U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
HORSESHOE LAKE
SEWNOLE COUNTY
FLORIDA
EPA REGION IV
WORKING PAPER No, 225
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
•&G.P.O. 699-440
-------
REPORT
ON
HORSESHOE LAKE
SEMINOLE COHI7Y
FLORIDA .
EPA EGION IV
WORKING PAPER No, 225
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
AND THE
FLORIDA NATIONAL GUARD
SEPTEMBER/ 1977
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword
List of Florida Lakes iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map v
Sections
I. Introduction 1
II. Conclusions 1
III. Lake Characteristics 2
IV. Water Quality Summary 3
V. Literature Reviewed 7
VI. Appendices 8
-------
11
FOREWORD
The National Eutrophication Survey was initiated in 1972 in
response to an Administration commitment to investigate the nation-
wide threat of accelerated eutrophication to freshwater lakes and
reservoirs.
OBJECTIVES
The Survey was designed to develop, in conjunction with state
environmental agencies, information on nutrient sources, concentrations,
and impact on selected freshwater lakes as a basis for formulating
comprehensive and coordinated national, regional, and state management
practices relating to point-source discharge reduction and non-point
source pollution abatement in lake watersheds.
. j"
ANALYTIC APPROACH
The mathematical and statistical procedures selected for the
Survey's eutrophication analysis are based on related concepts that:
a. A generalized representation or model relating
sources, concentrations, and impacts can be constructed,
b. By applying measurements of relevant parameters
associated with lake degradation, the generalized model
can be transformed into an operational representation of
a lake, its drainage basin, and related nutrients.
c. With such a transformation, an assessment of the
potential for eutrophication control can be made.
LAKE ANALYSIS
In this report, the first stage of evaluation of lake and water-
shed data collected from the study lake and its drainage basin is
documented. The report is formatted to provide state environmental
agencies with specific information for basin planning [5303(e)], water
quality criteria/standards review [§303(c)]» clean lakes [§314(a,b)],
and water quality monitoring [§106 .and §305(b)] activities mandated
by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
-------
lii
Beyond the single lake analysis, broader based correlations
between nutrient concentrations (and loading) and trophic condi-
tion are being made to advance the rationale and data base for
refinement of nutrient water quality criteria for the Nation's
fresh water lakes. Likewise, multivariate evaluations for the
relationships between land use, nutrient export, and trophic
condition, by lake class or use, are being developed to assist
in the formulation of planning guidelines and policies by EPA
and to augment plans implementation by the states.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The staff of the National Eutrophication Survey (Office of
Research & Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency)
expresses sincere appreciation to the Florida Department of Environ-
mental Regulation for professional involvement and to the Florida
National Guard for conducting the tributary sampling phase of the
Survey.
Joseph \L Landers, Jr., Secretary of the Department of Environ-
mental Regulation; John A Redmond, former Director of the Division
of Planning., Technical Assistance, and Grants; and Dr. Tim S. Stuart,
Chief of the Bureau of Water Quality, provided invaluable lake docu-
mentation and counsel during the survey, reviewed the preliminary
reports, and provided critiques most useful in the preparation of this
Working Paper series.
Major General Henry W. McMillan (Retired), then the Adjutant
General of Florida, and Project Officer Colonel Hugo F. Wiridham,
who directed the volunteer efforts of the Florida National Guard,
are also gratefully acknowledged for their assistance to the Survey.
-------
1v
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY LAKES
STATE OF FLORIDA
LAKE NAME
Alligator
Apopka
Banana
Crescent
Doctors
Dora
East Tohopekaliga
Effie
Eloise
George
Gibson
Glenada
Griffin
Haines
Hancock
Horseshoe
Howel1
Istokpoga
Jessie
Jessup
Kissimmee
Lav/ne
Lulu
Marion
Minnehaha
Minneola
Monroe
Munson
Okeechobee
Poinsett
Reedy
Seminole
Semi nole
South
Talquin
Tarpon
Thonotosassa
Tohopekaliga
Trout
Weohyakapka
Yale
COUNTY
Columbia
Lake, Orange
Polk
Flagler, Putnam
Clay
Lake
Osceola
Polk
Polk
Putnam, Volusia
Polk
Highlands
Lake
Polk
Polk
Seminole
Orange, Seminole
Highlands
Polk
Seminole
Osceola
Orange
Polk
Polk
Orange
Lake
Semi no!e, Volusia
Leon
Glades, Hendry, Martin,
Okeechobee, Palm Beach
Brevard, Orange, Osceola
Polk
Jackson, FL; Decatur,
Seminole, GA
Pincllas
Brevard
Gadsden, Leon
Pinellas
Hillsborough
Osceola
Lake
Polk
Lake
-------
HORSESHOE LAKE
X Lake Sampling Site
-------
HORSESHOE LAKE
STORE! NO. 1219
I. INTRODUCTION
Horseshoe Lake was included in the National Eutrophication Survey
as a water body of interest to the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation. Tributaries and nutrient sources were not sampled, and
this report relates only to the lake sampling data.
II. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey data indicate that Horseshoe Lake is eutrophic. It
ranked tenth in overall trophic quality when the 41 Florida
lakes sampled in 1973 were compared using an index of six param-
eters*. Three of the lakes had less and one had the same median
total phosphorus, 14 had less median orthophosphorus, 11
had less and two had the same median inorganic nitrogen, nine
had less mean chlorophyll a_, and eight had greater mean Secchi
disc transparency.
Survey limnologists reported the occurrence of rooted emergent
aquatic vegetation.
- -•»
B. Rate-Limi ting Nutrient:
The algal assay results indicate that Horseshoe Lake was
phosphorus limited at the time the sample was collected (03/15/73).
The lake data indicate phosphorus limitation in March but nitrogen
limitation in September and November.
* See Appendix A.
-------
III. LAKE CHARACTERISTICS1"
A. Lake Morphometry*:
1. Surface area: 0.38 kilometers2.
2. Mean depth: 1.2 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 2.4 meters.
4. Volume: 0.46 x 106 m3.
B. Precipitation**:
1. Year of sampling: 125.4 centimeters.
2. Mean annual: 135.5 centimeters.
t Table of metric conversions--Appendix B.
* No bathymetric map available (surface area obtained from U.S.G.S.
quadrangle map; depths estimated from soundings reported in Appendix C).
** See Working Paper No. 175, "...Survey Methods, 1973-1976".
-------
3
IV. WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Horseshoe Lake was sampled three times in 1973 by means of a
pontoon-equipped Huey helicopter. Each time, samples for physical
and chemical parameters were collected from one or two depths at
one station (see map, page v). During each visit, a single depth-
integrated (near bottom to surface) sample was collected for phyto-
plankton identification and enumeration; and a similar sample was
taken for chlorophyll ^analysis. During the first visit, a single
18.9-liter depth-integrated sample was collected for algal assays.
The maximum depth sampled was 2.1 meters.
The sampling results are presented in full in Appendix C and
are summarized in the following table.
-------
PARAMETER
TEMP (C)
OISS OXY (MG/L)
CNOCTVY (MCROMO)
PH (STAND UNITS)
TOT ALK (MG/L)
TOT P (MG/L)
ORTHO P (MG/L)
N02»N03 (MG/L)
AMMONIA (MG/L)
KJEL N (MG/L)
INORG N (MG/L)
TOTAL N (MG/L)
CHLRPYL A (UG/L)
SECCHI (METERS)
A. SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND
1ST SAMPLING ( 3/15/73)
1 SITES
RANGE
18.9 - 25.1
3.5 - 3.5
90. - 90.
7.5 - 7.6
10. - 10.
0.030 - 0.032
0.007 - 0.007
0.060 - 0.070
0.090 - 0.100
0.800 - 1.100
0.150 - 0.170
0.860 - 1.170
15.5 - 15.5
1.2 - 1.2
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR LAKE HORSESHOE
STORET CODE 1219
2ND SAMPLINGS 9/ 5/73)
1 SITES
3RD SAMPLING <
1 SITES
5/73)
MEAN
22.0
3.5
90.
7.5
10.
0.031
0.007
0.065
0.095
0.950
0.160
1.015
15.5
1.2
MEDIAN
22.0
3.5
90.
7.5
10.
0.031
0.007
0.065
0.095
0.950
0.160
1.015
15.5
1.2
RANGE
29.7
8.6
100.
7.6
10.
0.034
0.023
0.060
0.070
1.300
0.130
1.360
12.6
0.9
- 29.7
8.6
- 100.
7.6
10.
- 0.034
- 0.023
- 0.060
- 0.070
- 1.300
- 0.130
- 1.360
- 12.6
0.9
MEAN
29.7
8.6
100.
7.6
10.
0.034
0.023
0.060
0.070
1.300
0.130
1.360
12.6
0.9
MEDIAN
29.7
8.6
100.
7.6
10.
0.034
0.023
0.060
0.070
1.300
0.130
1.360
12.6
0.9
RANGE
23.8
7.2
100.
7.4
10.
0.052
0.033
0.030
0.050
0.700
0.080
0.730
8.1
1.0
- 24.0
7.2
- 100.
7.5
10.
.- 0.110
- 0.071
- 0.030
- 0.060
- 0.900
- 0.090
- 0.930
8.1
1.0
MEAN
23.9
7.2
100.
7.4
10.
0.081
0.052
0.030
0.055
0.800
0.085
0.830
8.1
1.0
MEDIAN
23.9
7.2
100.
7.4
10.
0.081
0.052
0.030
0.055
0.800
0.085
0.830
8.1
1.0
-------
B. Biological Characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampli ng
Date
03/15/73
09/05/73
11/05/73
2. Chlorophyll a_ -
Sampli ng
Date
03/15/73
09/05/73
11/05/73
Dominant
Genera
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Anabaena sp.
Flagellates
Melosira sp.
Staurastrum sp.
Achnanthes sp.
Other genera
Total
Botryococcus sp.
Flagellates
Melosira sp.
Microcystis SJK
Kirchneriella sp.
Other genera
Total
Botryococcus sp.
Lyngbya sp.
Melosira sp.
Flagellates
Cyclotella sp.
Other genera
Total
Station
Number
1
1
1 .
Algal Units
per ml
3,870
316
60
15
15
31
4,307
3,439
975
770
155
154
821
6,314
4,940
1,017
291
291
291
799
7,629
Chlorophyll a
(yg/1)
15.5
12.6
8.1
-------
0.012
0.062
0.062
0.012
0.275
0.275
1.275
1.275
0.3
7.7
16.2
0.3
6
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked -
Ortho P Inorganic N Maximum yield
Spike (mg/1) Cone, (mg/1) Cone, (mg/1) (mg/l-dry wt.)
Control
0.050 P
0.050 P + 1.0 N
1.0 N
2. Discussion -
The control yield of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum, indicates that the potential primary productivity
of Horseshoe Lake was relatively low at the time the sample was
collected. The addition of phosphorus alone resulted in an
increased yield, but the addition of only nitrogen did not.
These results indicate phosphorus limitation.
The lake data also indicate phosphorus limitation at the
time the sample was collected; i.e., the mean inorganic nitro-
gen/orthophosphorus ratio was 23/1. However, the mean N/P
ratios in September and November (6/1 and 2/1, respectively)
indicate nitrogen limitation.
-------
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
None.
-------
VI. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
LAKE RANKINGS
-------
LAKE DATA TO B£ USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE
CODE LAKE NA«E
1201 ALLIGATOR LAKE
1202 LAKE APOPKA
1203 LAKE BANANA
1206 LAKE CRESCENT
1207 DOCTORS LAKE
120U LAKE DORA
1209 LAKE EFFIE
1210 LAKE GE03GE
1211 LAKE GIBSCN
1212 OLENADA LAKE
1214 LAKE GRIFFIN
1215 LAKE HAINES
1217 LAKE HANCOCK
1219 LAKE HORSESHOE
1220 LAKE HOWELL
1221 LAKE ISTOKPOGA
1223 LAKE JESSUP
1224 LAKE KISSIMMEE
1227 LAKE LULU
1228 LAKE MARION
1229 LAKE HINNEHAHA
1230 LAKE HINNEOLA
1231 LAKE HONROE
1232 LAKE OKEECHOBEE
1234 LAKE POINSETT
1236 LAKE REEDY
1238 LAKE SOUTH
1239 LAKE TALOUIN
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
0.620
0.102
0.660
0.065
0.034
0.102
1.4SO
0.129
0.167
0.134
0.119
0.063
0.772
0.034
1.260
0.039
0.492
0.034
1.490
0.044
0.038
0.018
0.188
0.063
0.085
0.033
0.074
0.085
MEDIAN
INOHG N
0.260
0.230
0.260
0.130
0.120
0.240
0.410
0.165
0.115
0.165
0.260
0.115
0.195
0.130
0.285
0.120
0.2.90
0.145
1.065
0.260
0.080
0.070
0.300
0.185
0.150
0.330
0.130
0.290
500-
MEAN SEC
474.000
484.176
482.667
473.889
465.555
482.839
489.000
469.308
470.000
454.167
481.333
462.667
483.500
459.000
464. 000
464.222
487.000
463.667
483.000
468.833
435.000
406.333
474.555
472.366
469. CCO
463.500
464.000
462.167
MEAN
CHLOSA
87.733
46.611
208.600
10.211
27.100
59.978
261.433
35.000
19.675
27.667
66.855
26.567
97.900
12.067
54.117
6.594
76.550
24.142
276.566
29.937
8.733
3.333
14.225
14.524
6.500
34.837
23.167
9.483
15- .
MIN DO
13.100
B.200
3.600
10.200
10.600
7.400
15.000
11.000
10.200
14.700
6.600
10.600
5.600
11.500
9.000
8.600
7.600
8.800
14.300
7.600
7.700
7.400
10.800
9.800
10.600
10.600
9.000
14.400
MEDIAN
OISS ORTHO P
0.386
0.019
0.293
0.033
0.028
0.022
0.950
0.063
0.069
0.072
0.038
0.014
0.156
0.023
1.175
0.010
0.288
0.007
1.030
0.016
0.012
0.009
0.128
0.010
0.051
o.ooa
0.023
0.031
-------
LAKE DATA TO 3E USED IN RANKINGS
CODE LAKE N
131.0 LAKE THONOTOSASSA
1241 LAKE TOHOPEKALIGA
1242 TROUT i.AKE
12*3 LAKE WEOHYAKAPKA
12<«6 LAKE YALE
1247 LAKE MUNSON
1248 LAKE SEMINOLE
1249 LAKE LAsfS'E
1250 LAKE TARPON
1252 LAKE ELOISE
1258 LAKE JESSIE
1261 EAST LAKE TOHOPEKALIGA
1264 PAYNE'S PRAIRIE LAKE (NO
HEOIAN
TOTAL P
0.695
0.246
1.110
0.047
0.027
1.475
0.234
2.560
0.0^1
0.486
0.051
0.042
1.260
MEDIAN
INORG N
0.095
0.200
0.650
C.080
0.160
0.925
0.175
1.350
0.070
0.170
Oi.090
0.070
O.'l40
500-
MEAN SEC
466.167
472.917
472.000
458.667
441.000
486,667
473.833
494.667
400.389
465.333
452.667
440.833
476.000
MEAN
CHLORA
37.700
30.633
76.967
7.767
25.367
140.317
102.000
84.900
. 6.867
70.233
26.300
5.167
38.200
15-
MIN DO
10.200
10.500
12.900
8. ZOO
7.600
12.200
8.600
10.400
9.000
12.200
10.800
9.400
7.400
MEDIAN
OISS ORTHO P
0.565
0.152
0.970
0.011
0.014
0.852
0.026
0.117
0.027
0.339
0.011
0.007
1.210
-------
OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES (NUMBER or LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES)
CODE LAKE NAME
1201 ALLIGATOR LAKE
1202 LAKE APOPKA
Ic03 LAKE BANANA
1306 LAKE CRESCENT
1237 DOCTORS LAKE
1203 LAKE DORA
1209 LAKE EFFIE
1210 LAKE GEORGE
1211 LAKE GIBSON
1212 GLENADA LAKE
1214 LAKE GRIFFIN
1215 LAKE HAINES
1217 LAKE HANCOCK
1219 LAKE HORSESHOE
1220 LAKE HOWELL
1221 LAKE ISTOKPOGA
1223 LAKE JESS'JP
1224 LAKE KISSIMMEE
1227 LAKE LULU
12?3 LAX.E MARION
1229 LAKE HINNEHAHA
1230 LAKE MINNEOLA
1231 LAKE MONROE
1232 LAKE OKEECH03EE
123*. LAKE POINSETT
1236 LAKE REEOY
1228 LAKE SOUTH
1239 LAKE TALOUIN
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
25 < 10)
50 ( 20)
23 ( 9)
65 ! 26)
60 ( 24)
53 ( 21)
5(2)
45 ( 18)
40 < 16)
43 ( 17)
48 ( 19)
70 ( 28)
18 ( 7>
93 < 37)
11 ( 4)
85 ( 34)
28 ( 11)
90 < 36)
3 < 1)
78 ( 3D
88 < 35)
100 ( 40)
38 « 15)
68 ( 27)
58 ( 23)
95 ( 38)
63 < 25)
55 ( 22)
MEDIAN 500-
INORG N MEAN SEC
29 (
36 <
29 (
70 (
76 (
35 ;
10 (
54 !
31 (
54 (
29 (
81 I.
43 (
70 (
23 (
76 (
18 <
63 (
3 (
29 (
91 (
98 (
15 (
45 <
60 (
13 (
70 <
cO (
JO)
15)
10)
27)
30>
14)
4)
21)
32!
21)
10)
32)
17)
27)
9)
30)
7)
25)
i)
10)
36)
38)
6)
18)
24)
5)
27)
8)
30 (
10 (
20 (
33 <
60 <
18 (
3 (
46 (
45 (
85 (
23 <
75 (
13 (
80 (
69 (
65 (
5 (
73 <
15 (
53 (
95 (
98 (
28 (
40 (
50 (
55 (
69 (
78 (
12)
4)
8)
13)
24)
7)
1)
19)
18)
34)
9)
30)
5)
32)
27)
26)
2)
29)
6)
21)
33)
39)
11)
16)
20)
22)
27)
31)
MEAN
CHLORA
18 (
38 (
5 (
80 (
55 (
33 (
3 (
43 (
70 (
53 (
30 (
58 (
13 (
78 (
35 (
93 (
25 (
65 (
0 (
50 (
85 (
100 (
75 (
73 <
95 (
45 (
68 (
83 (
7)
15)
2)
32)
22)
13)
1>
17)
28)
21)
12)
23)
5)
31)
14)
37)
10)
26)
0)
20)
34)
40)
30)
29)
38)
18)
27)
33)
15- MEDIAN
MIN DO OISS ORTHO P
10 (
74 (
100 (
48 (
34 (
90 (
0 (
23 (
48 <
3 (
95 <
34 (
98 (
20 (
60 <
69 (
83 (
65 (
8 (
83 (
78 (
90 (
26 (
53 (
34 <
34 (
60 <
5 (
4)
29)
40)
18)
12)
35)
0)
9)
18)
1)
38)
12)
39)
8)
23)
27)
32)
26)
3)
32)
31)
35)
10)
21)
12)
12)
23)
2)
18 (
70 (
23 <
50 (
56 (
68 (
10 (
43 (
40 (
38 (
48 (
78 <
28 (
65 (
3 (
89 (
25 (
99 (
5 (
73 (
80 (
93 (
33 (
89 (
45 (
95 <
56 <
53 (
7)
28)
9)
20)
22)
27)
4)
17)
16)
15)
19)
31)
11)
26)
1)
35)
10)
39)
2)
29)
32)
37)
13)
35)
18)
38)
22)
21)
INDEX
NO
130
280
200
346
341
297
31
256
324
276
273
396
213
406
201
477
184
455
34
366
517
579
215
368
342
337
3d6
294
-------
PERCENT of LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES CNUMBE* OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
I2<.o LAKE THONOTOSASSA
1241 LAKE TOHOPEKALIGA
1243 TROUT LAKE
1243 LAKE WEOHYAKAPKA
1246 LAKE YALE
12*7 LAKE MUNSCN
1248 LAKE SEMINOLE
1249 LAKE LAWNE
izso LAKE TARPON
1252 LAKE EL01SE
1258 LAKE JESSIE
1261 EAST LAKE TOHOPEKALIGA
1264 PAYNE'S PRAIRIE LAK£ (NO
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
20
33
15
75
98
8
35
0
83
30
73
80
11
( 8)
( 13)
( 6)
( 30)
< 39)
( 3)
< 14)
< 0>
{ 33)
( 12)
( 29)
( 32)
( 4)
McDIAN
INORG N
85
40
a
91
58
5
48
0
98
50
68
98
65
( 34)
( 16)
( 3)
( 36)
( 23)
( 2)
( 19)
( 0)
( 38)
( 20)
( 35)
( 38)
< 26)
500-
HEAM SEC
58
38
43
83
90
8
35
0
100
63
88
93
25
( 23)
( 15)
< 17)
( 33)
< 36)
( 3)
( 14)
( 0)
( 40)
( 25)
( 35)
{ 37)
( 10)
MEAN
CHLOttA
40 (
48 (
23 (
88 (
63 (
8 (
10 (
20 (
90 (
23 (
60 (
98 (
IS I
16)
19)
9)
35)
25)
3)
4)
3)
36)
11)
24)
39)
6)
15-
MlN DO
48 (
40 (
13 (
74 (
83 (
16 (
69 (
43 (
60 (
16 (
26 (
55 (
90 <
18)
16)
5)
29)
32)
6) •
27)
17)
23)
6)
10)
22)
35)
MEDIAN
OISS ORTHO P
15 (
30 <
8 (
84 (
75 (
13 (
63 (
35 <
60 (
20 (
84 (
99 <
0 (
6)
12)
3)
33)
30)
5)
25)
14)
24)
8)
33)
39)
0)
IN'JEX
NO
26b
229
110
495
467
58
260
98
491
207
419
523
206
-------
LAKES RANKED BY INDEX NOS.
RANK LAKE CODE LAKE NAME INDEX NO
1 1230 LAKE MINNEOLA . 579
2 1261 EAST LAKE TOHOPEKALIGA 523
3 1229 LAKE MINNEHAHA 517
4 1243 LAKE WEOHYAKAPKA 495
5 1250 LAKE TARPON 491
A 1221 LAKE ISTOKPOGA 477
7 1246 LAKE YALE .467
3 1224 LAKE KISSIMHEE 455
9 1258 LAKE JESSIE 419
Jo 1219 LAKE: HORSESHOE 406
11 1215 LAKE HA1NES 396
12 1236 LAKE SOUTH 336
13 1232 LAKE OKEECH03EE 368
14 1228 LAKE MARION 366
15 1206 LAKE CRESCENT 346
16 1234 LAKE POINSETT 342
17 1207 DOCTORS LAKE 341
18 1236 LAKE REEDT 337
19 12-1 LAKE GIBSON 324
20 1208 LAKE DORA 297
21 1239 LAKE TALCUIN 294
22 1202 LAKE APOPKA 280
23 1312 GLENADA L'AKE 276
24 1214 LAKE GRIFFIN 273
25 1240 LAKE THONOTOSASSA 266
26 1248 LAKE SEHINOLE 260
27 1210 LAKE GEORGE 256
28 1241 LAKE TOHGPEKALIGA 229
-------
LAKES RANKED BY INDEX NOS.
RAVK LAKE CODE LAKE NAME INDEX NO
29 1231 LAKE MONROE . 215
30 1217 LAKE HANCOCK 213
31 1253 LAKE ELOISE 207
32 1264 PAYNE'S PRAIRIE LAKE (NO 206
33 1820 LAKE HGWELL 201
34 1203 LAKE BANANA 200
35 1223 LAKE JESSUP 184
36 1201 ALLIGATOR LAKE 130
37 1242 TROUT LAKt 110
38 1249 LAKE LAWNE 98
39 1247 LAKE MUNSON 58
-------
APPENDIX B
CONVERSION FACTORS
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS -
.Hectares x 2.471 = acres
Kilometers x 0.6214 = miles.
Meters x 3.281 = feet
Cubic meters x 8.107 x 10 "^ - acre/feet
Square kilometers x 0.3861 = square miles
Cubic meters/sec x 35.315 - cubic feet/sec
Centimeters x 0.3937 = inches
Kilograms x 2.205 = pounds
Kilograms/square kilometer x 5.711 = Ibs/square mile
-------
APPENDIX C
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/06/01
DATE
FROM
TO
73/03/15
73/09/05
73/11/05
DATE
FROM
TO
73/03/15
73/09/05
73/11/05
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
13 15 0000
13 15 0007
14 10 0000
11 55 0000
11 55 0006
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
13 15 0000
13 15 0007
14 10 0000
11 55 0000
11 55 0006
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
25.1
18.9
29.7
24.0
23.8
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.030
0.032
0.034
0.052
0.110
00300
DO
MG/L
3.5
8.6
7.2
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
15.5
12.6
8.1
00077
TRANSP
SECCHI
INCHES
121901
28 38 14.0 081 08 15.0 3
LAKE HORSESHOE
12117 FLORIDA
032091
11EPALES 2111202
0008 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
7
P
I
S
48
35
40
00094
CNOUCTVY
FIELD
MICROMHO
90
90
100
100
100
00400
PH
SU
7.50
7.60
7.60
7.40
7.50
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
10K
10K
10K
10K
10K
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.100
0.090
0.070
0.060
0.050
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
1.100
0.800
1.300
0.900
0.700
00630
N02&N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.070
0.060
0.060
0.030
0.030
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.007
0.007
0.023
0.033
0.071
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
------- |