives. This goal will be achieved by identifying and evaluating all existing data and information pertaining to ambient water quality measures (e.g., constituent concentrations in surface water, ground water, sediments, and biological tissues) in the region and creating a preferred data set. The preferred data set will then be utilized to assess and characterize baseline water quality conditions in southwest Florida region, identify violated Water Quality Standards and Impaired Designated Uses based on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (FDEP) Impaired Waters Rule (Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-303) and assist with the evaluation of alternatives.

1.1. Products of the WQ Issues Subteam

1.1.1 Core Parameters

The WQ Issues Subteam must provide the contractor with several products, one of which is a list of specific parameters to be analyzed. During the WQ Issues Subteam meeting on April 17, 2002, the following surface and/or ground water quality constituents to be analyzed for this SOW were identified.

PH	Total Nitrogen
Specific conductance	Total Ammonia Nitrogen
Salinity	Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Temperature	Total Nitrate + Nitrite nitrogen
Turbidity	Total Phosphorus
Color	Soluble Reactive Phosphorus
Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR)	Total Organic Carbon
Secchi Disk Depth	Dissolved Organic Carbon
Total Suspended Solids	Chloride
Chlorophyll a (+ phaeophytin)	Fluoride
Alkaline Phosphatase Activity	Sulfate
Total Coliform Bacteria	Silicate
Fecal Coliform Bacteria	Pesticides
Enterococci Bacteria	Trace Metals

In addition to water, the Subteam determined that chemical and bioassay data from other matrices (e.g., sediment and biological tissue) should also be analyzed.

1.1.2 Data Set Selection Criteria

The WQ Issues Subteam must also provide the contractor with minimum metadata requirements and quality assurance criteria for the preferred data set. At its April 17, 2002 meeting, the Subteam agreed to accept the following two tiers of metadata requirements: minimum and desired.

The minimum metadata requirements include

1) who produced the data set (e.g., institution, division, principal investigator);

2) what the data set describes;

3) how the data were generated (i.e., methods), processed and modified;

4) extent of quality assurance / quality control (QA/QC) measures;

5) geographic area - Federal Geographic Data Committee's (FGDC) "Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata" (FGDC-STD-001-1998), e.g., spatial reference, accuracy of GPS;

6) period of record (preferably entire period from inception to present); and

7) source (e.g., STORET, etc.) and contact person supplying the metadata.

The additional desired metadata include

1) status of the monitoring program;

2) why the data set was created;

3) identification of existing data gaps;

4) availability of the data set (i.e., existing format, usage restrictions);

5) publications that use the source data;

6) how to download or request the data; and

7) hardware/software needed to use the data.

At the April 17, 2002 meeting, the Subteam determined the following quality assurance criteria for data set inclusion. Each project producing a data set has/had a quality assurance plan that meets/met the 1) minimum quality control acceptance criteria required at the time the study was conducted, or 2) guidelines of the draft CERP QA/QC document.

1.2 Subteam Agreement

The Subteam agreed at its May 29, 2002 meeting to use the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (FDEP) Impaired Waters Rule (IWR) (Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-303) as the criteria against which the contractor will analyze existing (without project) conditions. The IWR was recently adopted by FDEP and is available on the FDEP website. This agreement does not mean that the IWR will be the sole criteria used in the analysis of restoration alternatives. Those criteria will be determined by the Subteam during future meetings.