U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
LAKE LULU
POLK COUNTY
FLORIDA
EPA REGION IV
WORKING PAPER No, 263
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
•&G.P.O. 699-440
-------
REPORT
^ ON
f LAKE LULU
i
£ POLK COUNIY
^ FLORIDA
f? EPA REGION IV
§ WORKING PAPER No, 263
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
FIDRIDA DEPARTNENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
AND THE
FLORIDA NATIONAL GUARD
DECEMBER, 1977
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword i i
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
-------
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,
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)]5 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.
-------
Ill
Beyond the single lake analysis, broader based correlations
betv/een 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 v/ater 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
Kissimmee
Lawne
Lulu
Marion
liinnehaha
Minneola
Monroe
Munson
Okeechobee
Poinsett
Reedy
Seminole
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
Cl ay
Lake
Osceola
Polk
Pol k
Putnam, Volusia
Polk
Highlands
Lake
Pol k
Polk
Semi no!e
Orange, Seminole
Hiohlands
Polk
Seminole
Osceola
Orange
Polk
Polk
Orange
Lake
Seminole, Volusia
Leon
Glades, Hendry, Martin,
Okeechobee, Palm Beach
Brevard, Orange, Osceola
Polk
Jackson, FL; Decatur,
Seminole, GA
Pinellas
Brevard
Gadsden, Leon
Pinellas
Hillsborough
Osceola
Lake
Polk
Lake
-------
® Lake Lulu Outlet
Gaging Station
Tributary Sampling.Site
X Lake Sampling Site
-------
LAKE LULU
STORE! NO. 1227
I. INTRODUCTION
Lake Lulu is one of the Winter Haven chain of lakes. The hydrology
of this chain is complex, and personnel of the U.S. Geological Survey
question 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 pre-
cipitation probably 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 pro-
vided by the U.S. Geological Survey, and it cannot be determined whether
net flows were to or from Lake Lulu 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 Lulu is very eutrophic.
It ranked 40th in overall trophic quality when the 41 Florida
lakes sampled in 1973 were compared using a combination of
six lake parameters*. Thirty-nine of the lakes had less median
* See Appendix A.
-------
2
total phosphorus, 38 had less median dissolved phosphorus,
39 had less median inorganic nitrogen, all of the others had
less mean chlorophyll a^ and 34 had greater mean Secchi disc
transparency.
Survey limnologists reported algal blooms and observed
macrophytes, including water hyacinths, along the margins and
shallows.
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
The algal assay results indicate that Lake Lulu was nitrogen
limited at the time the sample was collected (03/08/73). However,
the high control assay yield and high inorganic nitrogen and
phosphorus level's in the lake at that time (Appendix D) suggest
in situ primary productivity may have been limited by other fac-
tors such as light penetration. The mean inorganic nitrogen to
orthophosphorus ratios were consistently low (less than 2 to 1)
and support the conclusion that nitrogen was the potentially limi-
ting nutrient in Lake Lulu at the time of Survey sampling.
-------
3
III. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS1"
A. Morphometry :
1. Surface area: 1.22 kilometers2.
2. Mean depth: 1.5 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 2.7 meters.
4. Volume: 1.830 x 106 m3.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 235 days.
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix C for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Drainage Mean flow
Name area (km2)* (m3/sec)**
Unnamed Canal B-l 1.6 0.01
Unnamed Canal C-l 14.6 0.05
Minor tributaries &
immediate drainage - 2.7 0.03
Totals 18.9 0.09
2. Outlet -
Unnamed Canal A-l -, 9n liei(it 0.00
Lake Lulu Outlet ' *"'' 0.09
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 effect of factors affecting flows in connecting canals during
the period of October, 1960, through September, 1968 (Anderson, 1974).
*** Includes area of lake; outflow assumed to equal sum of inflows.
**** see Working Paper No. 175.
-------
4
IV. WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Lake Lulu 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 or more depths at
one station on the lake (see map, page v). During each visit, a
single depth-integrated (near bottom to surface) sample was collected
for phytoplankton identification and enumeration, and a similar
sample was collected for chlorophyll ^analysis. During the first
visit, a single 18.9-liter depth-integrated sample was taken for algal
assays. The maximum depth sampled was 2.1 meters.
The sampling results are presented in full in Appendix D and are
summarized in the following table.
-------
PARAMETER
TEMP (C)
DISS OXY (MG/L)
CNOCTVY (MCROMO)
PH (STAND UNITS)
TOT ALK (MG/D
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/D
CHLRPYL A (UG/D
SECCHI (METERS)
RANGE
21.6 - 23.0
0.7 - 0.7
375. - 375.
8.7 - 9.4
113. - 115.
1.400 - 2.040
0.880 - 1.220
0.610 - 0.660
0.2<+0 - 0.620
2.800 - 3.200
0.900 - 1.23U
3.460 - 3.810
256.7 - 256.7
0.6 - 0.6
OF PHYSICAL ANO CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR
STORET CODE 1327
NG ( 3/
TES
MEAN
22.3
0.7
375.
9.0
114.
1.720
1.050
0.635
0.430
3.000
1.065
3.635
266.7
O.o
8/73)
MEDIAN
22.3
U.7
375.
9.0
114.
1.720
1.050
0.635
0.430
3.000
1.065
3.635
256.7
0.6
2ND SAMPLING ( 9/
1
RANGE
28.4
7.2
327.
9.4
72.
1.040
0.570
0.190
0.150
7.100
0.340
7.290
456.6
0.2
- 28.7
7.2
- 329.
9.6
73.
- 1.200
- 0.610
- 0.190
- 0.190
- 7.200
- 0.380
- 7.390
- <*56.6
0.2
SITES
MEAN
28.5
7.2
328.
9.5
73.
1.120
0.590
0.190
0.170
7.150
0.360
7.340
456.6
0.2
LAKE LULU
6/73)
MEDIAN
28.5
7.2
328.
9.5
73.
1.120
0.590
0.190
0.170
7.150
0.360
7.340
456.6
0.2
3RD SAMPLING ( ll/
1
RANGE
24.3
8.8
342.
8.8
73.
1.580
1.180
1.680
0.100
4.000
1.810
5.680
116.4
0.5
- 24.3
9.0
- 343.
9.0
74.
- 1.640
- 1.200
- 1.740
- 0.130
- 4.000
- 1.840
- 5.740
- 116.4
0.5
SITES
MEAN
24.3
8.9
342.
8.9
74.
1.610
1.190
1.710
0.115
4.000
1.825
5.710
116.4
0.5
6/73)
MEDIAN
24.3
8.9
342.
8.9
74.
1.610
1.190
1.710
0.115
4.000
1.825
5.710
116.4
0.5
-------
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Date
03/08/73
09/06/73
11/06/73
2. Chlorophyll a^ -
Sampli ng
Date
03/08/73
09/06/73
11/06/73
Dominant
Genera
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Scenedesmus sp_.
Phacus sp.
Lyngbya sp_.
Cyclotella sp_.
Merismopedia sp.
Other genera
Total
Microcystis sp.
Scenedesmus sp.
Chroococcus sp.
Dactylococcopsis sp.
Raphidiopsis sp.
Other genera
Total
1. Flagellates
2. Fragilaria sp.
3. Scenedesmus sp.
4. Cyclotella sp_.
5. Cryptomonas sp.
Other genera
Total
Station
Number
1
1
1
Algal Units
per ml
8,163
5,
2,
1,
151
530
988
1,747
7.258
26,837
15,690
2,615
,889
,598
,453
1
1,-
1
4.068
27,313
3,114
1,
1,
1,
1,
779
602
602
602
9,787
19,486
Chlorophyll a
(ug/D
256.7
456.6
116.4
-------
7
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked -
Ortho P Inorganic N Maximum yield
Spike (mg/1) Cone, (mg/1) Cone, (rng/1) (mg/1-dry wt.)
Control 0.600 0.444 25.2
0.050 P 0.650 0.444 25.6
0.050 P + 1.0 N 0.650 1.444 44.0
1.0 N 0.600 1.444 43.5
2. Discussion -
The control yield of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum, indicates that the potential primary productivity
of Lake Lulu was very high at the time the sample was col-
lected (03/08/73). Nitrogen alone and in combination with
orthophosphorus resulted in increased algal yields, but
orthophosphorus alone did not, indicating that the lake was
nitrogen limited when sampled.
This conclusion is supported by the mean inorganic nitro-
gen/orthophosphorus ratios in the lake. At the time the assay
sample was collected, the mean N/P ratio was 1/1. However,
it is noted that both nitrogen and phosphorus levels remained
high on all three sampling dates, and primary productivity in
Lake Lulu does not appear to be limited by availability of
major nutrients.
-------
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Anderson, Warren, 1974. Personal communication (hydrology of Winter
Haven chain of lakes). U.S. Geol. Surv., Winter Park.
Anonymous, 1972. Water resources data for Florida, Part 1: Surface
water records. Vol 1: Streams of northern and central Florida.
U.S. Geol. Surv., Tallahassee.
Dye, Craig W., 1976. Personal communication (review of preliminary report).
FL Dept. Env. Reg., Tallahassee.
-------
VI. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
LAKE RANKINGS
-------
LAKE DATA TO BE USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE
COOE
1201
1202
1203
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
121 1
1212
1214
1215
1217
1219
1220
1221
122J
122*
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
123"
1230
123b
1239
LAKE
NAME
ALLIGATOR LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
APOPKA
dANANA
CRESCENT
DOCTORS LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
DOHA
EFFIE
GEORGE
GIdSON
GLENADA LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
LAKt
LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
L2KC
LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
GRIFFIN
HSINES
HANCOCK
HORSESHOE
HO*ELL
ISTOKPOGA
JESSUP
KISSIMMLE
LULU
MARION
MINNEHAHA
"INNEOLA
MONROE
OKEECHOdEE
POINSETT
PFEDY
SOUTH
TALQUIN
MEOUN
TOTAL P
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.o2C
.10?
.660
.065
.084
.102
.'.SO
.129
.167
.13*
.119
.063
.772
.03*.
.260
.039
.49?
.034
.490
.044
.03K
.018
.138
.063
.065
.033
.074
.085
MEDIAN
INOPG 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
o.?9o
0.145
1.065
0.260
0.080
0.070
0.300
0.185
0.150
0.330
0.130
0.290
500-
MEAN StC
474.000
444. 1 76
482.667
473.889
465.555
482.889
489.000
469. 30B
470.000
454.167
481.333
462.667
483.500
459.000
464.000
464.222
487.000
463.667
483.000
468.833
43:3.000
406.333
474.555
472.366
"69.000
468.500
4*14.000
462.167
MEAN
ClLOWA
87
40
208
10
27
59
261
35
19
27
66
26
97
12
54
6
7b
24
276
29
a
3
14
14
6
34
23
9
.733
.611
.600
.211
.100
.978
.433
.000
.675
.667
.855
.567
.900
.067
.117
.594
.550
.142
.566
.967
.733
.333
.225
.524
.500
.837
.167
.483
15-
MIN DO
13
8
3
10
10
7
IS
11
10
14
6
10
5
11
9
8
7
8
14
7
7
7
10
9
10
10
9
14
.100
.200
.600
.200
.600
.400
.000
.000
.200
.700
.600
.600
.600
.500
.000
.600
.600
.800
.300
.600
.700
.400
.800
.800
.600
.600
.000
.400
MEDIAN
DliS Orll rlO P
0.3io
0.019
0.293
0.033
0.028
0.022
0.950
0.063
0.069
0.072
0.03d
0.014
o.isa
0.023
1.175
0.010
0.288
0.007
1.030
0.016
O.Oli
0.009
0.12c
0.010
O.Oal
O.OOa
0.028
O.OJ1
-------
LAKE DATA TO 8E USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE
CODE
1240
1241
1242
1243
12*6
1247
1248
12*9
1250
12S2
125B
1261
126*
LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
TROUT
LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
EAST
NAME
THONOTOSASSA
TOHOPEKALIGA
LAKE
WEOHYAKAPKA
YALE
MUNSON
SEMINOLE
LAWNE
TARPON
ELOISE
JESSIE
LAKE TOHOPEKALIGA
PAYNE'S PHAIRIE LAKE INO
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
0.6Y5
0.246
1.110
0.047
0.027
1.475
0.234
?.560
0.041
0.486
0.051
0.042
1.260
MEDIAN
INORG N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
.095
.200
.650
.080
.160
.925
.175
.350
.070
.170
.090
.070
.140
500-
MEAN SEC
466.167
472.917
472.000
456.667
441.000
486.667
473.833
494.667
400.889
465.333
452.667
440.833
476.000
MEAN
CrILOBA
37
30
76
7
25
140
102
84
6
70
26
5
88
.700
.633
.967
.767
.367
.317
.000
.900
.867
.233
.300
.167
.200
15-
MIN DO
10
10
12
8
7
12
6
10
9
12
10
9
7
.200
.500
.900
.200
.600
.200
.600
.400
.000
• 200
.800
.400
.400
MEDIAN
DISS OHTrlO P
0.565
0.152
0.470
0.011
0.014
0.852
0.026
0.117
O.U27
0.339
0.011
0.007
1.210
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES *ITH HIGHER VALUES (NUMBER OF LAKES HUH HIGHER VALUESI
LA
( 15)
( 27)
< 23)
( 3S)
< 25)
( 22)
MEDIAN
INO^G N
29
38
29
70
76
35
10
54
61
t>4
29
81
43
/H
23
76
1"
63
3
29
91
98
IS
45
60
13
70
20
( 101
( 151
( 10)
( 27)
( 30)
( 14)
( 4)
( 21)
( 32)
< 21)
( 10)
( 32)
( 17)
( 27)
( 9)
( 301
( 7)
( 25)
( 1)
( 10)
( 36)
( 38)
( 61
( 1H>
( 24)
( SI
( 27)
( 81
500-
MtAN SEC
30
10
20
33
60
IB
3
4H
4S
85
23
75
13
aO
69
65
5
73
15
S3
95
98
28
40
50
55
69
7b
( 12)
( 4)
I 81
( 13)
( 24)
( 71
( 1)
! 19)
< 18)
( 34)
I 9)
( 30)
1 5)
I 32)
( 27)
( 26)
( 2)
( 2V)
< 6)
( 211
( 38)
( J9>
( 11)
( 16)
( 20)
( 22)
( 27)
( 31)
MEAN
CHLOHA
18 (
38 <
5 (
80 (
55 I
33 (
3 1
43 (
70 (
53 (
30 (
58 (
13 (
78 (
35 (
93 (
25 (
oS (
0 <
bO (
85 <
100 (
l*> <
73 <
95 I
45 (
68 (
03 (
7)
15)
21
321
22)
13)
1)
17)
28)
21)
12)
23)
5)
31)
!•»)
371
10)
26)
0)
20)
34)
40)
30)
291
38)
10)
27)
33)
15-
MIN 00
10
74
100
48
34
90
0
23
48
3
95
34
98
20
60
69
b3
65
8
83
78
90
26
S3
34
34
60
5
( 4)
( 291
( 40)
I 18)
( 12)
( 35)
( 0)
1 9)
( IB)
I D
( 38)
( 12)
( 39)
( 8)
( 23)
( 27)
( 32)
( 261
( 3)
( 32)
( 31)
( 35)
( 10)
1 21)
< 12)
( 12)
( 23)
I 2)
MEDIAN
OISS OKTHO f
IB
70
23
50
56
68
10
43
40
38
48
78
Z'i
65
3
89
25
99
5
73
80
93
3J
89
45
95
56
53
( 7)
( 26)
I 9)
I 20)
1 22)
( 271
( 4)
I 17)
( 16)
( 15)
( 19)
( 31)
I 11)
( 26)
( 11
( 35)
( 10)
I 39)
( 2)
( 291
( 32)
I 37)
( 13)
( 3bl
( 18)
( 3S)
( 22)
( 211
INLlE*
NO
130
2oo
200
346
341
297
31
256
324
276
273
396
213
406
201
477
1B4
435
34
366
517
379
215
36*
3»2
3J/
3d6
294
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES *ITH HIGHER VALUES INUMBER OF LAKES KITH HIGHER VALUESI
LAKE
CODE
1240
1241
1242
1243
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1252
1258
1261
126-.
LAKE NAME
LAKE THONOTOSASSA
LAKE TOHOPEKALIGA
TROUT LAKE
LAKE WEOHYAKAPKA
LAKE VALE
LAKE HUNSON
LAKE SEMINOLE
LAKE LAWNE
LAKE TARPON
LAKE ELOISE
LAKE JESSIE
EAST LAKE TOHOPEKALIGA
PAYNE'S PRAIRIE LAKE (NO
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
20
33
15
75
9P
8
35
0
83
30
73
80
11
( 8)
( 13)
( 6)
< 30)
1 39)
( 3)
I 141
< 0)
( 33)
1 12)
( 29)
( 32)
( 4>
MEDIAN
INORG N
85
40
8
91
58
5
48
0
98
SO
tie
98
65
I 34)
( 16)
( 3)
I 36)
< 23)
( 2)
( 19)
I 0)
( 38)
I 20)
< 351
I 38)
( 26)
500-
MEAN SEC
58
38
43
83
90
8
35
0
100
63
86
93
25
( 23)
( 15)
( 17)
( 33)
( 36)
( 3)
( 14)
I 0)
I 40)
( 25)
( 35)
( 37)
( 10)
MEAN
CHLOKA
40
48
23
88
63
8
10
20
90
28
60
98
15
( 16)
( 19)
( 9)
( 35)
( 25)
( 3)
( 4)
I 8)
( 36)
I 11)
( 24)
I 39)
( 6)
15-
MIN 00
48
40
13
74
83
16
69
43
60
16
26
55
90
I 18)
( 16)
( 5)
( 29)
( 32)
( 6)
( 27)
< 17)
I 23)
( 6)
I 10)
( 22>
( 35)
MEDIAN
OISS OHTHO P
15 (
30 (
8 I
84 t
75 (
13 (
63 I
35 (
60 <
20 (
84 (
99 (
0 I
6)
12)
3)
33)
30)
5)
25)
14)
24)
8)
33)
39)
0)
INDEX
NO
266
229
110
495
467
58
260
98
491
207
419
523
206
-------
LAKES RANKED BY INDEX NOS.
WANK LAKE CODE LAKE NAME INDEX NO
i 1330 LAKE MINNEOLA 579
2 1261 EAST LAKE TOriOPEKALIGA 523
3 1229 LAKE MINNEHAMA 517
4 1243 LAKE WEOHYAKAPHA 495
5 1250 LAKE TARPON 491
6 1221 LAKE ISTOKPOGA 477
7 1346 LAKE YALE 467
8 1224 LAKE KISSIMMEE 455
9 1358 LAKE JESSIE 4|9
10 1219 LAKE HORSESHOE 406
11 1215 LAKE MAINES 396
12 1238 LAKE SOUTH 386
13 1332 LAKE OKEECHOBEE 368
14 1228 LAKE MARION 366
15 1206 LAKE CRESCENT 346
16 1234 LAKE POINSETT 342
17 1207 DOCTORS LAKE 341
18 1236 LAKE REEDY 337
19 1211 LAKE GIBSON 3?4
20 1208 LAKE DORA 297
21 1239 LAKE TALQUIN 294
22 1202 LAKE APOPKA 280
23 1212 GLENAOA LAKE 276
24 1214 LAKE GRIFFIN 273
25 1240 LAKE THONOTOSASSA 266
26 1248 LAKE SEMINOLE 260
27 1210 LAKE GEORGE 256
28 1241 LAKE TOHQPEKALIGA 229
-------
LAKES RANKED BY INDEX NOS.
RANK LAKE CODE LAKE NAME INDEX NO
29 1231 LAKE MONROE 215
30 1217 LAKE HANCOCK 213
31 1252 LAKE ELOISE 207
32 1264 PAYNE«S PRAIRIE LAKE
-------
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 2.2.05 = pounds
Kilograms/square kilometer x 5.711 = Ibs/square mile
-------
JIPPENDIX C
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA
-------
TRIBUTARY FLOW INFORMATION FOR FLORIDA
8/25/75
LAKE CODE 1227
LAKE LULU
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE(SO KM>
58.8
SUB-DRAINAGE
TRIBUTARY AREAtSQ KM)
1227A1
122781
1227C1
1227ZZ
38.6
1.6
14.6
2.7
JAN
FES
MAR
APR
MAY
NORMALIZED FLOWS(CMS)
JUN JUL AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
NOTE ««* SEE WRITE UP ON WINTER HAVEN CHAIN OF LAKES
MEAN
-0.01 -0.01 0.07 -0.14
0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02
O.Ob 0.11 0.02 0.10
0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03
-0
0
0
0
.10
.01
.06
.01
0.39
-0.01
-0.28
0.01
0.14
0.01
-0.04
0.02
0.09
0.02
-0.01
0.04
-0.07
0.03
0.08
0.06
-0.10
0.03
0.22
0.05
-0.
0.
0.
0.
20
02
16
03
-0.08
0.01
0.09
0.02
-0.00
0.01
0.05
0.03
SUMMARY
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE =
SUM OF SUB-DRAINAGE AREAS =
58.8
57.5
TOTAL FLOW
TOTAL FLOW
IN =
OUT =
1
0
.05
.0
NO DAILY FLOW DATA ON FILE
-------
APPENDIX D
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STORE! RETRIEVAL DATE 75/03/25
122701
27 59 45.0 081 43 17.0
LAKE LULU
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
11 15 0000
11 15 0005
11 35 0000
11 35 0007
13 28 0000
13 28 0001
13 28 0005
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
11 15 0000
11 15 0005
11 35 0000
11 35 0007
13 28 0000
13 28 0005
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
23.0
21.6
28.7
28.4
24.3
24.3
24.3
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L p
1.400
2.040
1.200
1.040
1.640
1.580
11EPALES 2111202
3 0009 FEET DEPTH
00300 00077 00094 00400 00410 00610 00625 00630 00671
DO TRANSP CNDUCTVY PH T ALK NH3-N TOT KJEL N02&N03 PHOS-DIS
SECCHI FIELD CAC03 TOTAL N N-TOTAL ORTHO
MG/L INCHES MICROMHO SU
0.7
1.2
9.0
8.8
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
256.7
456.6
116.4
24 375 9.40
375 8.70
9 329 9.60
327 9.40
18 342 9.00
342
343 8.80
MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L P
113 0.240 2.800 0.660 1.220
115 0.620 3.200 0.610 0.880
72 0.150 7.200 0.190 0.570
73 0.190 7.100 0.190 0.610
74 0.100 4.000 1.740 1.200
73 0.130 4.000 1.680 1.180
-------
APPENDIX E
TRIBUTARY DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 75/08/25
I227A1
28 00 00.0 081 44 30.0
UNNAMED STREAM
12097 7.5 ELOISE
T/LAKE LULU
BRDG ON US 17 NE OF ELOISE
-11EPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
DATE TIME DEPTH N02^N03
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
73/03/18
73/04/15
73/05/18
73/06/17
73/OT/14
73/08/17
73/09/16
73/10/13
73/11/18
73/12/16
74/01/20
74/02/02
10 25
16 10
12 50
14 35
12 00
14 29
10 20
11 23
11 52
15 30
15 20
15 12
0630
I&N03
OTAL
IG/L
0.010K
0.630
0.460
0.570
0.010K
0.011
0.078
2.700
0.008
0.480
3.600
0.016
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
2.200
4.100
2.730
9. BOO
1.400
1.470
2.650
10.500
2.700
3.700
ll.SOO
1.900
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.052
0.890
0.540
2.000
0.050
0.011
0.012
7.200
0.016
0.480
0.010
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.035
0.043
0.030
1.370
0.021
0.020
0.021
0.052
0.072
0.128
0.550
0.070
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.175
0.360
0.230
1.950
0.125
0.113
0.145
0.295
0.300
0.400
1.400
0.250
K VALUE KNOWN) TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 75/08/25
122781
27 59 30.0 081 42 30.0
UNNAMED STREAM
12 7.5 ELOISE
T/LAKE LULU
BRDG ON RT 540A
11EPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET
DEPTH
DATE TIME DEPTH N02S.N03
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
73/03/18
73/04/15
73/05/18
73/06/17
73/07/14
73/08/17
73/10/13
73/11/18
73/12/16
74/01/20
74/02/02
10 56
16 42
13 20
15 00
12 25
15 00
11 45
12 25
15 45
15 49
15 30
0630
!S.N03
OTAL
IG/L
0.320
0.138
0.011
0.010K
0.010K
0.022
0.570
1.180
1.090
0.970
0.320
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
4.600
4.900
5.460
7.800
4.800
5.000
4.000
2.100
3.900
2.900
2.500
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.043
0.039
0.065
0.045
0.032
0.200
0.450
0.084
0.108
0.065
0.015
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.760
1.440
0.760
0.440
0.640
0.640
0.960
1.600
2.100
1.900
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
1.610
2.100
1.400
1.300
0.990
0.930
1.150
1.880
1.880
2.600
2.400
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 75/08/25
1227C1
27 59 30oO 081 42 30oO
UNNAMED STREAM
12 7o5 ELOISE
I/LAKE LULU
SECONDARY RD 8RDG 8TWN LKS LULU 6, ELOISE
UEPALES 211120*
to 0000 FEET DEPTH
DATE
FROM
TO
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
74/02/02
00630 00625
TIME DEPTH N02&N03 TOT KJEL
OF N-FOTAL N
DAY FEET
10
16
13
14
12
14
10
11
12
15
15
15
43
25
15
45
15
53
35
39
10
38
34
24
MG/L
Co
Oo
C 0
Oo
Oo
Oo
Oo
Oo
lo
lo
Oo
Oo
476
189
010K
012
010K
033
750
019
400
180
500
380
MG/L
3olOO
5o040
4o800
2o800
30990
!o980
6o500
2o700
3oOOO
3oOOO
2ol50
2o500
00610 00671 00665
NH3°N PHOS-DIS PHOS°TOT
TOTAL ORTKO
MG/L
Oo
Oo
Oo
Oo
Oo
Oo
Oo
Oo
Oo
Oo
Oo
Oo
520
032
065
025
050
140
023
023
028
044
025
015
MG/L
Oo
lo
Oo
Oo
Oo
Oo
Oo
Oo
Jo
lo
lo
lo
P
770
^t70
^ i 0
360
590
730
650
315
500
650
100
950
MG/L
lo
2o
lo
Oo
1 0
lo
lo
Oo
lo
lo
lo
2o
P
720
200
300
50C
000
05C
000
490
950
800
450
400
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
------- |