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 BŁ 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 LAKŁ (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

-------