RSS
|
|
|
|
| UFDC Home |
myUFDC Home | Help | RSS
|
|
 CITATION 
 SEARCH 
THUMBNAILS
PAGE IMAGE
ZOOMABLE
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Full Citation | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 STANDARD VIEW
 MARC VIEW
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Full Text | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
FLRD GEOLOSk ( IC SUfRiW COPYRIGHT NOTICE [year of publication as printed] Florida Geological Survey [source text] The Florida Geological Survey holds all rights to the source text of this electronic resource on behalf of the State of Florida. The Florida Geological Survey shall be considered the copyright holder for the text of this publication. Under the Statutes of the State of Florida (FS 257.05; 257.105, and 377.075), the Florida Geologic Survey (Tallahassee, FL), publisher of the Florida Geologic Survey, as a division of state government, makes its documents public (i.e., published) and extends to the state's official agencies and libraries, including the University of Florida's Smathers Libraries, rights of reproduction. The Florida Geological Survey has made its publications available to the University of Florida, on behalf of the State University System of Florida, for the purpose of digitization and Internet distribution. The Florida Geological Survey reserves all rights to its publications. All uses, excluding those made under "fair use" provisions of U.S. copyright legislation (U.S. Code, Title 17, Section 107), are restricted. Contact the Florida Geological Survey for additional information and permissions. ',.-- I I ,. :1 I .1. I ,-. I - " t -, I. i :1 :t I I I -- I- 1. I I I . ,L --- W- '' -" I 11 - I -- - -, I I ... .i . I I t. I -1 1. .:!-,-- :; 7 1 -- - I I -- -- i I I '. ., ,-, : ,, -.:_,,--, ,- I . I- -, I I- -:lv .", -,. ; -, --- I I "'l- -l ; -- -:-L, - - :. : . I.. . .. -,. zgz ---,.%-r- -- ." I : ,., \ ;- : I -. I- I I : li-- ,-,- ,- ---- ;- : -- : I I I -, -.,-3e I 1. : 1. -!--'qr - [ I -- '. I I I _: .. -. I - ..... I I I I - z s-:n-,- F -- .- : I 1. ,- .-.- I :, I .- I .. -!tz ,-,-, -.,, i- o, -- i I I ': ., .- ,- ., 9iw ,---- 7--4& 2 I I I I ; . -I 7. , ib= = I I .1 I I : : ; . : .: -, z,,, I : I I - -. , _- I ---:--- -, ,,,--,--". 4'-, '. 1. I : - 1. I -. .-I : .. I I.- c,Z -.., ,,, I : i I : -.- I -.- : 1 -C--;, f...-- .1 I .. -.. Fm_;---, ?t -m -'--, -".,: :. .- -: .- - I - : : -- : ., --. I , -- I % - '. .Z 7, -:: .. -- I I ,, I .. I -.. .. --. .--. ---- r : I I 1,7 , -A -' --- -,: -- : I .- .1, ... r ,- A -;---;- I I :. .- : .. 1. I I I : -. I '-- : ,- I.: -ikm*i. ,"---i'- --,'K;m-',-',-;- .-, , -..: ::- : -f_, I I :. -. 1, -- -- 7 -, .., ;-. ga;A RMM-, I -, -1 i :, -, I -, ---_ -----. -:, - - fF g--'-;',!- ;,-j' "', I ,. ,. 7 ,-. I i -, -. --_, -C, -: ,-.- 4- I. -. le 1 -- - zt : I - -, .: : -11 t5 Iv'"- _-- l:!---.-l---- ; : 7 --. I I I I -. ,., - -- --: I : .. -- -- .. -,- :?.- A.P.,;,Nbag. ,4;, v -- --- I I --- "I ; Z-R5 -z- -- -- --- -- I I .. 5i -.;,-- *51'.-.- .:-tc-4w ,- lr,:!, .- -, "", '', I '-. : -, '--, -;: .. .1 I -I--- I- --- .. -.q,; 4- -.- ,. -.1- -; I -1 p -: -- ---:.--- .-, -. -.- - -, : --- : 1 : ;,. .- -- -- -- 1. -- -1 --,- 1 .: : ,- I .-.. '. P ,, , -.-- .1 I ,- ..- - -7 .-7. r- -- ;,!.. : -1 '---'. -1 -', ,,:_,-- ', --..i I * ,.-.,,-- ;. 7 ; ., r.: .- I I 2 .- .;-ZL;O- ., ;, : -- -1 : : 1. I -'. . 'r i -.. I., : 1. .:- I ::-, --- -- ,--, ,'.-.1, : ,:- 7, -1 --, ,- .., .' -. ,- --- -- 1; ,-- ,.. - , -1 77-"Ilfri. __; .1 -,-; - -4: - .',, .- -.-- -1 I I I .-: ". z z -_ -,,. C.-.-., --, -,:.-.'--,-,-,--- _-.,:._--.71""-.------.-"-l.-;-., 1. I I ..., : : ",- I,---- ... I I ,; - t7w -- .. ;, .1 -1- : ;-- % : -, -1 -., -"" : 11 j -,-j 1. I'll I ... I.,- ` -:- ,;- -1 - A-. I -Z -. : -. -, .,- .- ., L- .1 ,,'.- --.. -',-":;--!:;t _.. I : ., : -l---i:-l---- _` .--:.,- ,'--"-'- 1, ,-- -- q : : 7 -.. .--, -,.,-- v- ,.'--,,- -",--In :-,,, - -4 -, "', ;,-- Z. .: "-.-,-.-,.::--.,,, --.-- j",:;;.7"'':,"--'-- *. ... ,_ O-e, ,-- - .;. r, I --.. ql, - I I : - 1. .1. I .... I . -'. -- ,-7 -: : I I -_-_ -F -, -", .-- --. -,, 1, ;' ;,:" 1 -1, -_' -.' -, ..,:.-.,: F---Z.-_!; - --' 1. 1, .. .1 -- -7-:., .- I :f 4 - -- 'I ... I .. : -1 -, -.- '. p, ", --- -- I- : r % ; I '. ,. --. :- :-.- .. ._-: 7.., -- ,.-, ,:-77 :,,.,-, -, : 7 -- I-- '- z : -, -:-- --- _b, -- -: -. 0' I .., z; ". -L ,--:,', -, I I -._ I, I -- - -Z,-,- : .-".:-- t" :., %! .- ; I -1 -:: ,- .,:-.----_, r 1 .-'---, '! -1 ,. '- : - ---4 1 ,-- T -.. - -,.. -'., -.., ,- j- ,- ,--., - -;, !":: -::,. :3- -;,-- -- --- -- I i: --: ---,- -4 -, -., ; :-.. :,-, : -' ., ,.: -.*, -:7 -,, ..4 -- .;"I --- .-';:% I ,.,_,-, .- , _,!,, -.., -.: ;', -,:f '.' ,.. : -- I "'; - ,-W l ..- ,- I- -,. ,. ;,-', -, -, : '-,- .- -1 T" -, ... -,,' .. - -, e I r ll ,,- - : - -A ':. .- .:- --,7;e--'a --:!, -, I ". -, -_-,' .1 ,:, .;, -:; : -. .- --..."`., --.-,, : ,- --,--7-.F17',`- t ,----:- -:1 - I -.:.,-- -, A v]t' --- --,", -, I -- .: : ,"', r. : --. -- '-, 1, Z, :: ., -,' W, tz :'- --, --,-'.--L-''- Iz-.' ,-- ; ;--- -- -- -. 'I ". -: -. : : -.' ---'.. -.:,., ,- -,:. -- --. : .., -,-- t I-.--,-,.- -- .- : -. -;-- 7 - -. -. -, -- ,-7 -. -- : -. ,, 71,: 1 ',.-,., 1; z ..,.-, .-- : ',,:, 76 ,-..-..- ;.-. -- ,.'- -- :1 _-,,,_ -1. .. -:. : ., -* -'. -- z -, .- ." ,- .- ;-- 3,-.- '- --, I -, - ,. --, ; -- - -Allj--- '. -, -;, ,"., ,: I- I - ,11 , -- ., -,. -!, -.." _: .*,- -- %. : ,. o zi : 1--, :- : : .- : -;-:---- ,. :. ,'I ,. .,.-; ": ,fr", ,, '. :. ,.'ZV., -- -, .-I, I -11 -, ---I 1 -- --- -- -.----,l:-4z,- -., ," I -l.- -.,.:7, :-:. : --. *..--.. .,: -- :. .. --_,-,.,.- -- f 7 -;-,'. , %. -- ... -.--,- ,:., I 4_ -,- ,;,, 4,:,;:------ ,--".-Z-,I--'.--?-,-..--- -', '---' -1 - I - --- I .. , "', '1 :Lt- ---- -- I I. '. I ,-.1,--,-ll.,. I -- -- -*, -'. ,.-- "I .1 :'.,.:.. --..,.',.!,- -, .- ,-.-. ., :-, : _: -, ,,4;r .r,4. --- .7'--.-. -1 -, l i .- : o I % -.- ;: : I -1- 1. .,- I ..;-. --- -': -, -- -.,- ,:. -., " ., -.,---. : ; 2 ,-,t.-.., .- .. 7 .: i -- - I I I .. .. -- --.--- ,-r: - z :. .- %,, -,: :.:,:-.- I -- -- .c.- .,-- -, , -- -, ", --.: .- 1 ., i- T ..- -t,- --:, L: -, 7, -::,-,,-z : 1 b. ,, - '.1- I 1 -z,-,, !, ,-.- -., 7 .,!',.,,,,.,'., ,. --- L:-Il -,!..-,m.--, - ;t ". I I -" ". .. : !,-,.",-Y,-,`-,-', .--,:,.-.:': __-,_ ,. -,. -:,--.i t ;-,:., -: -- -:: ,. .1. -, --.-,i i4 .,r,.:_ ---4, -,-- '.: .-, -, r --*.:, ::,-,.-- -, -,. -1-,.- ---,--- -, ;-. ,.,--, ---.,: .-."", lqx.- -- ,- t--Zz,gZ.:--,- .. ` *'--,' -- -i .- ". , -,---,;.-:--,.-! -,; ,. I _-:'. --: I -, -:--A -,- -:,,.----, -- .- I I ,-, ,., ; -. -:L---Lr- % -- I ': ---,.-' -i,,,, -." -.'--.." , . I ...... I 1- T-' -;;,I? .-!,'-, -- .. ...,;;-',% -*- I .. ..' : 'i, t, -,. ,; ---- ,:,- I -, ,:'. I" -1 k, ---- --, -., ,Z, .. , --,- -- ---!z','i- Z-' - Z: P.- -- -1111-11, - ,N*Z - :".-- --- -- z -,-, --77- -,., --,--- --, -..', ,: --'-.z-,,,:,-,,,-,,-,iL-.--,-- -- -. -:i : :: t --- ,-:-, l,"',--- ,--, .., --,-. .. -,- All" -%'s ,- "': ,-- -1- -'.-I;- "i f,-,- - ,,-,A J , -.. -R .- -_-,.-:, ---, -- .. 11 -.,27-!eT i .1. -"-- -- '. .,-. '-' -- 1 -.,-;' - Y-, --,; .. I .-- ,- -"::, ,,.- -: iz- - ,,, .i -,!' ,-,---_!,,;-,. A -'o --Yliji --,t- ,,,c .;4; .. 4 ,., -, '. - W. ,. I .. ,;,- m ..,.. f-,, '. - -, -- : I ; .. - 1.0-In-C,1'11-1-F I - -- -- ---7. ...-, I r- -.- ; -- --, .-- - -- .. -k -::il- i .. ,-, -,.,;,.,, -- .- ': .- i ; ,.:Al I .-:, Et;-'t -,i?--,-:,I-. .'.'-- ,wll -,, 1 ,7,- --, -, ,L-j . ". -- 7. -- '.-.'I 7 -4 : ., , .- -,--- .'. z ..' -. I -'. ,- o", : .1 'i' .'.'--.- ,i-, ,.-- --- 't".. w!, ,7- ;: I.., -. ... V.t- ;2r ",- -Z. --,- -.,L ,-. 1 -" :-.,, :-',:tz, ,-, 7 -,.;.- -t, -,, '- : "l-,-,': -.. !-,- '.t 11 -- -- -n -, Z- *,-,--, a:- I ., ,- .,,-- -- -9 % -- I :,. -- .-,., .; ;, ---- '--, -- ,: L ,* -- -,--- ,.,, ,,__ -; -- -- ,; '-* .- Z ,,.-. ;,.-- -- ,,!,,! ,'- !, -----,-.1r:-:,:,i-'rr---, !; ,, 1: % 7 1 I .. .;, ., -- ,; -,: 'j-,. '-Z -' ,: 1 -- -- .- ---', ... -, -, -- *Z-. -'-%, m i --.,, ,- -- ':,' --: ."-'---,,7;zz, .., '7 I -, .1 r -.' Z ., '! ,. ,., : : L'. Z --,. ;- _! -.-- -7"--- ::: -- .- -";' -N ., ,- 1 -- -:7,-, ,:,:, : -. ,.; I ., -. ,,,,,- ,- lt-- I ,- .- -,:., -,:,- ,4!,t-z.:".:-,'*-i:,,-, -, ;.-- -- IL S, ,- -M ., -fx",% -:7 .. .. .. -,- .:- -- "' .. ,-,; ,,, ", :-.-,, n :-- .1 -, .I., : ;...-.:,.;-,- ,."!::l::l r .--- : .-t., -- b W ".- .--;t -- --,r----, ,, -':-, :-,:_ _-: U-c-,:w. i: ', -,: -. L -, .-; --- :,- -1 : i',,-- -,.- - ", ,.. ,. - - -- ,'. ', I . ., z -,"' ; ,- AI--, -, -,i,:--;'; ': .. 1. - .. I I '. -., :- -!,. ,: ---. ,. 7 .- , D ,,;- 7r- ti,3,, --..'--.f--' I ." .,:- -, .-- 1 -, :---v, ;,- .- .-. .--,--5 -:,., .-,- .'.-v--.-- "I ,-. s- :.:-,-.' '.-,:,- ,- ': ;---l. ,--:.-"7"".-,,%',;:.,, -7-' `7 : L.- ., ;. : ,. ,;, -; ;_ ';,.--. ., --, a -, ..-, -T ,; -- -, -- i ---i--.,.---.1',;i---: ,, ,'. -. -'.' ..--: :. ,I= -, -` -,.'s. --l' %, --,---- t --i I ---- q-- .1 I -1 ;, ":. -1. -; ,- 7, ". .,., .. .-,-,..Z I 4"" ---- F.,- :-" i,:- : ,; -;, -. --:- I -- , ..,., -- i ,7-S,'- t- .-ZqL:v ,:- -- .I ---, .n, -,----,.----,- :.' -, .'If- 7: .-, ; --.Ll-,_---- -:- ,- %-, -.-,- : _-, "- --.-,- :"--..:--.-,,..-, --,-.-;_-,--,, , --,,-----!-,,-,- -- -. I I -. 2 "" : --:-c-- '-l.,:,,.!!,,*,-;.,-.--.-,--,-.'.--, --, !, : -.I-- ,-,7:,. : -,- '.: --,,-:,---.:,-- -. ---. 11: : --:;-.',-*,-,-, 7.-,-'Z-.;',' L.W--,,W-. I --.;- - ` -- .1. *1 --- -- ,-,-- -:-4; ;-- .Z, Z. .-:-, t. .--': -., --. --,--. .. : ,.- .:." 1, I- I .--I,- .-- -- wau d* 4@- 1; :v., -- '. .- _," -. .. ": -- i,: t:, ', .- T --_I_... -1.1.i --"- . ,';WZ,, ,- ,,,.,- .- -,::L -, Z-- -,; : ,.L --: ',',, . ,4,ilm7 :::;Z :Ei--,:,- -, pL -, : .... -j ,:-'.., -'-- : :--- -:-, -`,-.".,: --.-,.- .-- ": 7.-'-, . t'Lro-z-, : ; ; ` , -- r '- : -,,;!,'s -S-,.--,-, -, .. ,-, ."': _-. ,-- '- 1 .- -, ,' -- ,. I. ,--. -Z` -, ,.-i",a-, -:- ,:.-,-,,Z.; %- -, t 7 .. W- -V- -, ',. ,,'., -,'_ --, 4-.x ,..' ,.-,-, --- :!:;,--: ',;..,;-- t .- 1 ---'-A : -;,zl",;:.,j i - -- t1- -7-f ----- .- -p-, .1 -7., ... .. .., ,--' -_,_ = 4;"",--Z-;- ,--_,,--:-z 1- I-- ., 7. ;_.-_ !. ", i ---',,.,: :.-,-2-,% -.-:-:-,, : t-. -, -, -- ---- * -, Z' -, V-3-,4:nig-: ,-j,-,!k ,., z ', -- . ::, .. --. t",_ I I -1i ,.: ,;, -, I t;.' '. ,-; : -.,;. -*: .'. :,'-., ,, ." .- .- . ,,- ,--- -,'' -, -. : _: ,- -. 4 -- --., _, _ ;-- -,---,-.,-J-- .:. -i,,--i-- -- I,- 3 I -'. ,-. -, '-. -.: , 7 -- I I --.Iil- -,V 1 r -- --, -f, ". -i f ', : t -1, ',. ,"-, !, - j- ,. -- -1 ,-, A -- --. -. tt,. z 4-z,', 7 -; - z --, I i .,- F .. -, .1 - --,---,." :- I __ ,- 1 .--:- : -,c 1- -.- 1- 1.7 ,,, f.- .,'. I !., _._- .,37t -.,-.-, .- '. Z'3 -. -, : i-, -1 -.., -- -. -.. --m 11 - : ., -.. - .- .; -'. : -- ... : -"- ---.'- , ,,. .- ;, t .., .-'; --% i, - --. --,! -- -';,;,;j : .;,,--'ZA!-, i. -- -: lz : ,; -- -- -, ,.- I- - ;! ,, ;: 7 ', -, -- -!- .- ,- -, - : ,:, -:. ---,,-!- ,-,Lki -. -!, --Z -, -- - Z lt- 5- -,-Ic .- : -- ,--, - 1. 7-" -:..7 ',c-" ,- z -':. -- ioF .. r vt -- '. ,,, --- .- -- .-, :-%.' 11 -, ,,, -, - -r -- .-: ;..-ll.---- -.:- -- 15 117. I .,---n fm- '" -z-Z:-: -. -- 4 -, " -.---' '- ,- 4,z v; --.,!.,-_-" -1 ., -, -,z : 4 -,: :; ,*,! , -... TT --.- ,-,- -,-' -:,!:.,;j. --: 1. I ,z ; i -.-- - : ,,-,, -: ,. ." '..". :. '..:L _;,, -;..- -. .. -.". .,- , I 1. ,4 ,, .- -- -- -- -. .'-, .:. --! .- -, -, ,-', ..,- ,- -, ., -,: .i -.Z..-' _- 7". - e7 .- - ., -- .. "I ,,", -.- i- 7 ;*.--,, ,;. -,-..- --7 ' 2 zz 7; '. -t4-7 -- -- 4 .,, -- .,--,: -- -- .- -% ,R -A : ... ... ... .-_-.'t .11 ok ---- z .,,, :.- i :- --; ,,- !; ---, I- -., :, --. 7.-, -, : :', .; -_,-Z- Z-' : : -- Z,:,. ;*.; '----,- -1 ,7 ,,, '. !.- '. -, ", -; 7 ." --'- ;-. ,- 11 --j-;7, .-,,-, jh ".1 --:,. ," -7*--, - .. .1 .- - ... : 1 -' -7' -'-'7 -F -- ,,, .-. : ---- ,.' t --- -'.'-, i ,g- I - --- I- I I --,-,' ,--,;F,' --' -74 ,'r. -'- :,- ; --.- ,, 6.: -- .7 - ," L-,, ., --v -o-,- ---l. -., ... ..-Io ,.w ,.-- 11- --"- '..----. -n -,- r, 1 a-, ,6, .:, I -:7--,;--,,--",,:,".-,t-.-;-,7----;;'-,-.-: -, g 5;;, ---, -.-,-- .. 'L--- ,-A-,w-__-;i-. --,,-,; ,: ." -' ., :.-;.%, -'j-, 11 ,. ... .-.-- --- ,-. -,'---- ..,- I 4 -`77';-,'- ;-`zl i'!F -- -_ ,,Il -- -i-5. ,- .- -- -- .1 I I !, ,- - -5..T-r. .-.: --' _7, --.. -. I - --- ... .. --:.. :., -... 1. 11 ,-- ., ., ,.,-,," ;,..-;::-z ; ; % -- --: ;, :-4.j,; .. .. 7' V,--%4- -,- ; -, -,.. -, -. ;. -..,--- ,Ft---.-. i, -1 71-,- : ; V, 7 .', -, -, : .. -'-.-."--; ..i,-.,,. -7- 47,-:--q,4;T-r :7,-z ., --.,- - -- -;_ :--, ,---'-- ,* -,:, - *- .- -, ,--., ,-* - i- --r-,"l'1-- ; -I--,' ,:7%---,,,. ". :--, .,,., i ,.:,,,", -.1 ,.--*." :... ,. I - ; -- 4 --, ;..:- -, --_-,,-' - ,2 4 -3- --' -._ -. -- e -- -,, --', ,,- "-.,? -----,- ,,.,' !: !:t I ----- ----- 14 .- ., :-", ,... .. I I :.:, 4.1.1 .--. .1 I I w M., .. " I.,- -,.-,-- ---- .% ,,,. 11I,---;.'-; .'. .- -4 -. Z. -` :.; 7,- -.1 --, ,.- -;, -- - i -... '.. i -," ;", ;ipc.--.- ,,;.;--,,g:.-:..--,.:.'--'.,",; ".. -' -. -- w- ZL;i ** I- :- '. --7:: : 4'- -L- -- -, --, ,, ` : , ,:: .:. :- 0 *?ttg.f--,-.' '-:-,;-Z-- ,-.., :---, I .. -, -, .i'll f.,z ;, ..,.-,- .,-. , -...--,-,-, .. --,, ., .:-. .1, - -, --- -- ,,, ---,- ---,, luE m- ,i-.,.;Ts:- 1, -+-:'- --. , -::- -. I --, ;,*.-, '- -'.' -: L" --.- _:- -, r, :,- ; % -. 7, -, --- ,. ,. '. 10 - ..: '-, .,,:__ ,--'_7,-,'-- : -' ,.. --,- = ---,,'.i_ z *_. i:, -, :- -,.- -, -.:*,_ "..- .- 1. '_, ,, I .,. :. L -:i 7" :, '- -1 lr&- 4 ;; -`_, ,'--'-,-i--'c-',7.-,--,;";---.-- .-,-,;,t-.'. --- -- -- ,.:,,.-* -:,- ;I- ., --..-.,,..L. 1. I- 11 ---w ---- --,-. I --. -. -.7 -- -- ,-,,, i -- -,,,-,-,-L- 11 ; ;-4if.'--- ,---.i i',-t?-,;--.-,. ,:-'- : ----7.. ,- ; ,..- "--:-,!-' ;-. . -,.:,; ----':--i.-.- --- --,- ._, --.. _-- -.,,:, -- ,:; t. o,7.:,, -- ,. 1.11, ,, -:*',, '- ,-; -- ,..'-' .7 i -- -% --Vt,;.. ,4 ` --N -,; -, .. ,- -,-, wc--- ,.-, :-,-.,,--,- z- , - 11-1 -., r, ; ,-. :- ., -!,__ ,g .: .-- -x'-,,k- ,-. ,- -'j --l,,i7-,,52:%!-,- --;,,-,-";;--l-;;--,o ,;--Lt--Iz .,. ."-,... '. -"- .- ." -, .;.-,, -.; ., -- ,-, .i --:- -, -* ,- I -- -,- -' ,Ie.-; -,,:zn -Z., --,." -. :, ,-,- I- --I- -i7;,.-, '- t ... -- --.--.Z-,;,:r,..;..-, ,.,..--l-*-I .,- .,.,. ",:,.,7:.. - .- 1 .- .- -.- .,! -. ,.-7 '. -7:-TL-":, T -- ".q:, -- -, !,. ".c.:: -, J5 p -.-,.--.,,,:,z,-..-- '. --,.:o ----,-.-- ,---.- --- ,,.;,z* ,%-- -": j:",,. rl., ..-,- --. --- ;g- ... -,-I-gko,-,rfz,.-: --, .;--, C;,-- --z ---,-.-4 -Y,,,-- _,, ,--'- ': ,:- ., --.- -, I., ,, .z -.,,; -- -. .... I .. "4-- -'-,-,.- -- I ,- --- ; -..',7 ..-,. ., ;;!-:;--, --, !-,; -, ., . I --- --- -, _: I -, ,xA. ,VZ`7-,,,: -.-,-,r ; -- ,,,- I- -, .% ,--, - -- '- .- ;4 :;. .. ,-- -, --.--- ,-, , .. ... I -,: f ,- 1 -- ,,-,,-.,l .'-. -, -i'-' - *- -; -:",-,,, '-. ,,, 1, -1 .1 I : -. -,-.rto";- `-- t --. - Tv", ,,-,-,,,4- -,----,',-*-- -- -, -, --,'':',-,K".', . -- i ,.----t -_-- -,-,.,- '. ; .- :: --.. 4 -.-., I -.- -.1- : .,:zLLl - -.- -. 1 -. -, ... ...-I ` 7'-::tf -- --.- z ,' '- .--: ---. ; -7 -, '7 ! ---- I --- ,,- ,7---:S,' '; ---. ";:- -,-,;, I~ -,- am 2 --- ,, -- L I .. ,,f ' 'j--,.- -- .- z.,. I -,.,.. !* 7- ` -; ; : 1 i -, -- .f --TiLf--'.. *-O-v, -;,- -L -- : - I . STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Harmon Shields, Executive Director DIVISION OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Charles M. Sanders, Director BUREAU OF GEOLOGY Charles W. Hendry, Jr., Chief REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 82 HYDROLOGIC EFFECTS TAMPA BYPASS CANAL OF THE SYSTEM By Louis H. Motz Prepared by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR in cooperation with the BUREAU OF GEOLOGY FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES and the UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 1975 Q DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES REUBIN O'D. ASKEW Governor BRUCE A. SMATHERS Secretary of State PHILIP F. ASHLER Treasurer RALPH D. TURLINGTON Commissioner of Education ROBERT L. SHEVIN Attorney General GERALD A. LEWIS Comptroller DOYLE CONNER Commissioner of Agriculture HARMON W. SHIELDS Executive Director LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Bureau of Geology Tallahassee October 9, 1976 Governor Reubin O'D. Askew, Chairman Florida Department of Natural Resources Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ) Dear Governor Askew: The Bureau of Geology of the Division of Resource Management, Florida Department of Natural Resources, is pleased to publish as its Report of Investigations No. 82, a study, "Hydrologic Effects of the Tampa Bypass Canal System," by Louis H. Motz of the U. S. Geological Survey. The Tampa Bypass Canal is to divert flood waters of the Hills- borough River above the cities of Tampa and Temple Terrace and into McKay Bay. The canal system will breach the underlying artesian Floridan aquifer in places causing drawdowns of a wide area. This study is to access the hydrologic effects of the canal sys- tem and to determine means of reducing the adverse hydrologic effects of the canal system. We believe this approach to problem-solving to be most impor- tant in providing protection to flood-prone areas while minimizing the impact on the hydrologic regimen. Respectfully yours, Charles W. Hendry, Jr., Chief Bureau of Geology Completed manuscript received May 7, 1975 Printed for the Florida Department of Natural Resources Division of Resource Management Bureau of Geology Tallahassee 1976 iv CONTENTS Page In troduct. on.................. ... .............................................. .. ................................................... .................................. 2 Purpose and scope.... .... .............. ................. ........................ .................. .. 2 Acknowledgments..... ....... ................ ..... ... ........................ 4 Previous investigations.......................................................................................................... 4 Canal system................. .................... .............. .... ......................... 4 Canals and structures................................................... ................... 4 D design m odifications...................... ...... ............................................. ............... ................... 8 Description of area............... .......... ...... ....... ... 9 Clim ate.............................. .... .. ... ....... ................... ..... .... 9 T opography. ......... ......... ................................................................................. 10 Ground-water hydrology............. .................................... ..................... 11 Surface-water hydrology. .............................................................................. 22 Test drilling and aquifer tests............. .................................................................... 24 Hydrologic effects of the canal system............ .................................... ................ 27 Effects of canal system as presently designed....................................... 27 Comparison of the hydrologic effects of the present and modified designs ........ ......... ............ .................. ... 30 Drawdow n................................. ........................................... 32 Discharge ........................... ...... ....................... ....... 35 Summary and conclusions ................................. ... 36 References cited............... .......................... ........ .. .... ... 41 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. Map showing route of Tampa Bypass Canal System in the T am pa area .... .................. ............................................................................................................ 3 2. Map showing canals and structures of Tampa Bypass C ana l S y stem .. ....................... .............................. .......................................................................... 5 3. Profiles showing pool-level altitudes along Tampa Bypass Canal System from McKay Bay to Hillsborough River ................................................ 7 4. Profiles of the potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer along the route of the canal in May 1972 and the pool levels in the canal from S-160 to S-159, S-161, and S-153 ............................ ........... 9 5. Graph of mean monthly rainfall at Tampa, Florida, 1890-1970 ............ 10 6. Map showing location of hydrogeologic sections .............................................. 12 7. Hydrogeologic section along Canal 135 ................................................................... 13 8. Hydrogeologic section along Canal 136 and Canal 132............................... 14 9. Hydrogeologic section at Harney Flats ................................................................. 15 10. Map showing location of ground-water data-collection sites ....................... 19 11. Map showing potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer, M ay 1972 ............................................................................ ........................................................... ..... 22 12. Graph showing hydrogeologic data for well P-SMC at Sixmile C reek test site ....................................................................................................................................... 25 13. Graph showing hydrogeologic data for well P-ES in Harney Flats near Eureka Springs ........ ............... ........... .............. .................... ............................... .......... 26 14. Hydrogeologic section at Harney Flats showing lowering of the potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer that would result from the canal system as presently designed ............................................................ 28 15-20 Maps showing: 15. Parts of the canal system treated as a line sink and boundaries of dig ital m odel .1..... ............ .......................................... ................................................................ 31 16. Drawdown that would have occurred during the May 1972 low water-level period due to the present design of C-135, C-136, and C-132 if the canal had been built ................................................. ..................... 33 17. Potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer as it would have occurred in May 1972 if C-135, C-136, and C-132 had been built............ 34 18. Drawdown that would have occurred during the May 1972 low water-level period due to the modified design of C-135, C-136, and C-132 with the additional structure near Buffalo Avenue if the canal had been built .......................................................................................................... 35 19. Drawdown that would have occurred during the May 1972 low water-level period due to the present design of C-135 and C-136 without C-132 if the canal had been built ............................................................... 36 20. Drawdown that would have occurred during the May 1972 low water-level period due to the modified design of C-135 and C-136 without C-132 but with the additional structure near Buffalo Avenue, if the canal had been built ......................................................................... 37 21. Graph showing area-drawdown relations for C-135, C-136, and C-132 that would have occurred during the May 1972 low water- level period if the canal had been built ........................................................................ 38 22. Graph showing area-drawdown relations for C-135 and C-136 that would have occurred during the May 1972 low water-level period if the canal had been built ............................................................................. 39 TABLES Table Page 1. Design details of the Tampa Bypass Canal System ................................... 6 2. Wells at which data were collected ...................... .......... 16,17,18 8. Analyses of water samples from the Floridan aquifer in the area of the Tampa Bypass Canal System .................................................... 20,21 4. Discharge into the canal system from the Floridan aquifer that would have occurred during the May 1972 low water-level period if the canal had been built ............................................................ ..................... 40 CONVERSION FACTORS Factors for converting English units to metric units are shown to four significant figures. However, metric equivalents should be con- verted only to the number of significant figures given for the values of English units in this report. English in. (inches) ft (feet) mi (miles) mi-' (square miles) acres cfs (cubic feet per second) gpm (gallons per minute) mgd (million gallons per day) gpd/ft (gallons per day per foot) gpd/ft3 (gallons per day per cubic foot) Multiply by Metric 2.540 x 101 mm millimetress) 3.048 x 10-1 m (metres) 1.609 km (kilometres) 2.590 km2 (square kilometres) 4.047 x 10"3 km2 (square kilometres) 2.832 x 10"- m:/s (cubic metres per second) 6.309 x 10"2 1/s litress per second) 4.381 x 101 1/s litress per second) 8.053 x 101 m2/d (square metres per day) 7.482 x 10"' (l/d)/ma litress per day per cubic metre) viii HYDROLOGIC EFFECTS OF THE TAMPA BYPASS CANAL SYSTEM By Louis H. Motz ABSTRACT Flood water of the Hillsborough River will be diverted at a point upstream from areas of flood-plain encroachment in the cities of Tampa and Temple Terrace into nearby McKay Bay by means of the Tampa Bypass Canal System, which is being built by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers through an area east of Tampa. The canal system will breach the underlying artesian Floridan aquifer in places where the potentiometric surface of the aquifer is at or near land surface, causing drawdowns over a wide area and diverting flow from other parts of the hydrologic system. An investigation by the U. S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Corps of Engi- neers in conjunction with the Southwest Florida Water Manage- ment District was made to assess the hydrologic effects of the canal system and to determine whether an additional water-level control structure could reduce significantly the hydrologic effects of the canal system. The additional structure would maintain the pool level in the Eureka Springs and Harney Flats areas at a 5-foot higher level than without the structure, reducing drawdown in and discharge from the Floridan aquifer in these areas. The assessment of hydrologic effects was based on water-level conditions of the May 1972 low-water period. The assessment was made for a sea- sonal low-water period, because the effect that the discharge into the canal system will have on ground-water discharge at other places in the hydrologic system and on flow in the Hillsborough River will be most critical during the dry season. The canal system, as presently designed, will lower the poten- tiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer by 1 foot or more over an area of about 92 square miles with C-132 (Thonotosassa Canal) included in the system and about 48 square miles without C-132; discharge from the aquifer into the canal system will be 22 million gallons per day with C-132 and 15 million gallons per day without C-132. The discharge into the canal system will cause a decrease in the present (pre-canal system) discharge from the Floridan aquifer to other parts of the hydrologic system. If another control BUREAU OF GEOLOGY structure is added to the canal system near Buffalo Avenue, the area of drawdown (1 foot or more) of the potentiometric surface will be less by 45 percent and the discharge less by 40 percent with C-132 included in the system; without C-132, the area of drawdown will be less by 50 percent and the discharge less by 45 percent. Be- cause certain segments of the canal system were assumed to be in direct hydraulic connection with the Floridan aquifer along their en- tire length, an assumption which is valid for only part of their length, the values represent a maximum condition. INTRODUCTION The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (1961) has proposed a plan of stream improvements and a system of canals, reservoirs, and structures for water control and flood protection for the Four River Basins area, which includes 6,000 mi' in central and southwest peninsular Florida. The Tampa Bypass Canal System is part of this plan. The canal system is designed to divert flood waters from the Hillsborough River at a point upstream from areas of flood-plain encroachment in the cities of Tampa and Temple Terrace and pass the water through an area east of Tampa into nearby McKay Bay (fig. 1). The canal system will breach the underlying artesian Floridan aquifer in several places. Concern was expressed by the Southwest Florida Water Management District, the local project sponsor, that the canal system may cause drainage from the aquifer and may affect ground-water levels over a large area. The quality of the ground water near the canal system also may be affected. There- fore, in 1971, the U. S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers in conjunction with the Southwest Florida Water Management District began an investigation of the hydro- logic effects of the canal system. PURPOSE AND SCOPE This report presents the results of a study begun in January 1972 to assess the hydrologic effects of the canal system and to determine whether incorporating an additional water-level control structure into the design of the canal system could reduce its hy- drologic effects. Data obtained from published sources, from U. S. Geological Survey and Corps of Engineers files, and from field in- vestigations made as part of this study were used in predicting the effects of the canal system. Aquifer tests were made to determine REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 82 870 860 I I 85 840 830 82 81 80 I I I L 310 -29 -280 - 270 -260 -250 Figure 1. Route of Tampa Bypass Canal System in the Tampa area. the hydrologic properties of the underlying aquifer, and geophysical methods were used to determine the principal water-bearing zones in the upper part of the aquifer. A digital model of the ground- water system was used to predict the amount of discharge into the canal system from the aquifer and the extent of drawdown due to the canal system. Also data were collected to provide a reference from which to determine later how much the canal system has af- fected water levels and water quality in the area. BUREAU OF GEOLOGY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Appreciation is expressed to Garald G. Parker, senior scientist and chief hydrologist, Southwest Florida Water Management Dis- trict, for his assistance during the initial phase of the study. Thanks are given to Charles F. Dreves, Jr. and Andrew 0. Hobbs, Corps of Engineers, for their aid in the exchange of information needed for this investigation. The cooperation of local landowners and Hillsborough County officials in granting access to existing wells and in permitting construction of new wells is gratefully acknowledged. Discussions with Glen L. Faulkner, U. S. Geological Survey, were very helpful. Appreciation is also expressed to Ray- mond A. Mularoni, Bobby D. Ramsey, and Robert L. Westly, who helped collect the data used in this report. The investigation was made and the report prepared under the direct supervision of Joseph S. Rosenshein, subdistrict chief, Tampa, and under the general supervision of Clyde S. Conover, district chief, Tallahassee. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS The geohydrology of the area in which the canal system is being built (fig. 1) has been described by. several investigators. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (1961)1 has prepared reports and un- published design memoranda on many aspects of the Bypass Canal System project, including the hydrology and geology. Cooke (1945),, Carr and Alverson (1959), and Puri apd Vernon (1964) included descriptions of the geology of the area. MacNeil (1949) and White (1958) discussed aspects of the physiography and geomorphology of parts of Florida, including the area near Tampa. Stringfield (1936, 196-1, 1966) studied the hydrology of Florida, including the Tampa area, and prepared maps of the potentiometric surface of the principal artesian (Floridan) aquifer. Stewart and others (1971) prepared a potentiometric map of the Floridan aquifer in the Southwest Florida Water Management District area including Tampa. Menke and other (1961) studied the water resources of the Tampa area and Shattles (1965) reported on water quality in the area. CANAL SYSTEM CANALS AND STRUCTURES The Tampa Bypass Canal System will have a total length of about 27 mi and will consist of three canal segments: the Tampa Bypass Canal, the Harney Canal, and the Thonotosassa Canal (U.S. REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 82 Figure 2. Canals and structures of Tampa Bypass Canal System. Army Corps of Engineers, 1961,) (fig. 2). The Tampa Bypass Canal, or Canal 135 (C-135), will extend from McKay Bay north- ward 14.0 mi to the Hillsborough River. From McKay Bay, C-135 will follow Palm River and Sixmile Creek 4.4 mi upstream to the first water-level control structure, Structure 160 (S-160). From S-160, the canal will follow Sixmile Creek drainage canal and will pass through a low, swampy area known as Harney Flats. The next water-level control structure, Structure 159 (S-159), will be 6.0 mi upstream from S-160. From S-159, the canal will run northward 3.6 mi to Structure 155 (S-155) at the Hillsborough River. The Harney Canal, or Canal 136 (C-136), will extend north- westward from its confluence with C-135 in Harney Flats 1.7 mi to the Hillsborough River. A water-level control structure, Struc- ture 161 (S-161) will be built 0.3 mi from the river. The third segment is the Thonotosassa Canal, or Canal 132 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY TABLE 1. Design details of the Tampa Bypass Canal System (Data from U. S. Army Corps of Engineers) Pool level Bottom al- Segment Sections Length (feet above titude (feet Bottom Side slope (miles) sea level) above sea width (horizontal level) (feet) /vertical) C-135 From McKay -21.0 to (Tampa Bypass Bay to S-160 4.4 0 -18.5 400 8/1 Canal) From S-160 -14.5 to 300 to to S-159 6.0 10 -7.2 200 8/1 From S-159 11.6 to 200 to to S-155 3.6 30 13.4 30 3/1 C-136 From C-135 -5.2 to (Harney to S-161 1.4 10 -4.3 35 3/1 Canal) From S-161 to Hillsborough River .3 20 4.5 45 8/1 C-132 From C-135 -3.8 to 80 to (Thonoto- to S-153 3.7 10 0.0 70 3/1 sassa Canal) From S-153 16.0 to 40 to to S-154 6.4 30 22.0 10 3/1 From S-154 to Hillsborough River 1.2 30 22.0 10 3/1 (C-132), which will extend northeastward from C-135 in the Eureka Springs area 11.3 mi thro sassa and along Flint Creek to the Hillsboroul its confluence with ugh Lake Thonoto- rh River. A water- level control structure, Structure 153 (S-153), will be built 3.7 mi upstream from C-135, and another structure, Structure 154 (S-154), will be built between Lake Thonotosassa and the Hillsborough River 1.2 mi from the river. The spillway capacities of the control structures are based on the occurrence of the maximum probable flood. The design dis- charges for S-160 and S-159 are 26,700 and 12,000 cfs respectively. At S-155, 22,800 cfs can be released to the downstream reach of the Hillsborough River. The design discharge for S-161 is 4,000 cfs, and the design discharges for S-153 and S-154 are 3,100 and 500 cfs respectively. 'he canal system (table 1) is being constructed northward from its downstream end at McKay Bay. At present (1973), S-160 REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 82 FEET S 10 SEA LEVEL -10 C-135 (TAMPA BYPASS CANAL) FEET E 60 50 40 10 SEA LEVEL -10 METRES W I - 3 V) -- . . I FEET SW 60 r 30 20 10 SEA LEVEL -10 C-136(HARNEY CANAL) C-132 (THONOTOSASSA CANAL) 0 1 2 3 4 5 MILES S1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KILDMETRES Vertical exoggerallon XS00 EXPLANATION SPool levels () Conal bottom ()Approximate land surface Figure 3. Pool-level altitudes along Tampa Bypass Canal System from McKay Bay to Hillsborough River. METRES SEA LEVEL METRES NE BUREAU OF GEOLOGY and sections of C-135 along Palm River have been completed, and the sections northward to Buffalo Avenue are under construction. Design work and right-of-way acquisition are under way for the rest of the canal system. As presently (1973) designed, water levels in the canal system will be maintained during nonflood periods by the structures at the levels shown in figure 3. In C-135, the minimum pool levels will be sea level from McKay Bay to S-160, 10 ft above msl (feet above mean sea level) from S-160 to S-159, and 30 ft above msl from S-159 to S-155. In C-136, the minimum pool levels will be 10 ft above msl from C-135 to S-161, and 20 ft above msl upstream from S-161 to the Hillsborough River. In C-132, the minimum pool levels will be 10 ft above msl from C-135 to S-153 and between 30 and 34 ft above msl between S-153 and the Hillsborough River. DESIGN MODIFICATIONS As part of this study, the effects of adding another water-level control structure near Buffalo Avenue (fig. 2) were investigated. This control structure would maintain the pool level in the Eureka Springs and Harney Flats areas at a 5-foot higher level than with- out the structure. (fig. 4). This would result in less drawdown of the potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer and less dis- charge from the aquifer in these areas, reducing the hydrologic effects. The present design of the canal system calls for a minimum pool level to be maintained at 10 ft above mean sea level from S-160 northward to S-159 in C-135, to S-161 in C-136, and to S-153 in C-132. With the additional structure the minimum pool level still would be 10 ft above msl from S-160 to just north of Buffalo Avenue but would be maintained at 15 ft above msl from just north of Buffalo Avenue northward to S-159, S-161, and S-153. The selection of the site near Buffalo Avenue for a possible additional control structure was made by the Southwest Florida Water Management District and the Corps of Engineers on the basis of hydrologic and topographic factors. The pool level behind the additional structure would be approximately equal to the May 1972 level of the potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer in the vicinity of Buffalo Avenue. Also, the 15-foot level would be the maximum practical level that could be maintained in the low-lying Eureka Springs and Harney Flats areas without resorting to an extensive system of levees. In this study, the effects of adding this control structure near REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 82 9 FEET METRES 8 N 0 POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE OF FLORIDAN AQUIFER MAY 1972 CUIKA SPRINGS LATS 1S - I(Mc o tD OESION) POOL L CVtC 4 ANRUCTURE I P Of T OCOSION) STRUCTURE lot --'LOCATION OF PROPOSED STRUCTURE -? B - BUFFALO AVENUE CANAL ISO CANAL 3 SEA LEVEL I CANAL- -- SEA LEAVE FEET METRES FEET METRES 30 23 - CANAL 1. POTENTIOMCTRIC SURFACE Or FLORIDAN AQUIFER MAY 1972 (MODIFIED OtSTON) POOL LEVELS (< S (Pror NT N) -I No -CANAL Is STUCtun c a1- _ -4 POOL LIIVELS', -4 S(PI ESENT 0 INI SEA LEVEL - CANAL 136 0 5000 FEET CANAL 132 St1 1500 METRES V rIIcal e ogg~rl lli XGOO Figure 4. Profiles of the potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer along the route of the canal in May 1972 and the pool levels in the canal from S-160 to S-159, S-161, and S-153. Buffalo Avenue were considered for a canal system consisting of C-185 and C-136 with C-132 (the Thonotosassa Canal) and also for a system consisting of C-135 and C-136 without C-132, because C-132 may not be constructed at the same time that the other seg- ments of the canal system are constructed (oral commun., U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1972). DESCRIPTION OF AREA CLIMATE Tampa's climate (U. S. Dept. Commerce, 1972) is characterized by a summer thundershower season occurring between a relatively dry spring and fall. The average annual rainfall is about 49 in., and about 30 in., or 60 percent. of the annual average, falls during June BUREAU OF GEOLOGY Figure 5. Mean monthly rainfall at Tampa, Florida, 1890-1970. to September (fig. 5). Heavy rainfall is associated also with tropi- cal depressions and hurricanes, which occur usually from June to October. The average annual temperature is about 720F (22.0C) and monthly average temperatures range from about 610F (16.00C) in January to 820F (27.50C) in August. TOPOGRAPHY The Tampa area (fig. 2) is in the sandy and poorly drained Coastal Lowlands, one of the five topographic divisions of Florida (Cooke, 1945, and Puri and Vernon, 1964). Along the route of the canal system from Palm River to Harney Flats, a plain slopes gently upward from Hillsborough Bay. This plain is a former bay bottom which was occupied during Pleistocene time by part of an estuary larger than the present Hillsborough Bay (MacNeil, 1949). Around Harney Flats, a scarp rims the flat, low-lying swampy plain. This scarp is the Pamlico Shoreline (MacNeil, 1949) and represents an advance of the sea to an altitude of about 25 to 35 ft. North and east of Harney Flats is an upland area which consists of low rolling (C) Li w z z - 5 -0 -J _J z n- o REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 82 hills and features associated with marine terraces, including ponds, depressions, and swamps. GROUND-WATER HYDROLOGY The Tampa area is underlain at depth by several hundred feet of solution-riddled and fractured limestone and dolomite forma- tions, which range in age from Eocene to Miocene (Menke and others, 1961). These formations are, in ascending order, the Lake City and Avon Park Limestones, Ocala Group, Suwannee and Tampa Limestones, and the Hawthorn Formation. Along the route of the canal system, these formations are overlain by as much as 60 ft of unconsolidated sand, silt and sandy clay of Pliocene, Pleis- tocene, and Holocene ages. In many places these unconsolidated de- posits are separated from the underlying limestone and dolomite by thick beds of stiff, green clay. I These geologic units form a hydrologic system composed of a shallow water-table aquifer, a confining bed, and the Floridan aquifer (figs. 6, 7, 8, and 9). In the area through which the canal system will be built, the saturated parts of the unconsolidated ma- terials form a shallow water-table aquifer, which has an average thickness of about 20 ft. Most of the water in this aquifer is de- rived from local rainfall, and the water table is only a few feet below land surface (Menke and others, 1961). In this area, the stiff, green clay has an average thickness of about 10 ft and acts as a semipermeable confining layer over the limestone and dolomite formations. The limestone and dolomite formations constitute an extensive artesian aquifer system. This aquifer is the principal artesian aquifer in parts of the southeastern United States (Stringfield, 1966) and is called the Floridan aquifer in Florida (Parker and others, 1955). The potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer is at or near land surface throughout the area in which the canal system is being built and is above land surface in some low-lying areas. The upper part of the Floridan aquifer along the route of the canal is principally Tampa Limestone. Water enters the Floridan aquifer in recharge areas and moves down-gradient to points of discharge. According to Menke and others (1961), the major part of the recharge to the aquifer in Hillsborough County is derived locally from leakage through con- fining beds and sinkholes. During the rainy season, when recharge to the Floridan aquifer exceeds discharge, water in storage in- BUREAU OF GEOLOGY L XPLANATION A -A' kA b-Uy~ l *UtI %Mg04 @Va941Canal System CI~I r~I, ll.( -J ~,1r" O PUCC I I MOM'l-t e_". X t o L WIo ttir 111i 1111 1 e fe Figure 6. Location of hydrogeologic sections. creases, and the potentiometric surface of the aquifer rises. During the dry season, when discharge exceeds recharge, water in storage decreases, and the potentiometric surface declines. Thus, the po-, tentiometric surface is usually highest in September and October. following the rainy season, and lowest in May and early June just preceding the rainy season. The potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer slopes down- ward in the general direction of Hillsborough and McKay Bays, and the direction of flow in the aquifer is towards the bays, approxi- mately perpendicular to the lines of equal head. The altitude of the potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer was measured in wells listed in table 2 and shown on figure 10. Water levels ranged from near sea level in wells along Hillsborough and McKay Bays to about 70 ft or more above sea level to the east near Plant City in May 1972 (fig. 11). The reentrants, or troughs, in the FEET A 50 40 - 30 - 20 * 10 - SEA LEVEL -10 -HO .20 -30 -40 -50 METRES A' POTENI0ETRIC SURFACE OF 9 MOIRIS 9R3E ~C? -SFLORIDAN AJOIFER 5-49 MFOIqR AVE. ReAD jnr C432 WAY 1972 Or r RIVER 50 IA o C g ISOR 12i tr :rp t ; L;':aw . . CANAIL 135 o ICCl~o lo PUCT~ k o lol 1000nr 0 5(7515 Amo0,~ *10qqwotloo 01s0 EXPLAPINA ICN SILT. Wi: CLAP -I5 - P7 -SEA LEVEL C914-20 COapr OP [11901W1 in? bor- Ing 0G00 camf 4io0llp IV ,OAcPUh dulp of tatinq Of sac-flart wvwnn OR LOuPoW If111010 0 CANAL 135 FEEI 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 SEA LEVEL -10 -20 -30 r 6 6 Sri *, 40 - SJEL l&UV f SFEA LEa r?2 SEA LEVEL SEA LEW to CANAL 136 SEA 40 ------ --- -- . FLON3AM AOQUFER ICANALYCI C C~ O1 to, --O'-**-* 1- -r-rs CAAL 1 32 CANAL 132 o O FEZT l1u9f * o0 O 1000 mISO MTTme V=1r anlrewnie alSo FEtY WerEIs FUty REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 82 C POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE OF FLORIDAN AQUIFER, MAY 1972 3W-ES 2W-ES 4!Z:::TEST WELL AND NUMBER EXISTING IW-ES.-- LAND SURFACE UNCONSOLIDATED SAND, SILT, AND CLAY CLAY CONFINING_- -_LAYER I^ I I t f I I I I r_ C ~ II~ IE-ES I) : Eii-i-i i i--{- -C i- -----C WESES - .- -.::- FI '1_^' -20 1 i rQ I I !i i I I I I I k I i i i i i Locaolon ol ctelion shown on figure 6. Well li led In 0 able 2 500 1000 1500 2000 FEET I00 4 600 METRESI o0 260 360 400 500 600 METRES Figure 9. Hydrogeologic section at Harney Flats. potentiometric surface are caused in part by discharge from the aquifer into streams and low-lying swampy areas. Menke and others (1961) noted this effect on the potentiometric surface from springs along the Hillsborough and Alafia Rivers. The reentrants along Cow House Creek and in Harney Flats also are due to spring discharges and seepage from the aquifer in these areas. The re- entrants along Palm River and Sixmile Creek along the route of the canal system are due partly to temporary dewatering of the aquifer to nearly sea level and even below during excavation of parts of the canal system. FEET D 25, SEA L LEVELr -F LORIDANr l i;:i AOU,IFER,- METRES -7 -6 -5 -4 3 2 SEA LEVEL -I -2 -3 "- ---- ' .I T, 111' ,I I, I, I, =I III I I , F.L-~-L~LP--~ir--t-l+--gL- 1 1 1 1 1 1 I , . .. .. h .. .. I-~ ~ I I .1 -, #, 1, 1 ,I ; l ; I Z l I I 1 I I I I I I II 1 I I I I I I II I I I I i I I I I I I i I- .I l- IL I I I II I I I I I I I 1 J 1 1 II I II I I I I I 11I I I I I BUREAU OF GEOLOGY Table 2.-Wells at which data were collected V h T3 39 a o u u S bcc M Remark 5.. .; *3P a ra 2 t '5=.E S. Y3t -^ Yt US 3" . III 1 1CL se s O ^i~c Me Sig js c 2: a= u5 S ^-^o ( S. Remarks e^PL .-i El ^*s Q 275130N0821945.1 275214N0821709.1 275223N0821741.1 275337N0821554.1 275627N0821508.1 275633N0822224.1 275708N0822123.1 275424N0822210.1 275728N0821957.1 275728N082228.1 275744N0821933.1 275757N0822050.1 275800N0822211.1 275813N0822156.1 275814N082209.1 275815N0822139.1 275827N0821946.1 275834N0822127.1 275834N0822137.1 275838N0822137.1 275843N0822222.1 275846N0822104.1 275847N0822122.1 275847N0822134.1 275851N0822122.1 275856N0822103.1 275902N0822103.1 275906N0822039.1 275906N0822049.1 275906N0822056.1 275906N0822059.1 275906N0822103.1 275906N0822110.1 275906N0822120.1 275908N0822103.1 275910N0822136.1 275916N0822102.1 275922N0822102.1 275942N0821911.1 275615N0822306.1 275617N0822238.1 30-45 14-09 23-41 37-54 27-08 33-24 08-23 24-10 28-57 28-28 44-33 57-50 00-11 13-56 14-09 15-39 27-46 34-27 34-37 38-37 43-22 3S-SMC 47-22 47-34 51-22 2S-SMC 1S-SMC 3E-SMC 2E-SMC 1E-SMC P-SMC 1W-SMC 2W-SMC 3W-SMG 1N-SMC 10-36 2N-SMC 3N-SMC 42-11 15-06 17-38 58 183 340 325 240 68 136 108 110 49 58 63 63 90 85 68 65 69 80 45 62 48 86 72 90 90 79 100 65 95 121 67 105 95 78 137 165 60 168 60 85 30 36 19 43 37 28 45 12 39 71 14 44 28 54 42 1W W w w W 2WC WIC w w W' wc w w w w w w wo w w w w W w w wC w WIC W w WIC w w w w w'c w Wc C C Riverview Do. Do. Brandon Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do- Tampa Do. Drilled by CES Drilled by CEs Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Drilled by CE3 Do. - - BOOK TIGHTLY BOUND REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 82 1Y Table 2. (continued)-Wells at which data were collected '9 1C 0 PC F.. 0 4-4 Cd 0 04 0 b g *0 04~ SRe 0 -a -ks '3-. ao o o o J4. 4. a Remarks ,, lL 5 -a 275617N0822401.1 275620N0822420.1 275621N0822325.1 275625N0822319.1 275629N0822340.1 275629N0822422.1 275634N0822401.1 275641N0822305.1 275642N0822242.1 275647N0822322.1 275653N0822232.1 275656N0822403.1 280145N0821325.1 280008N0822215.1 280010N0822009.1 280030N0821908.1 280033N0822005.1 280035N0821810.1 280038N0822042.1 280053N0821923.1 280055N0822038.1 280106N0822038.1 280113N0822038.1 280115N0821935.1 280116N0822015.1 280116N0822016.1 280116N0822034.1 280116N0822038.1 280116N0822041.1 280116N0822053.1 280116N0822101.1 280119N0822038.1 280122N0822147.1 280126N0822038.1 280131N0822052.1 280136N0822038.1 280142N0822109.1 280142N0821959.1 280153N0822038.1 280212N0822111.1 280229N0822002.1 17-01 20-20 21-26 25-19 29-40 29-22 34-01 41-05 42-42 47-22 53-32 56-03 45-25 08-15 10-09 30-08 33-05 35-10 38-42 53-23 3S-ES 2S-ES 1S-ES 16-35 3E-ES 2E-ES 1E-ES P-ES 1W-ES 2W-ES 3W-ES 22-47 2N-ES 1N-ES 31-52 3N-ES 42-09 42-59 53-38 12-11 29-02 29 32 80 110 100 93 70 86 35 31 43 417 68 170 310 200 53 39(?) 90 70 75 45 85 91 74 100 75 87 87 75 58 86 36 92 500(?) 85 350 21 22 60 60 60 40 21 67 21 39 22 24 31 41 23 50 26- 37 36 24 36 42 C C C W,C C C W,c C C C C W,C W WC W w,C W W w,c W W w W W,C W W W,C W,C W W,C W W,C w w W W w W W)C W W Location of wells indicated on fig. 10. Drilled by CE3 Do. Do. Drilled by CE3 Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Drilled by CES Drilled by CE3 Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. impa Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. itioch otosassa Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. 0o. 0o. BOOK TIGHTLY BOUND 18 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY Table 2. (continued)-Wells at which data were collected E u 94 a 111 I 1 . 030 0 3 -*; aa g a o o os 0iS 1 Remarl ___ S c .2______ ^ _ ^ ____ f Q_______ Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. S-lphur Springs Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. 280243N0822037.1 280252N0821639.1 280303N0822219.1 280305N0821851.1 280307N0821726.1 280314N0822011.1 280316N0822134.1 280322N0822107.1 280323N0822206.1 280352N0822102.1 280353N0822041.1 280402N0822123.1 280414N0821952.1 280430N0822039.1 280433N0821710.1 280438N0822003.1 280508N0821957.1 280612N0822008.1 280627N0822008.1 280631N0821938.1 280631N0822033.1 280642N0821958.1 280648N0821952.1 280649N0821914.1 280651N0822025.1 280651N0822043.1 280655N0821768.1 280655N0821930.1 280112N0822701.1 280241N0822314.1 280313N0822308.1 280317N0822239.1 280509N0822854.1 280520N0822913.1 280619N0822651.1 280621N0822850.1 280629N0822932.1 280646N0822859.1 280710N0822908.1 280715N0822954.1 43-37 52-39 03-19 05-51 07-26 14-11 16-34 22-07 23-06 52-02 53-41 02-23 14-52 30-39 33-10 38-03 08-57 12-08 27-08 31-38 31-33 42-58 48-52 49-14 51-25 51-43 55-30 55-58 12-01 41-14 13-08 17-39 09-54 20-13 19-51 21-50 29-32 46-59 10-08 15-54 40 162 118 40 43 130 42 90 56 350 160 380 661 400 401 260 490 415 341 479 90(?) 884 318 510 73 51 399 611 49 37 32 49 97. 72 46 65 -- 80 60 100 83 63 84 50 63 106 62 100 80 87 85 45 35 28 45 WC W w W W W W WC W,C W WIC WIC W W W W WIC W W W W W WC W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W SCity of Tampa v Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. City of Tampa \ tWater-level measurement !Sample for chemical analysis 3Drilled by Corps of Engineers as part of this investigation -City of Tampa proposed well field in Lower Hillsborough River Detention Area REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 82 Figure 10. Location of ground-water data-collection sites. In the Tampa area, the concentrations of dissolved solids, sul- fate, chloride, and magnesium and the hardness of the water in the Floridan aquifer generally increase in the direction of water movement towards Hillsborough and McKay Bays. Also, water at shallower depths in the aquifer is less mineralized than water at greater depths. Shattles (1965) indicated that hardness ranges from less than 200 mg/1 (milligrams per litre) to more than 750 mg/1 near parts of the bays, that concentrations of dissolved solids range from less than 250 mg/1 to more than 1,000 mg/1, and that concentrations of chloride range from less than 25 mg/l to more than 250 mg/l. Water samples were collected at 29 ground-water sites (table 2 and fig. 10) as part of this investigation, and the analyses (table 3) are in agreement with the findings of Shattles. 20 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY TABLE 3.-Analyses of water samples from the Floridan aquifer in the area of the Tampa Bypass Canal System. -1 -ra 03 3 i s 8 I Brandon '33-24 6- 6-72 24.0 120 14 88 4.3 212 Do. 08-23 325 10- 4-72 - Do. 24-10 240 85 6- 5-72 24.0 84 12 3.9 2.2 0.9 192 Do. 24-10 240 85 10- 4-72 76 13 47 1.5 1.0 190 Do. 28-28 136 10- 4-72 - Do. 27-46 90 6- 5-72 23.5 60 4.0 6.3 0.9 176 Do. 2S-SMC 86 36 6- 5-72 23.5 51 2.2 4.9 .8 .2 136 Do. 2S-SMC 86 36 10- 4-72 48 2.1 4.0 .8 .2 140 Do. 3E-SMC 90 43 6- 6-72 24.5 60 .7 6.3 .8 150 Do. P-SMC 306 45 4-18-72 24.5 68 3.3 5.8 1.0 - Do. 10-36 105 6- 1-72 24.0 72 6.7 6.9 1.0 - Do. 42-11 137 6- 1-72 24.0 50 .5 4.3 .6 142 Tampa 25-19 110 60 6- 6-72 24.0 130 13 71 18 216 Do. 34-01 70 40 6- 5-72 24.0 200 16 280 7.0 2.0 250 Do. 34-01 70 40 10- 4-72 170 20 250 5.0 2.0 230 Do. 56-03 43 6- 5-72 24.0 340 38 240 23 182 Do. 56-03 43 40 10- 4-72 - Thonoto- 08-15 68 10- 4-72 48 4.4 4.0 1.1 .4 160 sassa Do. 30-08 170 10- 4-72 50 4.6 5.0 .7 .7 140 Do. 38-42 53 21 6- 1-72 23.5 65 6.1 6.2 .6 162 Do. 38-42 53 21 10- 4-72 60 6.6 5.4 .5 .9 160 Do. 16-35 45 6- 1-72 23.0 75 8.1 7.3 1.7 182 Do. 1E-ES 74 23 3-13-72 60 120 6.6 .7 168 Do. P-ES 334 50 5- 4-72 22.5 71 5.2 5.5 2.0 -- - Do. 2W-ES 87 37 10- 4-72 58 7.2 6.0 .7 1.0 140 Do. 1N-ES 75 24 3-13-72 62 130 7.3 .6 170 Do. 53-38 85 6- 6-72 23.0 55 1.8 5.4 .4 144 Do. 43-37 40 6- 6-72 24.5 30 1.1 3.4 .2 90 Do. 16-34 40 6- 1-72 24.0 130 9.8 6.3 .8 140 Do. 22-07 5-31-72 24.5 120 9.5 5.6 .9 230 Do. 52-02 130 46 10- 4-72 78 3.5 6.0 .6 .2 190 Do. 53-41 42 5-31-72 23.2 9.6 6.2 4.0 .2 872 Do. 38-03 350 5-31-72 23.5 52 4.9 2.5 .2 178 Do. 42-58 260 84 5-31-72 23.5 110 4.6 6.7 .6 344 Do. 42-58 260 84 10- 4-72 98 3.4 7.0 .4 .2 310 'Latitude-longitude number in Table 2. REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 82 0 0.3 .3 .2 .2 .3 .3 .3 .2 .2 .4. Al 643 435 457 171 1'200 3,350 178 184 240 256 266 321 C.) Cu Ca 11$ CC. 370 260 240 170 140 130 150 180 210 130 390 560 510 1,100 140 140 190 180 220 180 200 180 190 140 80 360 340 210 50 150 280 260 87 15 320 10 25 49 62 51 6 C. Cu C. 1' 150 110 190 130 110 130 120 160 8.0 7.6 7.7 7.4 7.3 8.1 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.6 7.4 7.6 7.6 7.7 7.9 7.9 7.4 7.9 8.0 7.6 7.1 7.6 7.6 7.1 7.7 7:1 200 170 71 74 96 24 11 14 14 11 7.8 15 220 1,200 500 1,200 1,400 6.0 10 11 8.0 13 7.6 8.0 10 7.4 9.2 50 11 8.6 10 7.0 56 14 12 1I? Cl) +S cs 1,100 676 775 274 370 2,210 5,300 308 308 374 347 381 385 372 447 551 0 I 0 0 C. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 10 10 37 24 17 11 27 26 17 15 16 16 16 32 Cu 0P 0 0 0 0 0.21 .49 .8 3.2 0 1.3 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 0 0 0 0 1.2 1.6 0 0 2.2 0 0 0 0 I 85 1.6 120 180 -. 9.6 23 41 100 54 45 1.6 Cu 4.0 260 7.2 B Cu I -~- I a-I i- I BUREAU OF GEOLOGY F IPLAN4tIO r\\ 2\ 4 \- \ - Ei r.Nr \ t At *<1' if'S OUM \L - .40. 1. O.MW M \' 1, t-y"O's RV0444 cndl frr \ '^'^~---. 1 91 0. 4vO~nlE ~.Xr l)? *iM| rn( ir -Krr _i 1 \ C, '1>_ ^~ 0_0__ t 0'L.nt ;' < trt r -1 -- -"*^' I _Ailt Figure 11. Potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer, May, 1972. SURFACE-WATER HYDROLOGY The area in which the canal system is being built (fig. 2) is drained by several streams (Menke and others, 1961). Palm River drains 40 mi' in Hillsborough County and empties into McKay Bay. The stage of the river fluctuates with the tide in McKay Bay. The river, a continuation of Sixmile Creek, is only 2 mi long and its average flow probably exceeds 70 cfs, or 45 mgd, at the mouth. Sixmile Creek rises in the Harney Flats area and flows 7 mi southward to Palm River. The average discharge at State High- way 574, 4 mi upstream from McKay Bay, is about 60 cfs or 39 mgd (U. S. Geol. Survey, 1970), and the discharge on May 22, 1970 dur- ing the dry season was 31 cfs or 20 mgd. Much of the base flow of Sixmile Creek comes from springs in the Eureka Springs and Harney Flats areas. REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 82 SThe Hillsborough River drains 690 mi". Its headwaters are in the Green Swamp area of central Florida outside the area of in- vestigation, and it flows southwestward into Hillsborough Bay at Tampa. The average discharge at the Hillsborough River State Park, about 17 mi northeast of Tampa, is about 290 cfs or 187 mgd (U. S. Geol. Survey, 1970). At the Tampa waterworks dam about 10 mi upstream from the mouth, the flow averages about 670 cfs or 433 mgd. During the May 1972 dry season, it averaged about 60 cfs or 39 mgd. Lake Thonotosassa is in the Hillsborough River drainage basin, and has a surface area of about 830 acres. Baker Creek and Pem- berton Creek are its principal tributaries, and outflow from the lake goes into Flint Creek northward to the river. The lake stage aver- ages about 35 ft above msl. The Alafia River drains 410 mi". The river flows across the southern part of the study area and empties into Hillsborough Bay. Near Lithia Springs, the flow of the Alafia River averages about 390 cfs or 250 mgd, and at the mouth, the average flow prob- ably exceeds 460 cfs or 300 mgd. Numerous springs serve as points of natural discharge from the Floridan aquifer into the streams. Menke and others (1961) showed that the area in which water levels in the Floridan aquifer were above land surface in September and October 1958 coincided with the locations of many springs and included much of the area along the stream channels of the Hillsborough and Alafia Rivers, Sixmile Creek, and the Eureka Springs and Harney Flats areas. According to Stringfield (1964), springs occur in the river valleys and low-lying areas where the Hawthorn Formation has been re-4 moved by solution and erosion, and where the Tampa and Suwanneec Limestones are at or near the land surface. The discharge from the springs accounts for a large part of the stream flow in Hillsborough County (Menke and others, 1961). During low flow, Lettuce Lake in Harney Flats and the springs in Eureka Springs account for about 80 percent of the discharge in Sixmile Creek, or about 50 cfs or 32 mgd. Crystal Sprinds, about 20 mi northeast of Tampa, and Sulphur Springs have average dis-e charges of 62 cfs or 40 mgd hnd 48 cfs or 31 mgd, respectively, and sustain the flow of the Hillsborough River. About 90 percent of the flow of Sulphur Springs comes f'rom the upper part of the Floridan aquifer, or the Tampa and Suwannee Limestones. Lithia BUREAU OF GEOLOGY Springs and Buckhorn Spring have average discharges of 45 cfs or 29 mgd and 12 cfs or 8 mgd, respectively, and contribute to the flow of the Alafia River. TEST DRILLING AND AQUIFER TESTS Two sites (insets A and B, figure 10) were selected by the Corps of Engineers and the Geological Survey for test drilling and aquifer testing to determine the hydrologic properties of the Floridan aquifer along the route of the canal system. One site is along Sixmile Creek just north of Buffalo Avenue near where the addi- tional water-level control structure may be located, and the other site is near Eureka Springs in Harney Flats, where the greatest effects of the canal system on the aquifer are anticipated. Two test wells (figs. 12 and 13) were drilled by the Corps of Engineers to determine the depth, thickness, and productivity of the water-bearing zones in the upper part of the Floridan aquifer. One well, P-SMC at the Sixmile Creek site, was 307 ft deep, and the other well, P-ES at the Eureka Springs site, was 332 ft deep. Continuous core samples 4 in. in diameter were recovered from each well, and the geologic formations were identified by William J. Lang (written commun., 1972). Many fractures and intercon- nected solution channels were present in the core samples from the upper part of the Floridan aquifer at both sites, indicating a highly transmissive aquifer. At each well, a current meter was used to determine the flow velocity in the open hole while the well was being pumped at a known rate of discharge. The cross-sectional area of the hole was calcu- lated from the diameter indicated by the caliper log; the discharge was determined from the product of the cross-sectional area and the flow velocity and plotted as a function of depth (figs. 12 and 13). The greatest increases in discharge Were in the upper part of the Tampa Limestone, thus showing that this formation is a pro- ductive water-bearing zone at the two test sites. At each site, 12 observation wells were drilled to a depth of about 90 ft extending about 50 ft into the upper part of the Flori- dan aquifer. The observation wells were spaced about 500, 1,000, and 2,000 ft from the deep test wells in four directions approxi- mately normal to each other (Insets A and B, figure 10). The test wells, P-SMC and P-ES, were filled back to depths of about 100 ft to the base of the Tampa Limestone and were pumped during the aquifer tests. METRES 50 LAND SURFACE SEA LEVEL -100 DISCHARGE, LITRES PER SECOND Dt cn LEVEL 0 0 1-4 I-3 0 00 O0 2; -200 -300 DIAMETER, CENTIMETRES '1 P 5 3m' o.3 S. '1 g *I. 0. S a 4= Ir a 2 w 5' Ip I 16 pg a 0 n1 20 30 40 DIAMETER, CENTIMETRES 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 DISCHARGE, ITRES PER SECOND FEET 50 LAND SURFACE SEA LEVEL -200 -300 FORMATION CASING, WELL P-ES DIAMETER, INCHES DISCHARGE, GALLONS PFR MINUTE (280116NO82208 5 10 1 0 SCO 1000 TIATED SAhE 14" DIAMETER AND CLAY STEEL CASING S SLOTTED CASING o w- S *" -II - OCALA GROUP w 0sffff I --70 --o90 --90 I ET! ES aO LEVEL METRES -,o --10 -.20 --30 -40 --50 --0 REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 82 Three aquifer tests were made. The first two tests were made at the Eureka Springs site during March 30-31 and May 3-6, 1972. During these tests, lasting 25 and 72 hours, respectively, steady pumping rates of 525 and 480 gpm were maintained. The third test was made at the Sixmile Creek test site an May 10-14, 1972, and a steady pumping rate of 915 gpm was maintained for 96 hours. The data collected during these tests were analyzed to determine . the hydrologic properties of the upper part of the Floridan aquifer and the overlying confining bed. These properties are: transmis- t sivity, defined as the flow of water in gallons per day through a vertical strip of the aquifer 1 ft wide extending the full thickness of the confined aquifer under a unit hydraulic gradient; the coef- ficient of storage, defined as the volume of water the aquifer re- leases from storage per unit surface area of the aquifer per unit change in head; and the leakance, ,which is the ratio of the coef- ficient of vertical permeability of the confining bed and the thick- ness of the confining bed. Leakance is a measureof the ability of leakage to pass through a confining bed vertically.' Leakance can be defined as the rate of flow that crosses a unit surface area of the interface between the confining bed and the main aquifer per unit of head difference between the top and bottom of the confining bed. Values of transmissivity, coefficient of storage, and leakance were calculated by fitting the observed values of drawdown of each observation well to a family of type curves based on the Hantush- Jacob (1955) leaky-aquifei model. Thus, the discharge was assumed to be from the release of water stored in the aquifer and to leakage into the main aquifer from an overlying permeable zone; the re- lease of stored water from the confining beds during these tests was assumed to be negligible. In addition, drainage canals were present at both test sites and acted to some degree as recharge boundaries, reducing the drawdowns in the observation wells, thus affecting the shape of the drawdown curves. These effects were also considered in determining the hydrologic parameters of the, aquifer. Average values of transmissivity, 400,000 gpd/ft; coeffi- cient of storage, 5 x 104; and leakance 1 x 10"8 gpd/ft8 were deter- f mined for the test sites. HYDROLOGIC EFFECTS OF THE CANAL SYSTEM EFFECTS OF CANAL SYSTEM AS PRESENTLY DESIGNED Construction of the canal system will alter the existing hydro- logic system, causing drawdown (lowering) of the potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer and diversion of flow from other BUREAU OF GEOLOGY FEET METRES 0 D' 25 - 2 0 1 1 'i I 1 i . Locaton of Sectlon SRown on fur a wel,. ll,*ed in 0 500 1000 1500 2000 FEET i,,hi. 2 i t I I I I I 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 METRES Vricoal exoaggratlon XKOO Figure 14. Hydrogeolic section at Harney Flats showing lowering of the potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer that would result from the canal system as presently designed. parts of the hydrologic system. Along much of the route of the canal system, the upper part of the Floridan aquifer is the Tampa Limestone, which the test drilling and aquifer tests showed is highly permeable due to fractures and many interconnected solu- tion channels. In many places (figs. 7, 8, and 9), the canal system will cut into the Floridan aquifer or at least cut deeply into the clay confining layer. Thus, the hydraulic connection between the canal system and the highly permeable artesian aquifer will be di- rect at several places, and the potentiometric surface near the canal REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 82 system will be lowered to the pool level in the canals. Near the canal system where the potentiometric surface is lowered, a hydraulic gradient will be established, and water will drain from the aquifer into the canal system. Because of the high transmissivity of the aquifer, the potentiometric surface will be lowered for some dis- tance from the canal system. The effect of the canal system on the potentiometric surface and discharge will be greatest in the Eureka Springs and Harney Flats areas, where the existing potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer is about 8 to 10 ft higher than the pool levels in the canals will be. In these areas, the canal system will act as a line sink, and, as presently designed, will lower the potentiometric surface of the aquifer about 8 to 10 ft in the vicinity of the canal system (fig. 14), and will increase the discharge from the aquifer into the canal system in these areas. The other parts of the hydrologic system will respond to the drawdown and discharge due to the canal system. The drawdown, in the potentiometric surface will cause an increase in the head difference between the overlying water-table aquifer and the Flor- idan aquifer, thus causing an increase in leakage from the water- table aquifer-into the Floridan aquifer. This increase in leakage will lower water levels and decrease storage in the water-table aquifer and tend to dry up swampy areas near parts of the canal system. The discharge into the canal system from the Floridan aquifer will cause a decrease in ground-water discharge from the Floridan aquifer at other parts of the hydrologic system, a reduction in evapotranspiration, and a reduction of flow in the Hillsborough River. Spring flow in the Eureka Springs and Harney Flats areas will be reduced as flow in the Floridan aquifer is diverted into the canal system, and evapotranspiration losses from these areas may be reduced slightly due to lowered water-levels in the water-table aquifer. Flow in the Hillsborough River will be reduced due to a decrease in the ground-water discharge into the river. Water quality in the Floridan aquifer will be affected by the drawdown caused by the canal system. The height of the potentio- metric surface above sea level and the density difference between fresh and salt water are two of the principal factors governing the position of the interface between fresh water and salt water at depth in the Floridan aquifer. The Ghyben-Herzburg relation (Walton, 1970) predicts that the distance in feet below sea level to the interface is equal to 40 times the height of the potentio- metric surface above sea level if the fresh water was underlain BUREAU OF GEOLOGY by sea water. Thus, as the potentiometric surface is lowered in the Floridan aquifer due to the canal system, the fresh water-salt water interface eventually may move upward to a new equilibrium position. Along the parts of the canal system in the Eureka Springs and Harney Flats areas where the drawdown could be as great as 10 ft (fig. 14), the fresh water-salt water interface could move upward 40 times 10 ft, or as much as 400 ft, tending to increase the chloride and dissolved-solids content of water from the deeper wells in these areas. The analyses of the water samples from the 29 ground-water sites (fig. 10 and table 3) document existing conditions and can be used to determine future changes in water quality in the Floridan aquifer. COMPARISON OF THE HYDROLOGIC EFFECTS OF THE PRESENT AND MODIFIED DESIGNS A digital model (Pinder and Bredehoeft, 4968, and Trescott, 1973) was used to obtain quantitative estimates of the drawdowni and discharge due to the canal system and to compare the hydro- logic effects of the present and modified designs. This model can accommodate an artesian or water-table aquifer and will compute values of head and drawdown and a mass balance at selected time steps at selected nodes. The area of investigation was divided into a grid. The spacing between the nodes at the center of each rectangle in the grid ranged from 2,000 ft along the canal system to 10,000 ft near the boundaries. The canal system was considered to be hydraulically connected to the aquifer along C-135 from S-160 to S-159, along C-136 to S-161, and if built, along C-132 to S-153. Drawdown and discharge were calculated by treating these segments of the canal system as a constant-head line sink (fig. 15). Because these canal segments are not in fact hydraulically connected to the aquifer along their entire lengths, this calculation procedure should result in maximum values of drawdown and discharge. The transmissivity and the storage coefficient of the Floridan aquifer were assumed to be 400,000 gpd/ft and 5 x 10-4, respectively, and the leakance of the overlying confiining bed was assumed to be 1 x 10-3 gpd/ft3, all based on the results from the aquifer tests. The Hillsborough, Alafia, and Palm Rivers and Hillsborough and McKay Bays were selected as constant-head boundaries (fig. 15). The configuration of the potentiometric surface (fig. 11) and REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 82 Figure 15. Parts of the canal system treated as a line sink and boundaries of digital model. the numerous springs and marshy lowlands along the river valleys (Menke and others, 1961) all indicate points of discharge from the Floridan aquifer into these bodies of water and a high degree of connection between the aquifer and these water bodies. The eastern and northeastern boundaries (fig. 15) were far enough from the canal system so that the predicted drawdown at these boundaries was negligible. Steady-state values of drawdown in the potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer and discharge from the aquifer into the canal were calculated to compare the effects of the canal system with and without the design modifications. These values will occur when a new dynamic equilibrium has been established after the canal system is completed and after the amount of water in storage in the aquifer is reduced. These values were calculated for a sea- BUREAU OF GEOLOGY sonal low water-level period (May 1972), because the effect that the discharge into the canal system will have on groundwater dis- charge at other places in the hydrologic system and on flow in the Hillsborough River will be most critical during the dry season. During wet periods, the potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer will stand at a higher altitude than shown for the May 1972 period (fig. 11), and, because pool levels in the canal segments will not change, the drawdown at and discharge into the canal system will be greater. However, even though the drawdown and discharge will be greater for wet periods than dry periods, the effect that dis-, charge into the canal system will havejon ground-water discharge at other places in the hydrologic system and on flow in the Hills-. borough River will not be critical during the wet period. DRAWDOWN The drawdown of the potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer that would have occurred during the May 1972 seasonal low water-level period was calculated for four conditions, taking into account whether the additional control structure at Buffalo Avenue will be built and whether C-132 (Thonotosassa Canal) will be in- cluded as part of the final system of canals. The drawdown along the parts of the canal system treated as a constant-head line sink was calculated by subtracting the altitude of the proposed pool levels in the canal system (fig. 3 and 4) from the altitude of the potentiometric surface for May 1972 along these parts of the canal system (fig. 10). Drawdown in the irregularly shaped region be- tween the canal system and the boundaries was calculated using the digital model. For the first condition, the canal system consisted of C-135, C-136, and C-132 without the additional control structure near Buffalo Avenue. Drawdown was calculated for specific points (fig. 16) and then subtracted from the altitude of the potentiometric surface for May 1972 (fig. 10) at these same points, giving the potentiometric surface that would have occurred in May 1972 if the canal system had been built as presently designed with C-135, C-136, and C-132 (fig. 17). The hydraulic gradient that would have been established in the Floridan aquifer extends from the canal system to some parts of the Hillsborough River, thus indicating that some flow in the river will be diverted from the river into the aquifer, discharging into the canal system. For the other three conditions, only the drawdown was calcu- lated. Drawdown for the second condition shows the effects of REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 82 Figure 16. Drawdown that would have occurred during the May 1972 low water-level period due to the present design of C-135, C-136, and C-132 if the canal had been built. C-135, C-136, and C-132 with the control structure at Buffalo Avenue (fig. 18). Drawdown for the third condition shows the ef- fects of C-135 and C-136 without either C-132 or the Buffalo Avenue structure (fig. 19), and drawdown for the fourth condition shows the effects of C-135 and C-136 without C-132 but with the Buffalo Avenue structure (fig. 20). The drawdown will be less with the additional control structure included in the canal system, because the structure will maintain the pool level in the Eureka Springs and Harney Flats areas at a higher level than without the structure. Comparing the first con- dition to the second condition (figs. 16 and 18) and the third con- dition to the fourth (figs. 19 and 20), the area within which draw- down will be equal to or greater than a given value also will be less with the control structure included. BUREAU OF GEOLOGY Figure 17. Potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer as it would have occurred in May 1972 if C-135, C-136, and C-132 had been built. The areas enclosed by each of the lines of equal drawdown (figs. 15 and 18-20) were measured with a planimeter to compare the ex- tent of the drawdown due to the present and modified designs. The area-drawdown relations (figs. 21 and 22) show the effect of the additional control structure near Buffalo Avenue on drawdown due to the canal system. For example, for a canal system that consists of C-135, C-136, and C-132, the area within which drawdown will be at least 1.0 ft will decrease from 92 mi- to about 51 mi2 or 45 per- cent, if the additional control structure is built (fig. 21). For the canal system that consists of C-135 and C-136 without C-132, the area within which drawdown will be at least 1.0 ft will decrease from about 48 mi2 to about 24 mi2 or 50 percent, if the additional control structure is built (fig. 22). REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 82 Figure 18. Drawdown that would have occurred during the May 1972 low water-level period due to the modified design of C-135, C-136, and C-132 with the additional structure near Buffalo Avenue if the canal had been built. DISCHARGE Discharge into the canal system from the Floridan aquifer that would have occurred during the May 1972 low water-level period if the canal had been built was also calculated using the digital model (table 4). This discharge, which would have been made by a de- crease in the discharge from other parts of the hydrologic system, was also calculated for four conditions. For a canal system that consisted of C-135, C-136, and C-132, discharge from the aquifer into the canal system would have been 22 mgd without the control structure at Buffalo Avenue and 13 mgd with the control structure. For the canal system that consisted of only C-135 and C-136, dis- charge would have been 15 mgd without the control structure and 8 mgd with the control structure. Thus, discharge into the canal BUREAU OF GEOLOGY Figure 19. Drawdown that would have occurred during the May 1972 low water-level period due to the present design of C-135 and C-136 without C-132 if the canal had been built. Table 4. Discharge into the canal system from the Floridan Aqui- fer that would have occurred during the May 1972 low water-level period if the canal had been built. Discharge (million gallons per day) System of canals No additional Additional structure structure near Buffalo Avenue (10-foot pool) (10 and 15-foot pools) C-135, C-136, and C-132 (Tampa, Harney, and Thonotosassa Canals) 22 13 C-135 and C-136 (Tampa and Harney Canals) 15 8 REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 82 Figure 20. Drawdown that would have occurred druing the May 1972 low water-level period due to the modified design of C-135 and C-136 without C-132 but with the additional structure near Buffalo Avenue, if the canal had been built. system would be about 40 percent less with the control structure added to the canal system consisting of C-135, C-136, and C-132 and would be about 45 percent less with the control structure added to the canal system consisting of C-135 and C-136. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The proposed Tampa Bypass Canal System is designed to divert flood waters from the Hillsborough River at a point upstream from areas of flood-plain encroachment in the cities of Tampa and Temple Terrace through an area east of Tampa into nearby McKay Bay. The canal system will breach the underlying artesian Floridan aquifer in several places. Thus, it will cause drainage from the BUREAU OF GEOLOGY DRAWDOWN, METRES US (E 1200 - o - 50 a > 30 o < 20 2 4 I,- tO 0 - o 0.1 PRESENT DESIGN OF C-135,C-136,ond C-132 (10-FOOT POOL) MODIFIED DESIGN WITH THE ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE (10- AND IS- FOOT POOLS) NEAR BUFFALO AVENUE Figure 21. Area-drawdown relations for C-135, C-136, and C-132 that would have occurred during the May 1972 low water-level period if the canal had been built. aquifer into the canal system and will affect ground-water levels over a large area. Test wells were drilled and aquifer tests were made at two sites along the route of the canal system to determine the geologic and hydrologic properties of the Floridan aquifer. Continuous core sam- ples and current-meter tests showed that the upper part of the Florida aquifer contains many fractures and interconnected solu- tion channels and is a productive water-bearing zone at both sites. Three aquifer tests were made, and average values of tranmis- sivity, the storage coefficient, and leakance were determined to be 400,000 gpd/ft, 5 x 10-4, and 1 x 10-3 gpd/ft3, respectively. Construction of the canal system will alter the existing hydro- logic system, lowering the potentiometric surface of the Floridan 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 DRAWDOWN, FEET oN OW 4W WI3 o (C 2S z8 )C3 0 0 REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 82 DRAWDOWN, METRES w a - U) S50 - o 2 I - 5 o 2 0.1 ._ SO oz z 4, z z z 1^ 0.2 0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0 DRAWDOWN, FEET PRESENT DESIGN OF C-135 and C-136 (10- FOOT POOL) O MODIFIED DESIGN WITH THE ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE NEAR BUFFALO AVENUE (10- AND 15-FOOT POOLS) Figure 22. Area-drawdown relations for C-135 and C-136 that would have occurred during the May 1972 low water-level period if the canal had been built. aquifer and diverting flow from other parts of the hydrologic sys- tem. The greatest effect on the potentiometric surface will be in the Eureka Springs and Harney Flats areas, where the canal sys- tem will act as a line sink, and, as presently designed, will lower the potentiometric surface of the aquifer as much as 10 ft or more in the vicinity of parts of the canal system, increasing the dis- charge into the canal system from the aquifer in these areas. The other parts of the hydrologic system will repond to the drawdown and discharge due to the canal system. An increase in leakage from the water-table aquifer'will lower water levels in the water-table aquifer and tend to dry up swampy areas near BUREAU OF GEOLOGY parts of the canal system. The discharge into the canal system from the Floridan aquifer will cause a decrease in discharge from other parts of the hydrologic system. Thus, spring flow in the Eureka Springs and Harney Flats areas will be reduced, and flow in the Hillsborough River will be reduced due to a decrease in ground-water discharge and some diversion of flow from the river. As another consequence, the fresh water-salt water interface in the Floridan aquifer will move upward to a new equilibrium posi- tion. tending to increase the chloride and dissolved-solids concen- tration of water in the deeper wells in the Eureka Springs and Harney Flats areas where the drawdown will be the greatest. As part of this study, the effect of adding another water-level control structure near Buffalo Avenue was investigated. This struc- ture would maintain the pool level in the Eureka Springs and Har- ney Flats areas at a 5 ft higher level than without the structure. This would result in less drawdown in the potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer and less discharge into the canal system from the aquifer in these areas, reducing the hydrologic effects. A digital model was used to obtain quantitative estimates of the drawdown and discharge and to compare the effects of the present and modified designs. The estimates represent a maximum condi- tion because of assumptions used in the model. Certain segments of the canal system were assumed to have direct hydraulic connection with the Floridan aquifer along their entire length, an assumption which is valid for only part of their length. Also, calculations were made for drawdown and discharge that would have occurred during the May 1972 seasonal low-water period due to the present and modified designs of the canal system. The calculations were made for a seasonal low-water period, because the effect that the dis- charge into the canal system will have on ground-water discharge at other places in the hydrologic system and on flow in the Hills- borough River will be most critical during the dry season. Four conditions were investigated, taking into account whether the ad- ditional control structure near Buffalo Avenue will be built and whether C-132 (Thonotosassa Canal) will be included in the final system of canals. The canal system, as presently designed, will lower the potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer by 1 ft or more over an area of about 92 mi2 with C-182 (Thonotosassa Canal) included in the system and about 48 mi" without C-132; discharge from the aquifer into the canal system will be about 22 mgd with C-132 and 15 mgd without C-182. The discharge into the canal system will cause a decrease in the present (pre-canal sys- REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 82 ter) discharge from the Floridan aquifer to other parts of the hydrologic system. If another control structure is added to the canal system near Buffalo Avenue, the area of drawdown of the potentio- metric surface will be less by 45 percent and the discharge less by 40 percent with C-182 included in the system; without 0-132, the area drawdown will be less by 50 percent and the discharge less by 45 percent. Adding another control structure near Buffalo Avenue will re- duce appreciably the drawdown and discharge due to the canal sys- tem. As a result, downward leakage from the water-table aquifer will be less, and the lowering of water levels in the water-table aquifer also will be less. Also, the effects on spring flow in the Eureka Springs and Harney Flats areas and on flow in the Hills- borough River will be less. In addition the upward movement of the fresh water-salt water interface in the Floridan aquifer will be less, reducing the effects of the canal system on water quality. Therefore, the additional control structure near Buffalo Avenue will reduce the effects of the canal system on the hydrology of the area. REFERENCES CITED Carr, W. J., and Alverson, D. G., 1959, Stratigraphy of Middle Tertiary rocks in part of west-central Florida: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1092, 111 p. Cooke, C. W., 1945, Geology of Florida: Florida Geol. Survey Bull. 29, 889 p. Hantush, M. S., and Jacob, C. E. 1955, Nonsteady radial flow in an infinite leaky aquifer: Am. Geophys. Union Trans., v. 30, no. 1, p. 95-100. MaeNeil F. S., 1949, Pleistocene shore lines tn Florida and Georgia: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 221-F, 106 p., 24 pis. Menke; C. G., Meredith, E. W., and Wetterhall, W. S., 1961, Water resources of Hillsborough County, Florida: Florida Geol. Survey Rept. Inv. 25, 101 p. Parker, G. G., Ferguson, G. E., Love, S. K., and others, 1955, Water resources of southeastern Florida, with special reference to the geology and ground water of the Miami area: U. S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1255, 965 p. ,Pinder, G. F., and Bredehoeft, J. D., 1968, Application of digital computer for aquifer evaluation: Water Resources Research, vol. 4, no. 5, p. 1069-1098. Puri, H. S., and Vernon, R. 0., 1964, Summary of the geology of Florida and a guidebook to the classic exposures: Florida Geol. Survey Spec. Pub. 5, 812 p. Shattles D. E., 1965 Quality of water from the Floridan aquifer in Hillsbor- ough County, Florida: Florida Board of Conserv., Div. of Geology, Map Ser. 9. Stewart, J. W., Mills, L. R., Knochenmus, D. D., and Faulkner, G. L., 1971, Potentiometrie surface and areas of artesian flow, May 1969, and change of potentiomotric surface 1964 to 1969, Floridan aquifer, Southwest Flori- da Water Management District, Florida: U. S. Geol. Survey Hydrol. Inv. Atlas HA-440. 42 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY Stringfield, V. T., 1936, Artesian water in the Florida Peninsula: U. S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 773C, 195 p. 1964, Relation of surface-water hydrology to the principal artesian aquifer in Florida and southeastern Georgia: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 501-C, p. C164-169. 1966, Artesian water in Tertiary limestone in the southeastern states: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 517, 226 p. Treseott, P. C., 1973, Iterative digital model for aquifer evaluations: U. S. GeoL Survey open-file report, 63 p. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1961, Comprehensive report on Four River Basins, Florida: Jacksonville, Florida. U. S. Dept. Commerce, 1972, Local climatological data, annual summary with comparative data, Tampa, Florida: Natl. Climatic Center, Asheville, N. C. U. S. GeoL Survey, 1970, Water Resources data for Florida, part 1, surface water records, vol. 1, Tallahassee, Florida. Walton, W. C., 1970, Ground-water resource evaluation: New York, McGraw- Hill, p. 194-196. White, W. A., 1958, Some geomorphic features of central peninsula Florida: Florida Geol. Survey, BulL 41, 92 p. I. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MILLISECOND | CLASS.METHOD | MESSAGE |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | sobekcm_page_globals.constructor | |
| 0 | sobekcm_page_globals.constructor | Application State validated or built |
| 0 | sobekcm_database.verify_item_lookup_object | |
| 0 | sobekcm_page_globals.constructor | Navigation Object created from URI query string |
| 0 | sobekcm_database.verify_item_lookup_object | |
| 0 | sobekcm_page_globals.display_item | Retrieving item or group information |
| 0 | sobekcm_page_globals.get_entire_collection_hierarchy | Retrieving hierarchy information |
| 0 | sobekcm_assistant.get_entire_collection_hierarchy | |
| 0 | cached_data_manager.retrieve_item_aggregation | |
| 0 | cached_data_manager.retrieve_item_aggregation | Found item aggregation on local cache |
| 0 | item_aggregation_builder.get_item_aggregation | Found 'all' item aggregation in cache |
| 0 | system.web.ui.page.page_load (ufdc.page_load) | |
| 0 | sobekcm_page_globals.constructor.on_page_load | |
| 0 | html_echo_mainwriter.add_style_references | Adding style references to HTML |
| 0 | html_echo_mainwriter.add_text_to_page | Reading the text from the file and echoing back to the output stream |
| 34 | html_echo_mainwriter.add_text_to_page | Finished reading and writing the file |
