U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
LAKE ELOISE
POLX COUNTY
FLORIDA
EPA REGION IV
WORKING PAPER No, 250
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
•&G.P.O. 699-440
-------
REPORT
ON
LAKE ELOISE
POLK COUNTY
FLORIDA
£ EPA REGION IV
* WORKING PAPER No, 250
a
o
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
AND THE
FLORIDA NATIONAL GUARD
DECEMBER, 1977
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword ii
List of Florida Lakes iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map v
Sections
I. Introduction 1
II. Conclusions 1
III. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics 3
IV. Water Quality Summary 4
V. Literature Reviewed 8
VI. Appendices 9
-------
n
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.
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 [§303(e)], water
quality criteria/standards review [§303(c)'j, 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.
-------
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 W. 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. Windham,
who directed the volunteer efforts of the Florida National Guard,
are also gratefully acknowledged for their assistance to the Survey.
-------
IV
LAKE NAME
Alligator
Apopka
Banana
Crescent
Doctors
Dora
East Tohopekaliga
Effie
Eloise
George
Gibson
Glenada
Griffin
Haines
Hancock
Horseshoe
Howe!1
Istokpoga
Jessie
Jessup
Ktssimmee
Lawne
Lulu
Marion
Minnehaha
Minneola
Monroe
Munson
Okeechobee
Poinsett
Reedy
Semi no!e
Semi nole
South
Talquin
Tarpon
Thonotosassa
Tohopekaliga
Trout
Weohyakapka
Yale
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY LAKES
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY
Columbia
Lake, Orange
Polk
Flagler, Putnam
Clay
Lake
Osceola
Polk
Pol k
Putnam, Volusia
Polk
Highlands
Lake
Polk
Polk
Semi no!e
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,
Semi no!c, GA
Pinellas
Brevard
Gadsden, Leon
Pinellas
Hillsborough
Osceola
Lake
Polk
Lake
-------
Tributary Sampling Site
X Lake Sampling Site
o 1/2 1 11/2
-------
LAKE ELOISE
STORE! NO. 1252
I. INTRODUCTION
Lake Eloise is one of the Winter Haven chain of lakes. The hydrology
of this chain is complex, and personnel of the U.S. Geological Survey ques-
tion whether realistic analyses of nutrient loadings to the lakes can be
made; i.e., depending on the operation of control gates, wind direction
and velocity, and other factors, flows in the connecting canals may have
reversed from one sampling time to the next (Anderson, 1974). For example,
during the Survey sampling year, the less-than-normal precipitation prob-
ably resulted in a net flow from Lake Lulu to Lake Eloise rather than
the reverse (Dye, 1976).
It will be noted in Appendix C that daily flows could not be provided
by the U.S. Geological Survey, and it cannot be determined whether net
flows were to or from Lake Eloise at any of the sampling stations or times.
Therefore, nutrient loads to the lake cannot be calculated; however, the
canal sampling data are included in Appendix E for the record.
II. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey data indicate that Lake Eloise is eutrophic. It
ranked thirty-first in overall trophic quality when the 41
Florida lakes sampled in 1973 were compared using a combination
of six lake parameters*. Thirty-eight of the lakes had less
* See Appendix A.
-------
2
median total phosphorus, 32 had less median dissolved phos-
phorus, 20 had less median inorganic nitrogen, 29 had less mean
chlorophyll a_, and 15 had greater mean Secchi disc transparency.
Marked depression of dissolved oxygen with depth occurred at
station 1 in March.
Survey limnologist noted macrophytes in about 90% of the
shoreline shallows near both sampling stations.
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
The results of the algal assay indicate that Lake Eloise
primary production was limited by nitrogen at the time the
sample was collected. Inorganic nitrogen to orthophosphorus
ratios in the lake water confirm the algal assay conclusions;
i.e., N/P ratios were less than 1/1 on all sampling occasions.
-------
III. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS1"
4-4-
A. Morphometry :
1. Surface area: 4.69 kilometers2.
2. Mean depth: 3.0 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 5.2 meters.
4. Volume: 14.070 x 106 m3.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 8.9 years.
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix C for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Drainage Mean flow
Name area (km2)* (m3/sec)**
Unnamed Canal A-l 5.7 0.03
Unnamed Canal C-l 0.8 0.00
Minor tributaries &
immediate drainage - 3.4 0.02
Totals 9.9 0.05
2. Outlet -
Unnamed Canal B-l 14.6*** 0.05
C. Precipitation****:
1. Year of sampling: 120.3 centimeters.
2. Mean annual: 136.7 centimeters.
t Table of metric conversions—Appendix B.
tt Anonymous, 1971; depths estimated from soundings reported in Appendix D.
* For limits of accuracy, see Working Paper No. 175, "...Survey Methods,
1973-1976".
** Based on net effects of factors affecting flows in connecting canals
during the period of October, 1960, through September, 1968 (Anderson, 1974)
*** Includes area of lake.
**** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
4
IV. WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Lake Eloise was sampled three times during 1973 by means of a pontoon-
equipped Huey helicopter. Each time, samples for physical and chemical
parameters were collected from two stations on the lake and from a number
of depths at each station (see map, page v). During each visit, a single
depth-integrated (4.6 m or near bottom to surface) sample was composited
from the stations for phytoplankton identification and enumeration; and
during the first visit, a single 18.9-liter depth-Integrated sample was
composited for algal assays. Also each time, a depth-integrated sample
was collected from each of the stations for chlorophyll a_ analysis. The
maximum depths sampled were 4.6 meters at station 1 and 3.0 meters at
station 2.
The sampling results are presented in full in Appendix D and are sum-
marized in the following table.
-------
PARAMETER
TEMP (C)
OISS OXY (MG/L)
CNDCTVY (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)
A0 SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND
1ST SAMPLING ( 3/ 8/73)
2 SITES
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR LAKE ELOISE
STORET CODE 1252
2ND SAMPLING ( 9/ 6/73)
2 SITES
3RD SAMPLING (ll/ 6/73)
2 SITES
RANGt
17.3
2.8
340.
9.0
77.
0.460
0.360
U.070
0.070
1.600
0. 140
1.670
53.2
0.9
- 23.5
- 11.9
- 355.
9.9
84.
- 0.655
- Oo4l6
- 0.100
- OolOO
- 2.200
- 0.200
- 2.300
- 54.2
0.9
MEAfvl
20.7
8.<+
344.
9.5
81.
0.535
0.383
0.091
0.081
1.857
0.173
1.944
53.7
0.9
MEDIAN
21.3
9.2
345.
9.7
82.
0.510
0.374
0.100
0.080
1.700
0.180
1.800
53.7
0.9
RANGE
28.3
7.8
365.
8.7
78.
0.390
0.214
0.090
0.060
2.400
0.160
2.500
96.3
0.8
- 29.0
9.8
- 370.
9.3
85.
- 0.411
- 0.270
- 0.100
- 0.090
- 2.700
- 0.190
- 2.800
- 109.2
0.9
MEAN
28.6
8.8
368.
9.1
82.
0.398
0.245
0.097
0.077
2.525
0.175
2.622
102.7
0.9
MEDIAN
28.6
8.8
368.
9.1
82.
0.396
0.248
0.100
0.080
2.500
0.175
2.595
102.7
0.9
RANGE
23.0
4.8
333.
8.8
78.
0.477
0.311
0.070
0.070
2.400
0.140
2.480
50.3
0.9
- 23.7
8.6
- 335.
9.3
83.
- 0.610
- 0.348
- 0.090
- 0.240
- 2.800
- 0.330
- 2.890
- 58.2
0.9
MEAN
23.5
7.5
335.
9.1
81.
0.520
0.326
0.078
0.110
2.560
0.188
2.638
54.2
0.9
MEDIAN
23.6
8.4
335.
9.2
82.
0.502
0.326
0.080
0.080
2.500
0.160
2.570
54.2
0.9
-------
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Date
03/08/73
09/06/73
11/06/73
2. Chlorophyll a_ -
Sampling
Date
03/08/73
09/06/73
11/06/73
Dominant
Genera
3.
4.
5.
1. Raphidiopsis sp.
2. Lyngbya ^p_.
Scenedesmus sp.
Microcystis sp.
Dictyosphaerium sp.
Other genera
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2,
3.
4.
5.
Total
Uyngbya sp.
Chroococcus sp.
Dactylococcopsis sp.
Raphidiopsis sp.
Scenedesmus sp.
Other genera
Total
Dactylococcopsis sp.
Oscillatoria sp.
Chroococcus sp.
Tetraedron sp.
Centric diatoms
Other genera
Total
Algal Units
per ml
22,523
9,910
6,396
4,
2,
775
072
Station
Number
1
2
1
2
1
2
9,729
55,405
20,612
6,634
6,502
5,647
3,764
34.906
78,065
5,784
4,423
4,083
3,062
2,722
28,917
48,991
Chlorophyll a
(ug/D
54.2
53.2
109.2
96.3
50.3
58.2
-------
7
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked -
Ortho P Inorganic N Maximum yield
Spike (mg/1) Cone, (rng/1) Cone, (mg/1) (mg/l-dry wt.)
Control 0.042 0.192 10.6
0.050 P 0.092 0.192 9.9
0.050 P + 1.0 N 0.092 1.192 27.6
1.0 N 0.042 1.192 26.5
2. Discussion -
The control yield of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum, indicates that the potential primary productivity
of Lake Eloise was high at the time the assay sample was
collected. The lack of significant change in yield with
the addition of orthophosphorus and marked increase in
yield when nitrogen was added indicate the lake was nitrogen
limited when sampled (03/08/73).
Nitrogen limitation is also indicated by the lake data;
i.e., the mean inorganic nitrogen to orthophosphorus ratios,,
were less than 1 to 1 at all sampling stations and times.
-------
8
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Anderson, Warren, 1974. Personal communication (hydrology of Winter
Haven chain of lakes) U.S. Geol. Surv., Winter Park.
Anonymous, 1971. Water quality investigations, 1970-71 annual pro-
gress report. Dingell-Johnson Proj. No. F-21-5, FL Game & Fresh-
water Fish Comm., Tallahassee.
Dye, Craig W., 1976. Personal communication (review of preliminary
report. FL Dept. Env. Reg., Tallahassee.
-------
[. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
LAKE RANKINGS
-------
LAKE DATA TO BE USED IN BANKINGS
LA
-------
LAKE DATA TO BE USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE
CuOt
1240
1241
1242
1243
1246
1247
1248
9
D 1349
1250
1252
1258
^> 1261
1264
LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
TROUT
LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
EAST
PAYNE
NAME
THONOTOSASSA
TOHOPEKALJGA.
LAKE
WEOHYAKASRA-
YALE
MUNSON
SEMINOLEi
LA«JNE
TARPON
ELOISE
JESSIE
LAKE TOHOPEKALIGA
'S PHAIR1E--L.AKE (NO
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
?
0
0
0
0
1
.695
.246
.110
.047
.027
.475
.234
.560
.041
.486
.051
.042
.260
MEDIAN
INOSG N
0.095
0.200
0.650
0.080
0.160
0.925
0.1 75
1.350
0.070
0.170
0.090
0.070
0. 140
500-
MEAN SEC
466.167
472.917
472.000
458.667
441.000
486.667
473.833
494.667
400.889
465.333
452.667
440.833
476.000
MEAN
C-1LOHA
37.
30.
76.
7.
25.
140.
102.
84.
6.
70.
26.
5.
38.
700
633
967
767
367
317
000
900
867
233
300
167
200
15-
MIN DO
10
10
12
8
7
12
d
10
9
12
10
9
7
.200
.500
.900
.200
.600
.200
.600
.400
.000
.200
.800
.400
.400
MEDIAN
DISS 0-nnO P
0.565
0.152
0.970
0.011
0.014
0.852
0.026
0.117
O.U27
0.339
0.011
0.007
1.210
1
-------
DESCENT OF LAKES rflTH HIGHER VALUES (NUMBER OF LAKES wITH HIGHEH VALUES)
LAKE
CODE
1201
1202
1203
1206
1207
1203
1209
1210
1211
1212
1214
1215
1217
1219
1220
1221
1223
1224
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
123*
1236
1238
1239
LAKE NAME
ALLIGATOR LAKE
LAKE APODKA
LAKE BANANA
LAKE CRESCENT
DOCTORS LAKE
LAKE DOHA
LAKE EFFIE
LAKE GEOBGE
LAKE GIBSON
GLENAOA LAKE
LAKE GRIFFIN
LAKE HAINES
LAKE HANCOCK
LAKE HORSESHOE
LAKE HOWELL
LAKE ISTOKPOGA
LAKE JESSUP
LAKt KISSIMMEE
LAKE LULU
LAKE MARION
LAKE MJNNEHAHA
LAKE MINNEOLA
LAKE MONROE
LAKE OKEECHOdEE
LAKE OQINSETT
LAKE KEEOr
LAKE SOUTH
LAKE TALOUIN
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
25
50
23
65
60
53
5
45
40
43
48
70
18
93
11
85
28
90
3
78
88
100
38
68
58
95
63
55
( 10)
( 20)
< 9)
( 26)
I 24)
( 21)
( 2)
< 18)
( 16)
( 17)
( 19)
( 28)
( 7)
( 37)
( 4)
( 34)
( 11)
( 36)
( D
I 31)
( 35)
( 40)
< is>
( 27)
( ?3)
( 3S>
( 25)
( 22)
MEDIAN
INOSG N
29
38
29
70
76
35
10
54
81
54
29
81
43
10
23
76
1*
63
3
29
91
98
15
45
60
13
70
20
( 10)
( 15)
( 10)
( 27)
< 30)
( 141
( 4)
( 21)
( 32)
< 211
( 10)
( 32)
( 17)
< 27)
( 9)
( 30)
( 71
1 25)
( 1)
( 10)
( 36)
( 36)
( 6)
( 18)
( 24)
( 5)
( 27)
( 8)
500-
MEAN SEC
30
10
20
33
60
18
3
4H
45
85
23
75
13
00
69
65
5-
73
15
53
95
98
2«
40
50
S5
69
78
I 12)
( 4)
( at
1 13)
( 24)
( 7)
( 1>
< 19)
( id)
I 34)
( 9)
( 30)
( 5)
( 32)
( 27)
( 26)
< 2)
( 29)
( 6)
( 21)
( 38)
( J9>
( 11)
( 16)
( 20)
( 221
( 27)
( 31)
MEAN
CHLOHA
18
38
5
80
55
33
3
43
70
S3
30
58
13
78
35
93
25
t>5
0
bO
85
100
t<3
73
95
4b
68
«3
( 71
( 15)
( 2)
I 32)
( 22)
( 13)
I 1)
1 17)
( 28)
( 21)
( 12)
( 23)
( 51
( 31)
( 14)
( 37)
I 10)
( 26)
I 0)
( 20)
( 34)
( 40)
( 30)
( 29)
( 38)
( Id)
( 271
( 33)
15-
MIN 00
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)
I 0)
I 9)
I 18)
( 1)
( 38)
( 12)
( 39)
( 8)
( 23)
( 27)
( 32)
( 26)
( 3)
( 32)
( 31)
( 35)
( 10)
( 21)
( 12)
( 12)
( 23)
( 2)
MEDIAN
DISS ORTHO V
18
70
23
50
.56
68
10
43
40
38
48
78
2d
65
3
89
25
99
5
73
80
93
33
89
45
95
56
53
( 7)
( 261
( 9)
I 20)
( 22)
( 27)
( 4)
I 17)
( 16)
1 IS)
( 19)
< 31)
< 11)
( 26)
( 1)
( 35)
( 10)
( 39)
( 2)
< 29)
1 321
( 37)
I 13)
( 35)
I 18)
( 38)
( 22)
( 21)
INJE*
NO
130
260
200
346
341
297
31
256
324
276
273
396
213
«06
201
477
lb<«
435
34
366
517
579
215
368
342
33 /
386
294
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES *ITH HIGHER VALUES (NUMBER OF LAKES *ITH HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE
CODE
1240
1241
1242
12*3
1246
12
( 331
I 12)
( 29)
( 32)
< 41
MEDIAN
INOr)G N
85 I
40 (
8 (
91 (
58 (
5 (
48 (
0 (
98 (
50 <
88 <
98 I
65 (
34)
16)
31
36)
23)
2)
19)
0)
38)
20)
35)
38)
26)
500-
MEAN SEC
58
38
43
83
90
a
35
0
100
63
8b
93
25
< 23)
< 15)
( 17)
I 3J)
( 36)
( 3)
( 14)
( 0)
( 40)
( 25)
( 35)
< 37)
( 10)
•4EAN
CHLU-
MEDIAN
OISS OMTHO P
IS
30
a
84
75
13
63
35
60
20
34
99
0
( 6)
( 12)
( 3)
( 33)
( 30)
( 5)
( 25)
( 14)
I 24)
( 8)
1 331
( 39)
( 0)
INDEX
NO
26t>
229
110
49S
467
58
260
98
4*1
207
4H
523
21)6
-------
LAKES RANKED BY INOE* NOS.
RANK LAKE CODE LAKE NAME INDEX NO
i 1230 LAKE MINNEGLA 579
2 1261 EAST LAKE TOMOPEKALIGA s?i
3 1229 LAKE MINNEHAMA si?
4 1243 LAKE HEOHYAKAPKA 495
5 1250 LAKE TARPON 491
6 1221 LAKE ISTOKPOGA 477
7 1246 LAKE YALE 467
8 1224 LAKE KISSIMMEE 455
9 1258 LAKE JESSIE 419
10 1219 LAKE HORSESHOE 406
11 121S LAKE HA1NES 396
12 1238 LAKE SOUTH 386
13 1232 LAKE OKEECHUBEE 368
14 12?8 LAKE MARION 366
15 1206 LAKE CRESCENT 346
16 1234 LAKE POINSETT 342
17 1207 DOCTORS LAKE 341
18 1236 LAKE «EEDI 337
19_ 1211 LAKE GIBSON 3?4
20 1208 LAKE DORA 297
21 1239 LAKE TALOUIN 294
22 1202 LAKE APOPKA 280
23 1212 GLENAOA LAKE 276
Z4 1214 LAKE GRIFFIN 273
25 1240 LAKE THONOTOSASSA 266
26 1248 LAKE SEMINOLE 260
27 1210 LAKE GEOFtGE 2S6
28 1241 LAKE TOHQPEKALIGA 229
-------
LAKES RANKED BY INDEX NOS.
RANK LAKE CODE LAKE NAME 1NOEX NO
39 1331 LAKE MONROE 215
30 1317 LAKE HANCOCK 313
31 1353 LAKE ELOISE 307
33 1364 PAYNE'S PRAIRIE LAKE (NO 306
33 1330 LAKE rtOKELL 301
34 1203 LAKE BANANA 200
35 1333 LAKE JESSUP 18*
36 1301 ALLIGATOR LAKE 130
37 1343 TROUT LAKE 110
38 1349 LAKE LAMNE 98
39 1347 LAKE MONSON 58
40 1337 LAKE LULU 34
41 1309 LAKE EFF1E 31
-------
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 "4 = 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
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA
-------
TRIBUTARY FLO* INFORMATION FUR FLORIDA
8/25/75
LAKE CODE 1252
LAKE ELOISE
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE(SQ KM)
14.6
SUB-DRAINAGE
TRIBUTARY AREAtSQ KM)
1252A1
1252B1
1252C1
1252ZZ
5.7
14.6
0.8
3.3
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAr
NORMALIZED FLOWS(CMS)
JUN JUL AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
NOTE ««« SEE WRITE UP ON WINTER HAVEN CHAIN OF LAKES
DEC
MEAN
0.03 0.04
0.06 0.11
0.00 0.01
0.01 0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.10
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.06
0.00
0.01
-0.08
-0.28
-0.01
0.00
0.00
-0.04
0.00
0.01
0.01
-0.01
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.08
0.01
0.03
o.oe
0.22
0.01
0.03
0.06
0.16
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.09
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.00
0.02
SUMMARY
OTAL DRAINAGE
AREA OF LAKE =
UM OF SUB-DRAINAGE AREAS =
14.6
9.8
TOTAL FLOW
TOTAL FLOW
IN =
OUT =
0.57
0.57
NO DAILY FLOW DATA ON FILE
-------
APPENDIX D
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 75/08/25
125201
21 59 28.0 081 42 17.0
LAKE ELOISE
12105 FLORIDA
00010
DATE TIME DEPTH WATER
FROM OF TEMP
TO DAY FEET CENT
73/03/08 11 50 0000
11 50 0004
11 50 0008
11 50 0013
73/09/06 10 55 0000
10 55 0015
73/11/06 13 36 0000
13 38 0005
13 3H 0013
DATE TIME DEPTH
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
73/03/08 11 50 0000
11 50 0004
11 50 0003
11 50 0013
73/09/06 10 55 0000
10 55 0015
73/11/06 13 38 0000
13 38 0005
13 38 0013
00300 00077 00094
DO TRANSP CNDUCTVY
SECCHI FIELD
MG/L INCHES MICROMHO
23.5
23.1
18.5
17.3
29.0
28.5
23.7
23.6
23.0
0665
S-TOT
/L P
0.496
0.510
0.595
0.655
0.400
0.390
0.477
0.477
0.610
11.9
11.9
5.2
2.8
8.8
8.4
4.8
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
54.2
109.2
50.3
36
33
34
345
340
340
355
370
365
335
334
333
11EPALES
3
00400
PH
SO
9.90
9.90
9.10
9.00
9.30
8.70
9.30
9.20
8.80
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
83
82
84
83
80
78
78
81
83
2111202
0017
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.070
0.080
0.080
0.100
0.090
0.090
0.080
0.080
0.240
FEET DEPTH
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
2.100
1.600
2.100
2.200
2.500
2.500
2.400
2.400
2.800
00630
N02&N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.080
0.100
0.090
0.100
0.100
0.090
0.060
o.oeo
0.090
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTriO
MG/L P
0.369
0.374
0.407
0.416
0.251
0.214
0.313
0.311
0.348
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 75/08/35
125302
27 58 37.0 081 42 22.0
LAKE ELOISE
12105 FLORIDA
DATE
FROM
TO
73/03/08
73/09/06
73/11/06
DATE
FROM
TO
73/03/08
73/09/06
73/11/06
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
12 30 0000
12 30 0004
12 30 0007
11 15 0000
11 15 0010
13 52 0000
13 52 0001
13 52 0009
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
12 30 0000
12 30 0004
12 30 0007
11 15 0000
11 15 0010
13 52 0000
13 52 0009
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
22.3
21.3
19.1
28.8
28.3
23.6
23.6
23.5
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.^65
0.460
0.565
0.411
0.393
0.535
0.502
00300
DO
MG/L
10.
7.
9.
7.
8.
8.
32217
9
6
8
8
4
6
00077 00094
TRANSP CNDUCTVY
SECCHI FIELD
INCHES MiCROMHO
36 340
345
345
35 370
365
34 335
335
335
11EPALES 2111202
3 0011 FEET DEPTH
00400 00410 00610 00625 00630
PH T ALK NH3-N
CAC03 TOTAL
SU MG/L MG/L
9.90 78 0
9.70 77 0
9.30 80 0
9.20 84 0
9.10 85 0
9.20 83 0
9.20 82 0
.070
.080
.090
.070
.060
.070
.080
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
1.600
1.700
1.700
2.700
2.400
2.700
2.500
N02&N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.070
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.070
0.070
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
P
360
367
388
270
245
331
326
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
53.
96.
58.
2
3
2
-------
APPENDIX E
TRIBUTARY DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 75/08/25
12S2A1
27 58 30.0 081 41 30.0
UNNAMED STREAM
12103 7.5 ELOISE
T/LAKE ELOISE
BROG BTlrfN LKS ELOISE AND WINTERSET
11EPALES
2111204
0000 FEET
DEPTH
DATE TIME DEPTH N02&N03
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
73/03/18
73/04/15
73/05/18
73/07/14
73/08/17
73/09/16
73/10/13
73/11/18
73/12/18
74/01/20
74/02/17
11
16
14
12
16
11
12
13
16
16
15
32
30
10
40
00
38
20
20
05
40
55
0630
I&.N03
OTAL
IG/L
0.016
0.010K
0.022
0.026
0.010K
0.010K
0.010K
0.010K
0.104
0.020
0.004
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
2.200
2.000
2.400
2.900
2.940
2.100
1.350
1.300
3.400
1.700
2.400
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.086
0.026
0.038
0.138
0.130
0.014
0.024
0.012
0.028
0.024
0.020
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.372
0.160
0.378
0.310
0.294
0.270
0.029
0.320
0.360
0.154
0.360
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.560
0.345
0.535
0.470
0.430
0.440
0.135
0.430
0.670
0.330
0.510
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STORE! RETRIEVAL DATE 76/02/09
1252B1
27 59 30.0 081 42 30.0
UNNAMED STREAM
12105 7.5 ELOISE
0/LAKE ELOISE
B«OG BTWN LKS ELOISE AND LULU
11EPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
DATE
FROM
TO
73/03/18
73/04/15
73/05/18
73/07/14
73/08/17
73/09/16
73/10/13
73/11/18
73/12/16
74/01/20
74/02/17
00630 00625
TIME DEPTH N02&N03 TOT KJEL
OF N-TOTAL N
DAY FEET
10
17
13
12
14
10
11
12
15
15
15
46
27
10
19
55
38
35
14
42
39
26
MG/L
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
.210
.010K
.010K
.016
.000
.014
.400
.120
.730
.380
MG/L
4.
2.
4.
4.
2.
6.
1.
2.
3.
2.
3.
200
700
700
600
200
600
900
300
500
200
200
00610 00671 00665
NH3-N PHOS-DIS PHOS-TOT
TOTAL ORTHO
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
030
040
041
032
066
110
020
020
028
016
020
MG/L
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
P
600
470
450
630
660
640
294
560
760
500
930
MG/L P
1.650
2.100
1.250
0.990
1.000
1.000
0.480
1.950
1.880
1.880
2.500
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STORE! RETRIEVAL DATE 75/06/25
DATE TIME DEPTH N02&N03
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
73/03/18
73/04/15
73/05/18
73/06/17
73/07/14
73/08/17
73/09/16
73/10/13
73/11/18
73/12/16
74/01/20
74/02/17
11 25
17 08
13 45
15 30
12 33
15 30
11 12
12 05
13 03
15 55
16 20
15 43
1252C1
28 00 00.0 001 41 30.0
UNNAMED STREAM
12 7.5 ELOISE
T/LAKE ELOISE
STREAM CONNET LARES ELOISE & SUMMIT
11EPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
0630
'&N03
OTAL
IG/L
0.016
0.015
0.016
0.027
0.015
0.010K
0.066
0.016
0.500
0.152
0.016
0.052
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
2.100
2.100
2.100
3.400
1.890
1.890
1.800
1.700
1.350
2.300
1.600
1.850
00610
Nrl3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.126
0.048
0.019
0.154
0.017
0.020
0.035
0.021
0.022
0.036
0.016
0.015
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.330
0.320
0.357
0.220
0.060
0.140
0.055
0.067
0.300
0.192
0.280
0.135
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.495
0.500
0.490
0.345
0.160
0.290
0.180
0.200
0.450
0.360
0.420
0.270
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
------- |