U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
SOtfHLAKE
BREVARD COUNTY
FLORIDA
EPA REGION IV
WORKING PAPER No, 270
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
•&G.P.O. 699-440
-------
REPORT
ON
SOUTH LAKE
BREVARD COWIY
FLORIDA
EPA REGION IV
o WORKING PAPER No, 270
O
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
FLDRIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
AND THE
FLORIDA NATIONAL GUARD
SEPTEMBER, 1977
-------
i
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword ii
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
-------
1i
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 freshv/ater 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 freshv/ater 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 bnsin is
documented. The report is fornvattcd to provide state environmental
agencies with specific information for basin planning [§303(e)], water
quality criteria/standards review [§303(c)]> clean lakes [S314(a,b)~J,
and water quality monitoring [§106 and §305(b)] activities mandated
by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
-------
iii
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 betv/een 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 Eutroplvication 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, fbrnter Director of the Division
of Planning, Technical Assistance, and Grants; and Dr. Tim S. Stuart,
Chi'••' 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.
-------
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
Howe!1
Istokpoga
Jessie
Oessup
Kissimmee
Lawne
Lulu
Marion
Minnehaha
Mtnneola
Monroe
Munson
Okeechobee
Poinsett
Reedy
Semi nole
Seminole
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
Pol k
Polk
Semi no!e
Orange, Semi no!e
Highlands
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
Ptnellas
Brevard
Ga-dsderi, Leon
Pinellas
lUllsborough
Osceola
Lake
Polk
-------
SOUTH LAKE
X Lake Sampling Site
28°38'—
28°37—
28° 36'—
-------
SOUTH LAKE
STORE! NO. 1238
I. INTRODUCTION
South Lake was included in the National Eutrophication Survey as a
water body of interest to the Florida Department of Environmental Regu-
lation. Tributaries and nutrient sources were not sampled, and this
report relates only to the lake sampling data.
South Lake was surveyed by the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish
Commission from 1966 to 1973 (Dingell-Johnson projects, 1966-1973).
II. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey data indicate that South Lake is eutrophic. It ranked
twelfth when the 41 Florida lakes sampled in 1973 were compared
using an index of six parameters*. Fifteen of the lakes had less
median total phosphorus, 17 had less and one had the same median
orthophosphorus, 11 had less and two had the same median
inorganic nitrogen, 13 had less mean chlorophyll a., and 12 had
greater and one had the same mean Secchi disc transparency.
Survey limnologists noted floating and submerged aquatic vege-
tation at all sampling times.
B. Rate-Limi ting Nutrient:
The algal assay results indicate nitrogen limitation at the
time the sample was collected (03/15/73). The lake data indicate
nitrogen limitation at all sampling times.
* See Appendix A.
-------
III. LAKE CHARACTERISTICS1"
A. Lake Morphometry*:
1. Surface area: 4.46 kilometers2.
2. Mean depth: 0.9 meter.
3. Maximum depth: 1.0 meter.
4. Volume: 4.01 x 106 m3.
B. Precipitation**:
1. Year of sampling: 131.3 centimeters.
2. Mean annual: 142.1 centimeters.
t Table of metric conversions—Appendix B.
* No bathymetric map available (surface area obtained from U.S.G.S. quad-
rangle map; depths estimated from sounding reported in Appendix C).
** See Working Paper No. 175, "...Survey Methods, 1973-1976".
-------
3
IV. WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
South Lake was sampled three times in 1973 by means of a pontoon-
equipped Huey helicopter. Each time, a near-surface sample for
physical and chemical parameters was collected from one station
on the lake (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
collected for chlorophyll a_ analysis. During the first visit, a
single 18.9-liter surface sample was taken for algal assays.
The sampling results are presented in full in Appendix C and
are summarized in the following table.
-------
PARAMETER
TEMP (C)
DISS OXY (MG/D
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)
A. SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND
1ST SAMPLING ( 3/15/73)
1 SITES
RANGE MEAN MEDIAN
25.0 - 25.0 25.0 25.0
1200.
9.3
80.
0.109
0.028
0.050
0.060
1.900
0.110
1.950
49.6
0.9
- 1200.
9.3
80.
- 0.109
- 0.028
- 0.050
- 0.060
- 1.900
- 0.110
- 1.950
- 49.6
0.9
1200.
9.3
80.
0.109
0.028
0.050
0.060
1.900
0.110
1.950
49.6
0.9
1200.
9.3
80.
0.109
0.028
0.050
0.060
1.900
0.110
1.950
49.6
0.9
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR LAKE SOUTH
STORET CODE 1238
2ND SAMPLING ( 9/ 5/73)
1 SITES
RANGE MEAN MEDIAN
«««»«« .«««««««»«««««»«»*«*«««
6.0 - 6.0 6.0 6.0
««««»» _«»«««««
7.9 - 7.9
88. - 88.
0.034 - 0.034
0.016 - 0.016
0.060 - 0.060
0.090 - 0.090
1.600 - 1.600
0.150 - 0.150
1.660 - 1.660
12.2 - 12.2
0.6 - 0.6
3RD SAMPLING (ll/ 5/73)
1 SITES
RANGE MEAN MEDIAN
24.9 - 24.9 24.9 24.9
IHHHHHHHHHHHUt
7.9
88.
0.034
0.016
0.060
0.090
1.600
0.150
1.660
12.2
0.6
7.9
38.
0.034
0.016
0.060
0.090
1.600
0.150
1.660
12.2
0.6
970.
8.4
67.
0.074
0.061
0.060
0.070
1.000
0.130
1.060
7.7
1.2
- 970.
8.4
67.
- 0.074
- 0.061
- 0.060
- 0.070
- 1.000
- 0.130
- 1.060
7.7
1.2
970.
8.4
67.
0.074
0.061
0.060
0.070
1.000
0.130
1.060
7.7
1.2
970.
8.4
67.
0.074
0.061
0.060
0.070
1.000
0.130
1.060
7.7
1.2
-------
B. Biological Characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampli ng
Date
03/15/73
09/05/73
11/05/73
2. Chlorophyll a_ -
Sampl i ng
Date
03/15/73
09/05/73
11/05/73
Dominant
Genera
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Anabaena sp.
Lyngbya sp.
Flagellates
Dinobryan sp.
Peri dim" urn sp.
Kirchneriella sp.
Other genera
Total
Peridinium sp.
Flagellates
Coelosphaericum sp.
Pennate diatoms
Euglena sp.
Other genera
Total
Flagellates
Microcystis sp.
Chroococcus sp.
Anabaena sjx
Cosmarium sp.
Merismopedia sp.
Other genera
Algal Units
per ml
6,154
3,756
1,041
950
588
588
2,262
Total
Station
Number
1
1
1
15,339
715
520
357
260
162
617
2,631
2,941
2,508
1,557
691
509
509
1.724
10,439
Chlorophyll a
(yg/D
49.6
12.2
7.7
-------
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/1-dry wt.)
Control 0.035 0.408 10.3
0.050 P 0.085 0.408 11.5
0.050 P + 1.0 N 0.085 1.408 22.0
1.0 N 0.035 1.408 14.5
2. Discussion -
The control yield of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum, indicates that the potential primary productivity
of South Lake was high at the time the sample was collected.
A significant increase in yield occurred with the addition
of nitrogen alone, but the addition of phosphorus alone did
not result in a significant difference in yield as compared
to that of the control. Therefore, nitrogen limitation would
be expected.
The lake data also indicate nitrogen limitation. The
inorganic nitrogen to orthophosphorus ratios were 9 to 1
or less at all sampling times.
-------
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission. 1966-1967. Final com-
pletion report, Dingell-Johnson project F-21-R-1. Tallahassee.
, 1968-1969. Final completion report, Dingell-
Johnson project F-21-3. Tallahassee.
_, 1970-1971. Final completion report, Dingell-
Johnson project F-21-5. Tallahassee.
_, 1972-1973. Final completion report, Dingell-
Johnson project F-21-7. Tallahassee.
-------
VI. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
LAKE RANKINGS
-------
LAKE DATA TO 3£ USED JN RANKINGS
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
1301 ALLIGATOR LAKE
1203 LAKE APOPKA
1203 LAKE BANANA
1206 LAKE CPESCENT
1207 DOCTORS LAKE
1208 LAKE DORA
1209 LAKE EFFIE
1210 LAKE GEORGE
1211 LAKE GIBSON
1212 GLENAOA LAKE
121* LAKE GRIFFIN
1215 LAKE HilNES
1217 LAKE HANCOCK
1219 LAKE HORSESHOE
1220 LAKE HOWELL
1221 LAKE ISTOKPOGA
Z223 LAKE JESSUP
1224 LAKE KISSIMMEc
1227 LAKE LULU
1228 LAKE MARION
1229 LAKE HINNEHAHA
1230 LAKE HINNEOLA
1231 LAKE MONROE
1232 LAKE OKEcCHOSEE
1234 LAKE POIKSETT
123& LAKE REEDY
1233 LAKE SOUTH
1239 LAKE TALOUIN
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
0.620
0.102.
0.660
0.065
0.084
0.102
1.480
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
0.183
0.063
C.OS5
0.033
0.074
0.08S
MEDIAN
INORG 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
0.1'SS
0 . 130
0.285
0.120
0.2.90
0.145
1.065
0.260
o.o eo
0.070
0.300
C.185
0,150
C.330
0.130
0.290
500-
MEAN SEC
474.000
484.176
462.667
473.889
465.555
482.889
489.000
469.308
470.000
454. J67
481.333
462.667
483.500
459.000
464.000
464.222
487.000
463.667
483.000
463.833
435. OCO
406.333
474.555
472.366
469.000
468,500
464.000
462.167
MEAN
CHLORA
87.733
46.611
208.600
10.211
27.100
5V. 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
29.967
8.733
3.333
14.225
14.524
6.500
34.837
23.167
9.483
15-
MIN DO
13.100
8.200
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 ORTriO P
0.366
0.019
0.293
0.033
0.028
0.022
0.950
0.063
0.069
0.072
0.033
0.014
0.158
0.023
1.175
0.010
0.283
0.007
1.030
0.016
0.012
0.009
0.123
0.010
o.os;
0.038
0.023
0.031
-------
LAKE DATA TO BE USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
12*0 LAKE THONOTOSASSA
12*1 LAKE TOHOPEKALIGA
12*2 TROUT LAKE
12*3 LAKE WEOHYAKAPKA
12*6 LAKE YALE
1247 LAKE MUNSON
12*8 LAKE SEMINOLE
12*9 LAKE LAWNE
1250 LAKE TARPON
1252 LAKE ELOISE
1258 LAKE JESSIE
126J EAST LAKE TOHOPEKALIGA
126* PAYN£>S PRAIRIE LAKE (NO
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
0.695
0.246
1.110
0.0*7
0.027
1.475
0.234
2.560
0.0*1
0.*86
0.051
0.0*2
Io2&0
MEDIAN
INORG N
0.095
0.200
0.650
0.080
C.160
0.925
0.175
1.350
0.070
0.170
0;.090
0.070
O.'l40
500-
MEAN SEC
*66.167
*72.917
472.000
458.667
441.000
486.667
473.833
494.667
400.389
465.333
452.667
4*0.333
476.000
MEAN
CHLORA
37.700
30.633
76.967
7.767
25.367
1*0.317
102.000
84.900
. 6.867
70.233
26.30C
5.16?
33.200
15-
MIN 00
10.200
10.500
12.900
8.200
7.600
12.200
8.600
10.400
9.000
12.200
10.800
9.400
7.400
MEDIAN
DISS 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
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES (NUMBER or LAKES KITH HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAVE
1201 ALLIGATOR LAKE
1202 LAKE APOPKA
1203 LAKE BANANA
1206 LAKE CPESCENT
1207 DOCTORS LAKE
1208 LAKE CORA
1209 LAKE EFFIE
1210 LAKE GEORGE
1211 LAKE GIBSON
1212 GLENAOA LAKE
121A LAKE GRIFFIN
1215 LAKE HAINES
1217 LAKE HANCOCK
1219 LAKE HORSESHOE
1220 LAKE HOWELL
(•
1221 LAKE ISTOKPOGA
1223 LAKE JESSUP
122A LAKE KISSIMMEE
1227 LAKE LULU
1228 LAKE MARION
' 1229 LAKt MINNEHAHA
1230 LAKE MINNEOLA
1231 LAKE MONROE
1232 LAKE OKEECH03EE
123A LAKE PCINSETT
1236 LAKE REEDY
1238 LAKE SOUTH
1239 LAKE TALOUIN
KEOIAN
TOTAL P
25 (
50 (
23 (
65 (
60 (
53 <
5 (
AS (
AO (
A3 (
AS (
70 (
18 (
93 (
11 <
85 (
28 <
50 <
3 (
78 (
88 (
ICO C
33 !
68 (
53 (
95 t
63 (
55 «
10)
20)
9)
26)
2A)
21)
2)
18!
16)
17)
19)
23)
7)
37)
A)
3M
ID
36)
1)
31?
35)
AC)
15)
27)
23)
3S)
255
22!
KcDIAN 500-
INORG N MEAN
29 <
39 (.
29 ',
70 t
76 (
35 (
10 (
5A (
81 t
SA <
29 (
81 (
A3 <
70 <
"23 <
76 <
18 <
63 <
3 (
29 (
91 <
98 (
15 (
A5 <
60 (
13 5
70 <
20 (
10)
15)
10)
H7>
30)
1A)
A)
21)
32!
21)
10)
32)
17)
27)
9)
30)
7)
25)
1)
10!
36)
331
6)
18)
2A)
5!
27)
8)
30
10
20
33
60
18
3
A3
AS
85
23
75
13
60
69
65
5
73
15
53
95
93
2«
AO
50
55
69
78
SEC
( 12)
( A)
! 8)
( 13)
( 2A>
( 7)
< 1)
( 19)
< 18)
< 3A)
! 9!
( 30)
{ 5)
( 321
« 27)
( 26)
( 2)
< 29)
( 6)
( 21)
< 33)
( 39)
< 11)
( 16!
( 20)
( 22)
( 27)
( 31)
MEAN
CHLORA
18 (
38 (
5 (
80 (
55 I
33 (
3 (
A3 (
70 (
53 (
30 (
53 (
13 (
78 (
35 (
93 <
25 (
65 <
0 (
50 '.
65 (
100 (
75 (
73 (
95 (
A5 (
68 t
83 (
7)
IS)
2)
32)
22)
13)
1)
17)
23)
21)
12)
23)
5)
31)
1A)
37!
10)
26)
0)
20)
3A!
AO)
30!
211
33)
18!
27)
33)
15- MEDIAN
MIN 00 OISS ORTHO P
10 (
7A (
100 <
A3 <
3A <
90 1
0 1
23 1
A3 1
3 1
95 i
3A i
98 i
20 '
60 i
69
33
65
8
83
78
90
26
53
3A
3A
• 60
5
A)
29!
AO)
18)
12)
: 35)
; o>
[ 9)
[ 18)
t 1)
I 33)
! 12)
( 39)
t 8)
I 23)
( 27!
( 32)
( 26)
( 3)
( 32)
< 31)
( 35!
( 10)
( 21)
( 12!
< 12!
( 23!
< 2!
18
70
23
50
56
68
10
A3
AO
38
AS
78
28
65
3
89
25
99
5
73
80
93
33
89
A5
95
56
53
( 7)
< 28)
< 9)
( 20)
( 22)
( 27)
( A)
( 17)
< 16)
( 15)
( 19)
< 31)
( 11)
( 26)
( 1)
! 35)
I 10)
< 39)
( 2)
( 29)
( 32)
( 37)
( 13)
( 35)
< 18)
< 33)
( 22)
( 21)
INDEX
NO
130
280
200
3A6
3A1
297
31
256
32A
276
273
395
213
A06
201
A77
ISA
A55
3A
366
517
579
215
368
3A2
337
386
29A
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES UITH HIGHER VALUES (NUMBER OF LAKES telTH HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
12*0 LAKE THONOTOSASSA
1241 LAKE TOHOPEKALIGA
1242 TROUT LAKE
1243 LAKE WEOHYAKAPKA
1246 LAKE YALE
12*7 LAKE MUNSON
12*8 LAKE SEHINOLE
12*9 LAKE LAWNE
1250 LAKE TARPON
1252 LAKE ELOISE
1258 LAKE JESSIE
1261 EAST LAKE TOHCPEKALIGA
1264 PAYNE'S PRAIRIE LAKE (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)
MEDIAN
INORG N
85
40
a
91
58
5
48
0
98
50
88
98
65
( 34)
( 16)
( 3)
( 36)
( 23)
( 2)
( 19)
( 0)
( 38)
( 20)
( 35)
( 38)
< 26)
500-
MEAN SEC
58 1
38 1
43 1
83 i
90 i
8
35
0
100
63
88
93
25
[ 23)
! 15)
I 17)
I 33)
! 36)
( 3)
( 14)
( 0)
( 40)
( 25)
( 35)
( 37>
( 10)
MEAN
CHLORA
40
48
23
88
63
8
10
20
90
28
60
98
15
( 16)
( 19)
( 9)
( 35)
( 25)
( 3)
( 4)
( 8)
( 36)
( 11)
( 24)
( 39)
( 6)
15-
HIN 00
48 1
40 1
13 1
74 (
83 1
16 I
69 i
43 1
60 i
16 1
26 i
55 i
90 i
I 18)
: 16)
( 5)
: 29)
[ 32)
[ 6)
t 27)
I 17)
1 23)
I 6)
1 10)
1 22>
I 35)
MEDIAN
OISS ORTHO P
15 (
30 1
a i
84 (
75 <
13 1
63 i
35 i
60 i
20 I
84 <
99 i
0
, 6)
; 12)
! 3)
t 33)
I 30)
I 5)
1 25)
[ 14)
( 24)
I 8)
I 33)
1 39)
( 0)
INJEX
NO
266
229
110
495
467
58
260
98
491
207
*19
523
206
-------
LAKES RANKED BY INDEX NOS.
RANK LAKE CODE LAKE NAME INDEX NO
l 1230 LAKE MINNEOLA , ' 579
2 1261 EAST LAKE TOHOPEKALIGA 523
3 1229 LAKE MINNEHAHA 517
4 1243 LAKE tatOHYAKAPKA 495
5 1250 LAKE TARPON 491
6 1221 LAKE I5TOKPOGA 477
7 1246 LAKE YALE 467
3 1224 LAKE KISSIMXEE 455
9 1258 LAKE JESSIE 4J9
10 1219 LAKE HORSESHOE 406
11 1215 LAKE HAINES 396
12 1233 LAKE SOUTH 386
13 1232 LAKE OXEECKOEEE 36S
14 1223 LAKE MARION 366
15 1206 LAKE CRESCENT 346
16 1234 LAKE POINSETT 242
17 1207 DOCTORS LAKE 341
18 1236 LAKE REEDY 337
19 !211 LAKE GIBSON 3?4
20 1208 LAKE DORA 297
21 1239 LAKE TALCUIM 294
22 1202 LAKE APOP,\A 2S5
23 1212 GLEMADA L'AKE 276 .
24 1214 LAKE OSIFKIN 273
25 1240 LAKE THONOTOSASSA 266
26 1248 LAKE SEHIoiCLe 260
27 1210 LAK; GEORGE 256
23 1241 LAKE TOHCPEKALIGA 229
-------
LAKES RANKED BY INDEX NOS.
RANK LAKE CODE LAKE NAME INDEX NO
29 1331 LAKE MONROE . 215
30 1217 LAKE HANCOCK 213
31 1252 LAKE ELOISE 207
32 1264 PAYNE'S PRAIRIE LAKE (NO 206
33 1220 LAKE HOWELL 201
34 1203 LAKE BANANA 200
35 1223 LAKE JESSUP 134
36 1201 ALLIGATOR LAKE 130
37 1243 TROUT LAKE 110
38 12*9 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 1C "^ = 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
-------
STORE! RETRIEVAL DATE 76/Ob/Ol
DATE TIME DEPTH
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
73/03/15 10 45 0000
73/09/05 10 30 0000
73/11/05 14 20 0000
00010
HATER
TEMP
CENT
25.0
24.9
00665
DATE TIME DEPTH PHOS-TOT
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET MG/L P
73/03/15 10 45 0000 0.109
73/09/05 10 30 0000 0.034
73/11/05 14 20 0000 0.074
00300 00077 00094
DO TRANSP CNOUCTVY
SECCHI FIELD
MG/L INCHES MICROMHO
6.0
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
49.6
12.2
7.7
36
24
48
1200
970
123801
28 36 59.0 080 52 08.0 3
LAKE SOUTH
12069 FLORIDA
032792
11EPALES 2111202
0003 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
00400
PH
SU
9.30
7.90
8.40
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
80
88
67
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.060
0.090
0.070
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
1.900
1.600
1.000
00630
N02&N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.050
0.060
0.060
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.028
0.016
0.061
------- |