Title: Evidentiary Evaluation, Section 21 Well Field, CUP No. 200003, Renewal
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00001690/00001
 Material Information
Title: Evidentiary Evaluation, Section 21 Well Field, CUP No. 200003, Renewal
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Memorandum Evidentiary Evaluation, Section 21 Well Field, CUP No. 200003, Renewal To: William D. Courser, Director, Resource Regulation Department From: David A. Wiley, Hydrogeologist, Resource Regulation Department July 11, 1983
General Note: Box 9, Folder 5 ( SF-SWF 200003/WCR/St. Pete/Section 21 Volume I - 1976-92 ), Item 11
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00001690
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text







July 11, 1983

MEMORANDUM


TO: WILLIAM D. COURSER, Director, Resource Regulation Department

FROM: DAVID A. WILEY, Hydrogeologist, Resource Regulation Department Q-'

RE: Evidentiary Evaluation, SECTION 21 WELL FIELD, CUP NO. 200003, Renewal

L BACKGROUND

A. Date Application was Received: December 28, 1981

B. Property Description: 584 acres owned


C. Location of Property:






D. Proposed Use of Water:



IL INVESTIGATION

A. Water Use Quantities


Average Annual
Consumptive Use
Maximum Daily
Consumptive Use Owned Area
Consumptive Use Service Area


Section 21, Township 27 South, Range 18
East, in northwest Hillsborough County. The
wells are located in Lake Park at the south-
west corner of the intersection at Dale
Mabry Highway and Van Dyke Road (See
Figure 1, Page 16).

Eight wells to provide public supply for the
City of St. Petersburg service area; approx-
imately 53,454 acres.


*Presently Permitted


18 MGD
18 MGD
22 MGD
30,821 gpd/acre
337 gpd/acre


**Proposed


13 MGD
13 MGD
22 MGD
22,260 gpd/acre
243 gpd/acre


*Total combined pumpage from Cosme-Odessa and Section 21 is not to
exceed 168 million gallons per week (24 MGD). Production from the two
well fields shall be reasonably balanced.

**Of the 13 MGD proposed for this Permit, 12 MGD are authorized and
intended for the purpose of meeting water supply requirements of the
City of St. Petersburg. The additional 1 MGD (average annual) is author-
ized solely for withdrawal by West Coast Regional Water Supply
Authority at a rate not to exceed 3 MGD for any single day, for use to
supply supplemental water to the northwest Hillsborough service area
when water supply requirements for such area are not met under CUP
No. 206676. At no time, however, shall the maximum daily withdrawal
rate for any purpose exceed 22 MGD.


S21-1







Sn* 1
CUP No. 200003
July 11, 1983 1
Page 2

B. Supporting Information

1. Distribution System (See Evidentiary Summary for Cosme-Odessa
Well Field, CUP No. 200004, Distribution System, Pages 2
through 6). 1

2. History and Development

The Section 21 Well Field (WF) was developed and put into oper-
ation in 1963. The well field was developed with ten wells approx-
imately 400 feet deep. Specific capacity tests were conducted on
all the wells. Several wells had low capacities that resulted in the
deepening of those wells with the anticipation of increasing capac-
ities. Wells, depths, and original specific capacities are listed
below. I

Casing Depth Total Depth Specific Capacity
Well No. (feet) (feet) (gpm/feet)

21-1 70 570 30
21-2 73 411 131
21-3 71 411 185
21-4 71 601 112 I
21-5 75 601 55
21-6 79 412 81
21-8 116 551 75
21-9 79 601 107
21-10 70 411 311
E21-7 718 1,250 34

Six of the ten wells listed above are presently permitted at the
Section 21 WF. Wells 21-1, 21-3, 21-4, and E21-7 are not currently
permitted and used as production wells. However, 21-1 and 21-3
are available for production if needed and are on the proposed
permit.

The water use from the City of St. Peterburg's Cosme-Odessa, I
Section 21, and South Pasco Well Fields, was reviewed during public
hearings held in December 1971 and January 1972, by the
Governing Board of the Southwest Florida Water Management
District. Order No. 72-1 established regulatory levels for the three
well fields. Regulatory levels will be discussed in more detail later
in this summary.

In November 1973 at a regular public hearing, Order No. 73-6R was
entered which established a gallonage cap of 168 million gallons per
week on the Cosme-Odessa and Section 21 Well Fields.

In August 1976 the current CUP No. 200003, was issued to the City
of St. Petersburg for Section 21 WF under Order No. 76-2 by the
Governing Board (see Attachment C, Page 47).


S21-2







CUP No. 200003
July 11, 1983
Page 3

3. Geology of Well Field Area

Several geologic units exist in the northwest Hillsborough County
area (See Figure 5, Page 20). There is an upper zone of uncon-
solidated deposits and a lower zone of consolidated rocks. The
upper zone or surficial unit consists chiefly of undifferentiated
sands ranging in thickness from 10 to 50 feet. A clay layer approx-
imately 10 feet thick separates the surficial unit from the con-
solidated rocks or upper Floridan Aquifer. This clay layer makes up
what is called the Hawthorn Formation. The upper Floridan
Aquifer is made up of the Tampa Formation, Suwannee Limestone,
and the Ocala Group. The Tampa Formation underlies the Haw-
thorn Formation and is approximately 100 feet thick. Below the
Tampa Formation lies the Suwannee Limestone which is about 200
feet thick. This unit is a very good producer of potable water and
is the primary source of production at the Section 21 WF. Under-
lying the Suwannee Limestone is the Ocala Group. Several wells in
the Section 21 WF penetrate this zone.

4. Inventory of Uses in the Well Field Vicinity (See Evidentiary
Summary for Cosme-Odessa Well Field, CUP No. 200004, Inventory
of Uses in the Well Field Vicinity, Pages 7 through 10).

C. Hydrologic Conditions

1. Water Quality

The USGS operates a regional monitor well network in northwest
Hillsborough County. These wells penetrate the lower Floridan
Aquifer and monitor chloride concentrations. In order to determine
the significance of pumpage from Section 21 on chloride concentra-
tions, statistical analyses were performed. These analyses con-
cluded that with time, chloride concentrations have either stabi-
lized or improved for the wells tested. Attachment E, Page 56,
displays the wells tested and the summary of the statistical
analysis.

In addition, the City of St. Petersburg analyzes water samples
quarterly from each production well in the Section 21 WF. These
analyses show that there has been virtually no change in chloride
concentrations from 1965 to the present.

2. Rainfall

Rainfall analyses were performed for the 67-year period of record
on four regional stations located in northwestern Hillsborough,
northeastern Pinellas and Pasco Counties. Rainfall patterns are
highly variable for the area on a year-to-year basis. Dry years are
interspersed throughout the rainfall history of the area in question,
with the last 30 years having a disproportionate number. The
statistics bear this out in that from 1951 through 1980 the average
annual rainfall was 50.64 inches with a median value of 47.61
inches. For the period 1920 through 1950, the average annual
rainfall was 52.92 inches with a median value of 53.58 inches. The


S21-3







CUP No. 200003
July 11, 1983
Page 4 1

median value probably represents what is more normal than the
arithmetic mean, which is easily skewed by unusually high or low
values. When looking at 20-year periods, it becomes obvious that
the past 20 years have been the driest. From 1961 to 1980, the
average annual rainfall was 48.31 inches with a median value of
46.45 inches. For the period 1941 to 1960, the average annual
rainfall was 55.63 inches with a median of 55.13 inches. From 1921
to 1940, the average annual rainfall was 51.39 inches with a median
of 52.97 inches. A rainfall curve showing the departure from
average for the Cosme rainfall station is included as Figure 17,
Page 33.

Thus, the past 20 years have been dryer than the average for the
67-year period of record. However, it is impossible to say whether
this is cyclic in nature. Rainfall is highly variable in time and
space in Florida due to the convective nature of the precipitation.
More than likely, the variability in rainfall from year to year can
be attributed to large-scale global forces disrupting to some extent
the expected seasonal Florida rainfall. A secondary effect is the
general decrease in tropical disturbances during the past 20 years.

3. Environmental Summary More detailed information on this
subject is available in the Appendix (Attachment F, Page 57).

a. General

Approximately 15 named lakes, numerous other unnamed
ponds, and a reach of Brushy Creek are located within the
area influenced by the predicted 0.5' water table draw-
down The area also contains wetlands including cypress
ponds and marshes as well as other areas, primarily now used
as pastures, which are former wet meadows. The total area
within the 0.5' predicted drawdown occupied by open water g
and wetlands is 1,742 acres or 25% of the total area of 6,920
acres.

Most of the lakes are relatively small, developed for resi-
dential and agricultural purposes (Table 1, Page 62). Of the
15 named lakes, seven have levels officially (Chapter 40D-8)
adopted and established by the Governing Board of the South-
west Florida Water Management District.

The wetlands, aside from those mentioned as being used as
improved pasture, are cypress ponds and marshes, occurring
as isolated features in pasture or citrus groves or as borders
of streams and lakes.

Brushy Creek, the major stream in the area, essentially exits
the well field at its southwest corner. At a point approxi-
mately 0.5 mile from the well field, the creek receives


Drawdown predicted as a result of the following pumping scheme: 30 days at average
permitted pumpage, followed by 30 days at maximum permitted pumpage, followed by 60
days at average permitted pumpage.

S21-4







CUP No. 200003
July 11, 1983
Page 5

discharges from Hillsborough County's Interceptor Canal
which drains areas to the east of Dale Mabry Highway. The
creek alternates between occupying a well-defined channel
and a condition of essentially unconfined flow through
cypress-dominated areas. Along some reaches, artificial
channel improvements have been made and control structures
have been emplaced at points in the creek.

b. Lake Stages and Stream Discharge

Of the lakes located within the predicted 0.5' zone of water
table drawdown, seven have data describing previous lake
stages. Stage records for these lakes vary from 30 years or
more (Lake Ellen) to 10 years (Lake Crystal). From the
hydrographs for these lakes, the stage behavior of other area
surface water features, at least during the recent past, can
be discerned. A period of decline in the lake levels began in
1961, following the extremely wet years of 1959-1960. This
decline lasted until mid-1964 when lake levels underwent a
period of recovery lasting through 1966. Another, longer,
decline began in early 1967 and lasted through mid-1974 with
a very brief recovery in late 1969/early 1970. Following the
heavy rainfall of 1974, lake levels fluctuated through an
approximately normal range during 1975 to mid-1979 when
exceptionally high rainfall caused a substantial increase in
lake stage. Since the end of 1979, lake stages have fallen
gradually, reaching near-record low levels in 1980 and early
1982. Since that time, lake levels have risen to high eleva-
tions and most lakes are now (April, 1983) at elevations above
ordinary seasonal low stages. This description represents
most natural lakes in the area. However, some lakes were
augmented beginning after the- major decline in lake stages
which occurred in 1970-1972, and this activity has somewhat
altered the hydrographs for those lakes. These lakes are
listed in Attachment H, Page 84.

It is known through observation that the discharge of Brushy
Creek generally is variable throughout the years; however,
there are no long-term discharge measurements for Brushy
Creek.

c. Relationship Between Surface Water Levels and Ground
Water Withdrawals

In the vicinity of the well field, the relationship between
surface water levels and the ground water system is a close
one. The surficial system, in particular, can be especially
important to the maintenance of the water levels of surface
water features. Changes in the water levels of surface water
bodies can be expected in response to seasonal and catas-
trophic rainfall events, evapotranspiration, and the magnitude
of inflows and outflows (including ground water inflows and
outflows). These factors act together dynamically to deter-
mine water elevations in lakes and wetlands.


S21-5









CUP No. 200003
July 11, 1983
Page 6

Water levels in cypress ponds change in response to several
factors including surface runoff into the ponds, evapotrans-
piration, vertical infiltration, ground water seepage into the
ponds, lateral movement of water from the ponds to the
water table, direct precipitation, and, where present, surface
outflow. The elevation of the water table around a pond
significantly influences all of the above factors, particularly
those which are directly ground water-related. During
periods of high water table elevation, a condition of standing U
water is maintained in a cypress wetland as ground water
moves in and through the pond. Also, a high water table
reduces infiltration and can increase the rate of surface
outflow. As the water table declines, water levels in the
cypress pond drop as a result of enhanced infiltration to the
surrounding sands. Further, evapotranspiration, an important
loss factor throughout the year, becomes even more
important as the pond water level drops to ground surface and
to somewhat below ground surface. Under conditions of
seasonal dryness, water table depressions result in the
absence of standing water in cypress ponds, and the pond soil
may become dry in the upper 3-5". Prolonged water table
depressions, caused by unseasonable drought or by nearby
ground water withdrawals result in longer periods of dryness
in a cypress pond. This, in turn, brings about excessive soil
desiccation and a substantial change in the vegetational
characteristics of the pond. Should the changes include the
eventual toppling and death of the cypress trees themselves,
the hydrologic features of the area formerly occupied by the
pond are altered for an undetermined period of time.
Occurring regionally, this phenomenon could produce detect-
able changes in the previously established hydrobiologic
relationships in an area.

Streams in the area of the well field are also closely related
to the ground water systems. Streamflow or runoff in this
part of Florida is dependent on ground water contributions to
a varying extent depending on climatic conditions. Estimates
of ground water seepage to area streams range from 10% to
nearly 100% under conditions of high and low flows, respec-
tively. Therefore, both the potentiometric surface and the
water table are important as indicators of the ability of the
ground water system to contribute to streamflow.
I
Because of the intimate relationship between lake levels and
the water table, drawdowns induced in the water table will
induce declines in lake stage. Analyses done using an adapta-
tion of a Prickett-Lonnquist Flow Model (reported elsewhere
in this Evidentiary Summary) estimate that, under the condi-
tions specified, a water table drawdown of 0.5' or greater will
cover an area of approximately 10.81 mi The levels of
lakes within this zone of influence can be expected to
decline, potentially, up to the amount of the water table
drawdown. The same could be said of water levels in marshes
and cypress ponds located within the area of concentrated I
water table drawdown.
S21-6 3








CUP No. 200003
July 11, 1983
Page 7

Streams located within the major zone of drawdown are
dependent upon ground water inflow for a variable percentage
of flow. Generally, drawdowns in the water table can be
expected to produce declines in streamflow; however, due to
the absence of discharge records for Brushy Creek, it was not
possible to determine quantitatively the magnitude of the
expected decline.

4. Water Levels from Monitor Stations in the Well Field Vicinity

There are many monitor sites in the vicinity of the well fields of
northwest Hillsborough and south Pasco Counties (See Figure 8,
Page 24). These sites are measured periodically for water levels of
the potentiometric surface and water table. Hydrographs of each
monitor site are included with Attachment I, Page 87. These
hydrographs show the seasonal fluctuations clearly. Well fields
came under regulation in 1973 which is evident by observing the
long-term graphs on Lutz-Lake Fern Deep, Van Dyke Shallow, and
Berger Road Deep.

Statistical analyses were performed on these sites to determine the
significance of rainfall, pumpage, and time with respect to water
levels. A description of these analyses appears in Attachment I.
These analyses conclude that the potentiometric surface responds
to water table elevations, which both in turn, respond to rainfall,
pumpage, and time.

5. Sinkhole Activity

Section 21 WF began production in February 1963 at 4.8 MGD. In
March 1964, withdrawal rates increased abruptly to 11 MGD and
again in April to 14 MGD (See Figure 4, Page 19). By May of 1964
neighboring landowners and well field personnel reported 64 new
sinkholes in and around the well field. The majority of this sinkhole
activity occurred south and southeast of the well field. The align-
ment of these sinkholes are such that it appears they are directly
related to fracture traces (Sinkhole Development Resulting from
Ground-water Withdawal in the Tampa Area, Florida, USGS Water-
Resources Investigations 81-50).

A three-year study was undertaken by the City in order to deter-
mine the causes of the sudden increase in sinkhole activity. During
this study period well field pumpage continued to increase, how-
ever, no significant additional sinkhole activity occurred except for
that occurring as a result of natural geologic processes.

It appears that a large increase in withdrawal rates in the spring of
1964 from Section 21 WF along with declines in the water levels of
the water table and artesian system accelerated sinkhole activity
that would most likely have occurred naturally with time.


S21-7








CUP No. 200003
July 11, 1983
Page 8

6. Simulated Drawdowns

An adaptation of the two-layer Prickett-Lonnquist ground water U
flow model was used to simulate water table and potentiometric
surface drawdowns at the Section 21 WF. The geology of the well S
field area has been evaluated and determined to produce flow and
confining conditions resulting in a water table unit and an artesian
unit. All withdrawals from the Section 21 WF come from the upper
Floridan Aquifer. The producing zone ranges from- approximately
70 to 600 feet below land surface. Aquifer characteristics, such as
transmissivity, leakance, and storage for each layer were utilized
in simulating drawdowns and are listed below. These values were A
taken from a report entitled Management of the Water Resources
of the Pinellas-Anclote and Northwest Hillsborough Basins West-
Central Florida by Geraghty and Miller, March 1976.

Water Table Floridan Aquifer
Transmisivity (gpd/ft) 1,500 550,000
Storage .16 .00005
Leakance (gpd/ft3) -0- .0015

Drawdowns were calculated for the quantities requested for this
permit and the quantities for the existing permit under average and
worst case conditions. Figures 9 and 10, Pages 25 and 26 illustrate
drawdowns of the potentiometric surface at proposed average
annual production for 30 days without recharge to the system.
Figure 11, Page 27, illustrates drawdowns of the water table at U
proposed average annual production for 30 days, maximum daily
Production for 30 days, and proposed average annual production for
60 days again without recharge to the system. Figure 12, Page 28,
illustrates potentiometric surface drawdowns at proposed average
annual production for 30 days and maximum daily production for 30
days with no recharge. Figure 13, Page 29, illustrates the change
in water table drawdowns from existing permitted quantities to I
proposed quantities. Figure 14, Page 30, illustrates the change in
potentiometric surface drawdowns from existing permitted quanti- n
ties to proposed quantities. These projected drawdown changes are
expected from an increase of 1 MGD, on an average daily basis for
the proposed permit. One (1) MGD has been requested by the appli-
cant to provide supplemental capacity to the Northwest Hillsbor-
ough Regional Well Field. The drawdown contours shown on
Figures 13 and 14 show that there will be minimal additional
impacts felt in areas adjacent to the well field for the requested
increase.

Due to the close proximity of well fields in northeast Pinellas,
northwest Hillsborough, and west Pasco Counties, drawdowns were
simulated for the well field area at average permitted pumping
rates. Listed below are the well fields with their respective per-
mitted quantities.


S21-8






CUP No. 200003
July 11, 1983
Page 9

Quantities
Average Maximum
Well Field Permitted (MGD) Permitted (MGD)

Cross Bar 30 45
Cypress Creek 30 40
Starkey 8 15
Eldridge-Wilde 32 55
East Lake 3 5
South Pasco 16 24
Cosme-Odessa 12 22
Section 21 12 22
*Morris Bridge 18 25
*Northwest Hillsborough 8 18

*Proposed Permitted Amounts

Water table and potentiometric surface drawdowns are illustrated
on Figures 15 and 16, Pages 31 and 32. The likelihood of draw-
downs at maximum rates occurring is extremely remote primarily
due to existing regulatory levels limiting the pumping and water
shortage restrictions during drought conditions.

Calibration and verification of this model will continue as data are
collected. Improvements to this model incorporating climatic
conditions, observable water levels, and refinements of hydrologic
characteristics will be an ongoing project.

7. Well Field Regulation

a. Regulatory Levels

Regulatory levels have been established for each of the
monitor wells within Section 21 WF set forth in the existing
CUP (See Attachment C, Page 47). The two wells with their
respective cumulative weekly average and weekly average
regulatory levels are listed below.

Cumulative Weekly Average Weekly Average
Regulatory Level in Regulatory Level in
Well No. Feet Above MSL Feet Above MSL

Hillsborough 13 33.0 30.0
Jackson 26A 34.0 31.0

These water levels listed above refer to elevations of the
potentiometric surface of the Floridan Aquifer and were
established in 1972. The levels indicated in the first column
are levels that the cumulative weekly average water levels in
the respective monitor wells are to remain above. The levels
indicated in the second column are levels that the weekly
average water levels are to remain above.


S21-9







CUP No. 200003
July 11, 1983
Page 10

Both restrictions are included on the existing permit which
states: 1

"The City, its agents and employees, shall not
withdraw or cause to be withdrawn from the
wells in the Section 21 WF any amount of water
which will cause the weekly average elevation of
the potentiometric surface of the Floridan
Aquifer as determined cumulatively to be less ,
than the levels listed above. In connection with
the operation of the Cosme-Odessa Well Field, at
no time shall the weekly average elevations of
the potentiometric surface of the Floridan
Aquifer be more than three feet below the
elevations listed above."

To best demonstrate water levels with respect to regulatory I
levels for dry conditions, water years 1977 and 1981 are
appropriate to look at. The chart below lists the pumpage
and rainfall from the Section 21 WF, cumulative weekly J
average regulatory level, the cumulative weekly average
water level from that regulatory well for the end of the year,
the weekly average regulatory level, the lowest weekly
average water level for that year.

Cumulative Cumulative Weekly Lowest
Weekly Avg. Weekly Avg. Average Weekly Avg.
Regulatory Elevation Regulatory Elevation
Pumpage Rainfall Level (Feet (Feet Level (Feet (Feet
Year Well No. (MGD) (Inches) Above MSL) Above MSL) Above MSL) Above MSL)

1977 Hills. 13 9.1 44.02 33 36.1 30 30.3
1977 Jackson 26A 9.1 44.02 34 37.1 31 31.07

1981 Hills. 13 8.5 46.21 33 36.5 30 32.09
1981 Jackson 26A 8.5 46.21 34 37.8 31 33.13

As shown above for years 1977 and 1981, the weekly average
water levels in both wells did not drop below the weekly
average regulatory levels and the cumulative weekly average
elevations did not drop below the cumulative weekly average
regulatory levels (see Attachment G, Page 79).

Based upon past pumpage, rainfall, and water level data, it
appears that the City could pump approximately one (1) MGD
for every foot the average water levels remain above the
cumulative weekly average regulatory levels. For example,
in 1977 the cumulative weekly average elevations for Hills-
borough 13 and Jackson 26A were 36.1 feet and 37.8 feet
respectively. The regulatory levels for those wells are 33
feet and 34 feet. For the amount of rainfall actually
received that water year the City could have pumped an
additional 3.5 MGD for a total of approximately 12.2 MGD.
Therefore, it is anticipated that under average rainfall

S21-10







CUP No. 200003
July 11, 1983
Page 11

conditions the average requested withdrawal of 13 MGD for
the proposed permit should not cause the regulatory levels to
be exceeded on a cumulative weekly average or a weekly
average basis.

During the first 30 months after issuance of a renewal permit
for Section 21, it is proposed that a regulatory scheme for the
pending NWHWF permit be developed which may or may not
affect the existing regulatory levels for Section 21.

b. The existing Permit contains a condition that limits (or caps)
production from Cosme-Odessa and Section 21 Well Fields in
combination to 168 million gallons per week or 24 MGD (see
Attachment C, Page 47). The average daily rate permitted
on the existing Cosme-Odessa and Section 21 CUP's are 19
MGD and 18 MGD, respectively. The pumpage cap actually
limits the two well fields to 12 MGD each on an average daily
basis. The applicant has requested an average of 13 MGD to
be permitted for each well field. This withdrawal limitation
eliminates the need for the existing pumpage cap condition,
however condition 11 on the proposed permit will require
pumpage continue to be reasonably balanced between the two
well fields. In addition, the well fields are regulated by
regulatory wells that limit production when artesian water
levels are low.

HI. OBJECTIONS

The District has received over 500 objections for this CUP renewal. The
majority of the objections received relate to the lowering of lake levels.
Other objectors are concerned with well field pumpage affecting their
domestic supply wells, increasing sinkhole activity, and damaging cypress
heads. Figure 18, Page 34, shows the areas objections were received from.

Two conferences were held by the District staff in order to explain the appli-
cation for the permit renewal to the public and hear their concerns. The first
meeting was held in May 1982 and the second in June 1983. Similar concerns
as those mentioned above were expressed by the public at these conferences.

Using the best information available, production from Section 21 WF may
create slightly more than one foot of drawdown on Lakes Round, Saddleback,
and Crenshaw under prolonged periods of no rainfall However, these lakes are
being augmented which mask potential well field effects.

In response to objections concerning the damaging of cypress heads, staff feels
that new housing development and changes in drainage in the area are major
factors damaging cypress heads. Staff also feels that the renewal of this
permit will not cause an increase in sinkhole activity.

IV. RULE CRITERIA (40D-2.301)

Section 40D-2.301, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the criteria to be
considered before a permit can be issued. A discussion of each of the criteria
applicable to the permit request is shown below.
S21-11








CUP No. 200003
July 11, 1983
Page 12


(1) Will the intended consumptive use:

(a) Be reasonable and beneficial?

Yes. Section 21 WF has been in operation for the City of
St. Petersburg supplying water to the City's residents since 1963.
Water conservation efforts have been made and the per capital
water use rate is reasonable.

(b) Be consistent with the public interest?

Yes. The well field is used to meet the municipal water demands
of St. Petersburg residents.

(c) Interfere with any legal use of water existing at the time of the
application?

No. The well field has been in existence since 1963. West Coast
Regional Water Supply Authority and the City of St. Petersburg
have policies to investigate complaints and correct problems if
related to well field production.

(2) Will the withdrawal of water:

(a) Cause the rate of flow of a stream or other watercourse to be
lowered below the minimum rate of flow established by the I
Board?

No. Sweetwater Creek and Rocky Creek are in the vicinity of the
well field, however, there has been no minimum rate of flow estab-
lished for these creeks.

(b) Cause the level of the potentiometric surface to be lowered below
the regulatory level established by the Board?

No. The Board established regulatory levels for the Section 21 WF
in 1972. The proposed consumptive use permit is conditioned so
that recurring weekly average elevations (non-cumulative) and
cumulative weekly average elevation of the potentiometric surface
shall not drop below regulatory levels (see proposed Permit).

(c) Cause the level of the surface of water to be lowered below the
minimum established by the Board?

No. The application is for ground water withdrawals.

(d) Significantly induce saltwater encroachment?

No. The well field area has been monitored and a statistical
analysis performed on a series of monitor wells showed no increase
in chloride concentrations with respect to pumpage and time (See
Attachment E, Page 56). Analyses of production wells have also
shown virtually no increase in chloride concentrations,
S21-12





r",


CUP No. 200003
July 11, 1983
Page 13


(e) Cause the water table to be lowered so that lake stages or vege-
tation will be adversely and significantly affected on lands other
than those owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the
applicant?

Yes. Lakes in the vicinity of the well field have undergone stage
declines which are attributable, in part, to ground water with-
drawals. On some lakes, stages have been depressed for a pro-
longed period of time, resulting in low water stress on lake
habitats. Because requested quantities are higher than current
levels of withdrawal, it is expected that impacts on lake levels will
continue. Lake drawdowns due to pumpage are of a magnitude so
as to cause depression of lake levels below the low management
level under particular conditions. This will happen when lakes are
very close to the low management level prior to the dry season.
Low rainfall combined with pumpage has historically caused
greater-than-normal declines on lakes. Recovery to normal levels
has occurred when exceptionally high rainfall was experienced.

(3) The withdrawal of water must not:

(a) Cause stream flow to be reduced by more than five (5) percent.

Consideration of withdrawals from a stream is not applicable.

(b) Cause the level of the potentiometric surface under lands not
owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the applicant to be
lowered more than five (5) feet.

The five-foot drawdown contour of the potentiometric surface
simulated at proposed quantities will lie outside well field bounda-
ries (See Figure 12). However, the well field is an existing use and
the permitted has a policy to investigate any complaints that may
be related to well field pumpage.

(c) Cause the level of the water table under lands not owned, leased,
or otherwise controlled by the applicant to be lowered more than
three (3) feet.

Water table drawdowns were simulated using the Prickett-
Lonnquist ground water flow model at proposed quantities. Draw-
downs are not expected to exceed three (3) feet at well field
property boundaries.

(d) Cause the level of the surface water in any lake or other impound-
ment to be lowered more than one foot (1') unless the lake or
impoundment is wholly owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by
the applicant.


S21-13








CUP No. 200003
July 11, 1983
Page 14 1

Lakes Round, Saddleback, and Crenshaw located adjacent to
Section 21 WF may be affected by a foot or more of drawdown
under prolonged dry conditions when the well field is pumped at its
maximum capacity. However, these lakes are being augmented
from wells controlled by the residents living around these lakes.

(e) Cause the potentiometric surface to be lowered below sea level.

The potentiometric surface will not be lowered below mean sea
level.

V. RECOMMENDATION

Recommend granting exceptions to Rules 40D-2.301 2(e), 3(b), and 3(d) and
approval of attached Permit, the conditions set forth in the Permit and the
proposed Order.

VI. PROPOSED PERMIT

Attached to Order in Regulatory Packet.

VI. VISUAL DISPLAYS

Figure 1 Well Field Map
Figure 2 Distribution System and Water Treatment Facilities
Figure 3 Cosme-Odessa Well Field Pumpage
Figure 4 Section 21 Well Field Pumpage
Figure 5 Generalized Geologic Cross Section
Figure 6a Agricultural Consumptive Use Permits
Figure 6b Industrial, Lake Augmentation and Public Supply CUP's
Figure 7 Domestic Supply Wells
Figure 8 Regional Monitor Wells
Figure 9 Average Potentiometric Surface Drawdowns
Figure 10 Average Water Table Drawdowns
Figure 11 Water Table Drawdowns
Figure 12 Potentiometric Surface Drawdowns
Figure 13 Change in Water Table Drawdowns
Figure 14 Change in Potentiometric Surface Drawdowns
Figure 15 Regional Water Table Drawdowns
Figure 16 Regional Potentiometric Surface Drawdowns
Figure 17 Rainfall Curve
Figure 18 Objectors

Attachment A Water Needs and Sources
Attachment B St. Pete Water Conservation Program
Attachment C Existing CUP
Attachment D CUP list
Attachment E Summary of Statistical Analyses on Chloride Concentrations
Attachment F Summary on Lake Levels
Attachment G Regulatory Plots
Attachment H List of Lakes Being Augmented
Attachment I Summary of Statistical Analyses on Regional Monitor Wells


S21-14







CUP No. 200003
July 11, 1983
Page 15

VIII. RECIPIENTS OF FINAL ORDERS AND PERMITS

West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority
City of St. Petersburg
Others making written requests names available in the files of the District.

DAW:eab:bh


S21-15







SECTION 21
WELL FIELD
Consumptive Use Permit No. 200003


PERMITTED WELLS


Lake


0 Production Well
* Regulatory Well
* Chloride Monitor Well


scale in miles
S21-16


21-4
0


I


Figure 1


0 0







CUP NO. 200003
West Coast Regional Water Supply
Authority/City of St. Petersburg


Well No. Regulatory Level in Feet Above Mean Sea Level

7. Hillsborough 13 (280702823028) 33.0
8. Jackson 26A (280732823058) 34.0

The weekly average elevations shall be calculated by averaging the hourly readings for
the week; each weekly period shall commence at 12:01 A.M. on Saturdays of each
week.

The weekly average elevations shall continue to be determined cumulatively. The
cumulative weekly average elevations shall be calculated by adding each weekly
average elevation to the preceding weekly average elevations and dividing by the total
number of weeks; the cumulative weekly average elevations shall commence on
October 1 each year. Cumulative weekly average elevations shall not carry over from
one production year to another. Production causing cumulative weekly average eleva-
tions in the monitoring wells to drop below the regulatory levels shall only be
permitted during the first eight weeks of each production year.

e. Permittee shall continue to manage the well field in a manner as to avoid recurring
weekly average elevations (non-cumulative) of the potentiometric surface of the
Floridan Aquifer that are more than 3 feet below regulatory levels for the monitor
wells set forth in Condition 10d. The District will continue to collect the water level
recorder hydrographs from each regulatory well on a regular basis, and verify weekly
average elevations calculated for each well. At any time the weekly average elevation
(non-cumulative) for any regulatory well falls greater than 3 feet below the regulatory
level for that well, the District Staff may give notice to the Permittee and require
that Permittee investigate the causes for the drawdowns and submit a report of such
investigation to the District within 14 days of receipt of such notice. The report shall
set forth any action taken or proposed to be taken to avoid potential adverse impact to
the water resources or ecology. If such actions are deemed inadequate, the District,
after notice, may hold a hearing at which the Permittee will be given an opportunity to
show cause why the District should not reconsider and modify the terms and conditions
of this Permit so as to further avoid lowering levels below regulatory levels.

11. The total combined daily withdrawal on an average weekly basis from the Cosme-Odessa
(CUP 200004) and Section 21 (CUP 200003) Well Fields shall, as demonstrated during
previous operation, continue to be reasonably balanced between the two well fields.

12. Of the 13 MGD set forth in paragraph 6 of this Permit, 12 MGD are authorized and intended
for the purpose of meeting water supply requirements of the City of St. Petersburg. The
additional 1 MGD (average annual) is authorized solely for withdrawal by West Coast
Regional Water Supply Authority at a rate not to exceed 3 MGD for any single day, for use
to supply supplemental water to the northwest Hillsborough service area when water supply
requirements for such area are not met under Consumptive Use Permit No. 206676. At no
time, however, shall the maximum daily withdrawal rate for any purpose exceed 22 MGD.

13. The District may, at a future date, establish a minimum water level in the aquifer or
aquifers hydrologically associated with these withdrawals which may require the Permittee
to limit withdrawal from these groundwater sources at times when water levels fall below
these minimums. (Sec. 373.042, F.S.)


S21-117





eI


COSME-ODESSA
Monthly average withdrawal by year


MGOI


S



0
'30 '40 '50 '60
Year
Period of Record 1931 1942


Figure 3


S21-18


1


..


















SECTION 21
0Monthly average withdrawal by year
20













5




'65 '70 75 80

Year
Period of Record 1963 1982


Figure 4


S21-19





Generalizedc
Geologic
Cross Section


sand


undifferentiated sand & clay


clay


limestone


sandy limestone


chert


Figure 5


0 1 2
scale
Section 21


c-

=1


100


*150 feet


N


S21-20





















's/ 72 73
Eldridge-Wild 71
8


11 12 "
14 16
15


214 1.
125/


130
129
190
127 128 117
116
114


Ill 112


56 Section 21


106 105


194 .195


K Old Tampa Bay


0 1 2 3
scale In miles


Other Consumptive Use Permits in the Vicinity ol
Agricultural Consumptive Use Permits in the
Northwest Hillsborough/South Pasco Vicinity !


Figure 6a


30 31
34


S21-21 -






0


Ellrd a ilde


(r)


Cosme -dessa


Section 21


L,. Old Tampa Bay


0 1 2 3
scale in miles
ier Consumptive Use Permits in the Vicinity of the Well Fields
Consumptive Use Permits in the Northwest
Hillsborough/South Pasco Vicinity


Figure 6b


623 -
- 6814







Consumptive Use Permit Numbers 200003, 200004, 203647, and 206676


DOMESTIC WELLS NEAR THE WELL FIELDS
PERMITTED SINCE 1972


ODESSA


0


00


COSME-OD.
: t


S*** 0o 0o0
0


0(o=~


0
0**

0o SECTION 21
**


V0


I to TAMPA
Density of Domestic Wells

represents 1 well
o represents 5 wells
represents 10 wells
* represents 25 wells


0 1 2
cale in miles


Figure 7


S21-23


3 4








Water Level Monitoring for Cosme-Odessa and Section 21


Bexley Well No. 2


River (1 mile west)


ODESSA


Branch Anclote


Lutz-Lake Fer
45


PascooSouth

oPasco 205
Dundee


SECTION 21


Sirotowitz


IoTR 13.3


0 Water Level Monitor Well


'Ii


0 1 2
scale in miles


E-100

E.-02


0
erger


Sheldon


3 4


S21-24


I


__





































































Figure 9


S21-25




c































































Figure 11 S21-27







Section 21


Eldridge-Wilde


Cosme-Odessa


ld Tampa Byay
60
McK
scale in miles
Proposed potentiometric surface drawdowns at the end of 60 days for the following pumping
rates:
30 days at average daily (13 MGD) and 30 days at maximum daily (22 MGD) with no re-
charge to the system.


1:



U'


i'


I1

V
I






~I

9j



'I


'I


Figure 12


S21-28








Section 21


Eldridge-Wilde


Cosie-Odessa


S Old Tampa Bay


2 J


hdrawal rates at the end of 120 days for the following pumping rates:
30 days at average daily (12 MGD permitted; 13 MGD proposed), 30 days at maximum
daily (22 MGD permitted and proposed), and another 60 days at average daily with no re-
charge to the system.
Figure 13 S21-29






C


Section 21


Eldridge.Wilde


Old Tampa Bay


sale if miles
Change in potentiometric surface drawdowns between existing permitted withdrawal rates and
proposed withdrawal rates at the end of 60 days for the following pumping rates:
30 days at average daily (12 MGD permitted; 13 MGD proposed), and 30 days of maximum
daily (22 MGD permitted and proposed), with no recharge to the system.
Figure 14 S21-3











- Hernado Co.
Pasco Co.


Regional Well Field Drawdowns of the Water Table for 120 days with no recharge at Average
Permitted Quantities.


S21-31


Figure 15


- "f ** -". I.. .






























TAMPA
0^ ^^


N


PETERSBURG
*


4 mtlers ... .


Regional Well Field Drawdowns of the Potentiometric Surface for 120 days with no recharge at
Average Permitted Quantities.


Figure 16


S21-32


I~



Ii



3j


IL
















COME

0 Rainfall departure from annual average


25


20


15


10


























'30 40 '5 '60 0 1'80
Year
Period of Record 1932- 1982
Period of Record 1932 19S2


Figure 17


S21-33


D


D





m





P





D


D










Objectors for CUP's
200003 & 200004
(Section 21 & Cosme Odessa)


O'LAKES


ODESSA


SECTION


Churh


Ito TAMPA


0Generl Vicinity of Objectors


0 1 2 3 4
scale in miles


Figure 18


S21-34






* 7 A1 *7 -t -.I 1


Attachment A 1. Water Needs and Sources


System

St. Pete.

Pinellas County
Water System

West Pasco

Tampa

Hillsborough
County

WCRHSA


Water
Demand
*1990

46
64

76
118

18
30


Permitted
Quantities
1981

41
68

38
60

8
15


79 85
115 129

33 22
63 47

--- 60
75


Estimated
System
Capacity

41
48

37
50

3
6


1990 Estimated Withdrawals from Existing Major Well Fields


CC CB 521

15 -- 10
15 -- 15

15 25 ---
15 45 ---


- 5
- 0


EW EL JBS MB


HR NWH

.. ---.


SCH TI


-- 35 --- -- ---
---- 55 3--- -- -----


- -- -- -- -- ---
--- -- -- -- -- 15 -----


76 --- -- -- -- --- 18 61 --
86 --- -- -- --- 25 90 ---


0 -- -- --- -- -- -- ------- -- 9 13
0 -- -- ----- -- -- -- --- 20 27

60 -- -- --- -- -- -- -- --- -- -- --- ---
6075 -- -- --- -- -- -- -- ----- -- --- ---
70 -- -- --- -- -- -- ---------------2027


1990 System Deficit


total Permitted Capacity

46 0 (5)
64 0 (16)

76 0 (39
118 0 (

13 (5) (15)
15 (15) (24)

79 0 (3
115 0 (29)

22 (11 33)
47 (16) (63)


AVG 252
MAX 390


254 217
394 265


Total Permitted by Well Field

Total Capacity by Well Field


The major well field systems discussed above are:

Cypress Creek (CC) Cosie-Odessa (CO)
Cross Bar (CB) South Pasco (SP)
Section 21 (S21) Eldridge-Wilde (EW)


East Lake (EL)
J. B. Starkey (JBS)
Morris Bridge (MB)


Hillsborough River (HR)
Northwest Hillsborough (NWH)
South-Central Hillsborough (SCH)


All quantities indicated are in million gallons per day (MGD).

LHH:wp3
08/09/82




r.


Total


(35)
(125)












TABLE 5-20

WATER SUPPLY SURPLUSES (DEFICITS)
ST. PETERSBURG/N.. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY WATER SUPPLY
PLANNING AREA


St. Petersburg
Water System
Ave. Max.
(MGD) (MGD)

10.5 8.9

7.9 6.4


5.8

5.6

3.5

1.1

(0.5)

(2.7)


0

(1.1)

(1.4)

(4.3)

(6.3)

(9.1)


N.W. Hillsborough
County Area
Ave. Max.
(MGD) (MGD)

1.6 6.0
1.1 3.8


(3.5)

(8.8)

(10.1)

(11.5)

(14.3)

(17.6)


(7.5)

(18.4)
(20.3)

(21.9)

(27.1)

(33.4)


Total
Ave. Max.
(MGD) (MGD)

12.1 14.9
9.0 10.2


2.3

(3.2)

(6.6)

(10.4)

(14.8)

(20.3)


(7.5)

(19.5)
(21.7)

(26.2)

(33.4)

(42.5)


Year

1980.

1981

1985

1990
1995

2000

2010

2020


ei ~ Lim Lw Lw a, LM LM "A im LM L"3~1 I~ I~






Attachment B


WATER CONSERVATION
Introduction

This report has been prepared to summarize past and ongoing water conservation
programs of the City of St. Petersburg and to examine the dependence of water
and wastewater revenues upon quantities of water sold and to set forth conser-
vation actions.

Table 1 summarizes water production, water and wastewater rates, and water and
wastewater revenues for the past three years. This table also includes some
future estimates for these values.

The quantity of water produced and sold has maintained a more or less constant
level in recent years and is not expected to vary significantly from this trend
in the near future. Several factors contribute to the level trend:
- Increasing use of reclaimed water for irrigation.

A decline in the rate of growth and development within the water
service area.
- Increasing awareness of the public for the need to conserve water.

- Increasing service rates which encourage conservation.
- Recent water use restrictions which have resulted from drought conditions
which may reoccur.

Past and Present Conservation Measures

A. Metering: Metering of potable water is among the most effective and
most widely used water conservation methods. As compared to the unmetered
(flat rate) water system, metering discourages waste and many nonessential
uses of water while not discouraging essential domestic use by the customer.

Records date back as far as 1909 concerning the use of meters to control
water consumption in St. Petersburg. Over the years the metering system has
grown with the water system keeping control of nonessential and wasteful
use. Since no history exists as to unmetered modern day usage, it is not
possible to determine the extent of water conservation brought about by
metering.

In recent years the City has become involved with the replacement of older
inaccurate meters. As meters age and wear they become inaccurate in that
they do not record all of the flow of water. Since water flow is the
driving force that operates the meter, a worn meter should never record
more than the actual flow but almost always will record less.

Source: City of St. Petersburg


S21-37










Tests conducted earlier in the City have concluded that meters 20 years
or older may be as much as 45 percent inaccurate. Based upon this
information, a meter replacement program began and through September,
1981, more than 46,000 meters of various sizes have been replaced. An
additional 21,000 smaller meters remain in the City's system with more
than 20 years of service. These will be replaced in time as this ongoing
meter replacement program continues.

In addition to having a direct impact upon water and sewer revenues, the
meter replacement program has an indirect influence upon water conservation. U
By ensuring that the customer pays for the full amount of water consumed,
an accurate meter discourages wasteful and nonessential use of water.

B. Toilet Water Savers: During 1973, the City purchased 45,000 water saving
devices designed to conserve water used for toilet flushing. Since that
time these devices, which are designed to conserve 2 gallons per flush,
have been distributed free of charge for use in private homes and apart-
ment complexes. At the present time approximately 5,000 of these devices
are still available for distribution to citizens upon request, from the
Public Utilities Department.

A demonstration project was conducted with the assistance of Coquina
Key residents during 1972. Toilet water saving devices were installed
in 359 single-family dwellings and nearly as many townhouses and apartments.
Total water consumption was monitored for these residences for the months
of August, September and October of 1971 and 1972. From this data a
reduction in water use of 7.89 percent was noted for single-family dwellings 3
and a reduction of 26 percent for the townhouses and apartments. It should
be noted that several other factors must be considered which could q
influence these reductions including: lawn irrigation, rainfall, multiple
flushing problems, vacations, etc.

If it is assumed that 20,000 of the 40,000 devices which have been
distributed are still in service in the City, an approximate annual water
savings of 55 million gallons would result based upon reported savings1
in three-member, two-toilet households. This savings would result in a
reduction in FY '82 water and sewer use revenues of $114,000.

C. Leak Detection: In order to reduce unaccounted for water in the City's
system, a leak detection program was initiated during FY '80. By locating
and repairing leaks within the water distribution system, water would
.be conserved in that less water would be pumped from the well fields
and treated at the Cosme Plant.
The current unaccounted for water level for St. Petersburg is 11.8
percent as shown in Table 1. This percentage falls into the range of
10-15 percent which is considered a "Tight System" by the American
Water Works Associationa.


S21-38









The City's leak detection program was responsible for checking 14,867
locations and locating 160 leaks during FY '80. The estimated volume
of water conserved as a result of this work is 2.76 million gallons
per year. The annual cost based upon FY '80 water and sewer use rates
would be $4,168, which was well below the program cost.

The leak detection program was not approved by City Council beyond FY 80.
D. Enforced Reductions: During the spring and early summer months of 1981,
drought conditions existed over most of Florida. These conditions resulted
in an emergency declaration of a water shortage by the Southwest Florida
Water Management District (SWFWMD). This shortage covered the entire
16-county district and included mandatory water use restrictions from
May 20, 1981 through August 5, 1981. The declaration of this water
shortage and enforcement of mandatory restrictions had a significant
impact on water use within St. Petersburg.
Table 2 includes a chronological summary of major events leading to and
during the water shortage period.

Figure 1 has been prepared to illustrate some effects of 1981 water use
restriction upon water consumption within the City's service area. Weekly
average water consumption was plotted for the years 1979, 1980 and 1981 and
for the water use restriction period. Of course, no water shortage or
restrictions were imposed during 1979 or 1980.

For the period prior to the week of April 19, 1981, before any water use
restrictions were enacted, water consumption was higher than that recorded
for the two previous years. During the period of voluntary restrictions
a downward trend is noted in the 1981 figures; however, 1981 remains
higher than the other two years making it difficult to draw any conclusions
concerning the effectiveness of the voluntary water use restrictions.
During the period of mandatory water use restrictions imposed by SWFWMD,
the 1981 consumption figures remain primarily below those reported for
the previous two years, illustrating the effectiveness of the mandatory
restrictions which were enforced by the City.

Consumption figures for 1981 have been compared to the average of 1979
and 1981 consumption to estimate the quantity of water conserved during
the period of mandatory restriction. An estimated 3.08 million gallons
per day was conserved or a total of 237 million gallons. Since both
water and sewer use revenues are dependent upon water consumption, the
impact of this conservation program was significant and is estimated at
of $393,000. These water conservation figures are most likely low because:
(1) the comparison years were not as dry as 1981, and (2) gradually
increasing population within the service area should result in higher
consumption for 1981.


S21-39








SI

E. Reclaimed Water: The St. Petersburg 201 Facilities Plan recommended
spray irrigation of treated wastewater as the primary means of disposal
with deep injection wells for backup purposes. Implementation of this
plan has followed and reclaimed water was first used for irrigation
at Isla Del Sol during February, 1977. The reclaimed water system
continues to grow and at present 102 customers utilize reclaimed water.
An average of 5.7 million gallons per day of reclaimed water was reused
during October, 1981.
In addition to providing an environmentally beneficial means of disposing
of wastewater effluent and utilzing a resource that was previously
discarded, the use of reclaimed water also conserves the potable water
resource when used instead of potable water for irrigation or other
purposes.
Most customers which are now connected to the reclaimed water system f
are irrigating rather large areas which were previously irrigated by
means other than potable water. To illustrate this point, the following
table of golf courses which are now irrigated with reclaimed water has
been prepared:
Golf Course Previous Irrigation Source
Mangrove Bay Potable Water
Twinbrooks Ground Water Wells
Lakewood Lakes
Isla Del Sol None
Sunset Ground Water Wells
Pasadena Lakes

Only one of six golf courses was irrigated previously with potable water.
A total of 24.5 million gallons of potable water were used at Mangrove Bay g
from October, 1979 through August, 1980 when reclaimed water was made
available. Mangrove Bay Golf Course paid $18,580 for the potable water
used during this period.

Due to the fact that most reclaimed water use up until now has not 3
replaced potable water uses, no significant reduction in potable water
production or per capital consumption has been noted (see Table 3).
The slight reduction in per capital consumption noted between FY '79 and
FY '80 is attributed toa rather significant rate increase (see Table 1).
As the reclaimed water system is expanded into the critical water quality
areas where alternate sources of irrigation water are not available and
considerable potable water is used for irrigation, a greater conservation
of potable water is expected. Estimates as to the extent of this conser-
vation are not provided due to the uncertainty as to the extent of
participation that will result as reclaimed water is made available.




S21-40


r






r_


Future reclaimed water use could impact utility revenues significantly,
depending upon the extent of participation. As an example, a residential
customer irrigating a half acre residence at a rate of 1.5 inches per
week would pay $6.00 per month for reclaimed water service. To irrigate
the same residence with potable water would cost more than $37.00 per
month, based on FY '82 rates. If a considerable number of residential
customers now utilizing potable water for irrigation are connected to
the reclaimed water system, a significant reduction in utility revenues
would result.

Future Conservation Actions

In considering this subject, a review of historical events lends credence to
the idea that St. Petersburg cannot expect to obtain more water from it's
wellfields than is now produced. If SWFWMD should agree to a change in regu-
latory well levels, slightly more water could be made available. The Comprehensive
Land Use Plan allows the population to grow about 100,000 as compared to the
1980 census. Therefore, it appears logical to assume that the potable water
needs of future inhabitants will have to be met from the present supplies and
by using reclaimed water to a greater extent for non-potable uses.

Potable water could be produced from brackish or salt water. Such production
would be expected to cost about $4.00 per 1,000 gallons. This type of technology
has not shown cost reductions that some had anticipated. At present there does
not appear to be any type of cost breakthrough on the horizon.

The direction of future water conservation should include the following:

A. Continue to maintain a good metering and meter replacement program.
This will help ensure that those using potable water pay for their consumption.

B. Encourage consumers to use water saving devices.
This will allow consumers to have water available for essential needs
without wasting water.

C. Continue the expansion of the reclaimed water system in accordance with the
priorities and procedures established by the Council.
D. Use the ordinances previously approved if in the future SWFWMD should issue
r water shortage orders to meet these orders.
Previously adopted ordinances should be studied and recommendations made
to Council where improvements can be made.
E. Institute and maintain a review of water and sewer revenues so that shortfalls
will not be experienced due to use of reclaimed water in lieu of potable water
r for irrigation.
F. Continue to watch for possible breakthroughs in desalination technology to
r take advantage of any developments that might occur.
G. Develop a strong educational program to acquaint the citizenry with the con-
servation program.
S21-41

r






FOOTNOTES I

1 "Planning and Evaluating Water Conservation Measures", American Public 1
Works Association Report No. 48, 1981, page 13.
2 "Planning and Evaluating Water Conservation Measures", American Public
Works Association Report No. 48, 1981, page 20.

2
1
I
I

I



I
I







1









City of St. Petersburg Water System
Production, Rates, and Revenues

TABLE 1


Actual Estimated
FY'79 FY'80 FY'81 FY'82 FY'83 FY'84



Water Produced
(Billion Gals.) 13.8 13.5 13.6 13.6 13.8 13.8
Water Sold
(Billion Gals.) 10.9 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.1 12.1
Percent
Unaccounted Water 21% 11% 11.8% 12% 12% 12%
St. Petersburg Rate
($/1000 Gal. Water) $ .67 $ .72 $ .72 $ '.81 -- --
St. Petersburg Rate
($/1000 Gal. Wastewater) $ .52 $ .79 $ .94 $ 1.13
Water Revenue $ 8.6M $11.0M $11.2M $12.5M

Wastewater Revenue $ 6.3M $10.7M $12.3M $14.OM


S21-43













S501 nes L.JL.LI



S45




I
40
rt





Lege d: -A- 1981
-0-- 1980
30
-0-- 1979

S 12 9 *.26 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9
S--April ---May I- June I-July -- -August
Weeks 1979, 1980 & 1981
Figure'l Effects of Water Use Restrictions

_g &ma a s m _i EM E








Table 2


Chronological Summary of Major
Shortage Events


Item


Date

4/20/81

5/6/81

5/13/81

5/20/81



5/22/81



5/22/81


7/16/81

8/5/81


1981 Water


Description


Voluntary Lawn Sprinkling Ban

Water shortage declared Voluntary
restrictions.

Color coded water use restrictions
announced.

Water shortage continued Mandatory
restrictions: 20% reduction for public
supply & private wells, 10% reduction for
agriculture & industry.

Lawn sprinkling prohibited during daylight
hours, allowed only under odd/even system
during night time hours. Vehicle washing
prohibited except at commercial establishments.

Wholesale water customers notified of need
to comply with 20% reduction mandated by
SWFWMD.

Suspended water use restrictions.

Water shortage continued but mandatory
restrictions terminated.


S21-45


St. Petersburg
News Release

SWFWMD Order

St. Petersburg
News Release

SWFWMD Order



St. Petersburg
Ordinance 502-F


St. Petersburg
Correspondence

St. Petersburg
Ordinance 514-F

SWFWMD Order









Table 3

Per Capita Water Consumption


Water Produced
Billion Gallons


12.08
12.61
12.98
13.72
13.52
13.59


Estimated
Service Area
Population


284,338
284,813
285,275
286,096
286,699
287,327


Gallons Per
Person Per Day


116.4
121.3
124.7
131.4
129.2
129.6


Fiscal
Year


1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981


I

i


I:


S21-46












Attachment C


SOUTHEAST FLORIDA WATER rIAtAG.IESIT DISTRICT
(SZF"WO)
co;1SUPTIVE USE PEbIT

PERMIT GRANTED TO: PEIIIT OI. 7500003
DATE PELIT GAttt:
City of St. Petersburg DATE PERMIT APPLICATIuO
FILED: SeOt, ber 9. 1975'
P. 0. Box 2842 PERMIT EXPIR' M 5: er 31i. 1930
-- SOURCE T5fCATIOlTFiirdn Auier
St. Petersbur, Florid4 USE CLASSIFICATIOr: Public $oo;pt
tLegal t11am and Address)

TERMS AND. CONOITINS OF THIS PERMIT AP. AS FOLL0UIS
1. That all statements in the application and in supporting data are
true and accurate and based upon the best information available.
and that all conditions set forth herein will be complied with. If
any of the statements in the application and in the supporting data
are found to be untrue and inaccurate, or if applicant fails to comply
with all of the conditions set forth herein, then this Permit shall
S autbatically become null and void.
2. This Permit is predicated upon the assertion by applicant that the
use of water applied for and granted is and continues to be a ruason-
able beneficial use as defined in Section 379.019(5), Florida
Statutes, is and continues to be consistent with the public interest,
and wlll not interfere with any legal use of water existing on the
date this Permit is granted.
"8. In granting this Permit, SiFWHO has, by regulation, reserved frao use
by applicant, water in such locations and quantities, for such seasons
of the year, as it determines may be required for the protection of
fish and.wildlife and the public health and safety. Such reservations
are subject to periodic review and revision in light o: changed
conditions.
4. Based upon the application and supporting documents, SUlF4O finds
that the applicant's use of water was in existence before January 1,
1975 at the rate of 9 million gallons per day
5. nothing in this Perait should be construed to limit the authority of
Southwest Florida Water Management District to declare water shortages
and issue orders pursuant to Section 373.175, Florida Statutes, or to
formlate a plan for implementation during periods of water shortage
pursuant to Section 373.246. Florida Statutes.
6. This Perait authorizes the applicant named aboie to make a maxi au
combined average annual withdrawal of 1S.0 million gallons of water
per day with a maxic combined withdrawal rata not to
exceed 2Z.t md during a single day. Uithdrawals.are
authorized as shown in the table below.
7. WITHORAI A. POVIT GALLCiS PER DAT GALLONS PER OAT
LATITUDE LONGITU0E PAXPIM AVEAG- --
Production Wells
280700 823059i; /', 4.5000 3300000
280652 823011. f / 2000000 1500000
280708 823011 3500000 3200000
280721 823011. '" 3500000 3200000
280740 823034 -/ 3450000 3140000
280740 823020 / 5000000 3660000
-- ------- .- I,,- .


S21-47


-----Lc~











3 1



1


1
8. The use of said water is restricted to the use classification sat forth
above. Any change in the use of said water will require a modification I
of this Permit.
9. In the event an emergency water shortage should be declared, the
District may alter, modify or declare to be inactive, all or parts of
this Permit. An authorized District Representative may, at any
reasonable time, enter the property to inspect the facilities and ray
require that this Permit be shown.
10. Applicant shall comply with the following conditions, and if Applicant
fails to comply with them then this Permit shall automatically beccae
null and void.
A. That the City, its agents and employees, shall not withdraw or cause
to be withdrawn, from the wells in the aforesaid Section 21 Well Field,
Hillsborough County, Florida, any amount of water which will cause the
weekly average elevation of the potentio=etric surface of the Floridan
Aquifer as determined cumulatively, to be less than:
(a) Thirty-three (33) feet above mean sea level, as measured at the J
"Hillsborough 13" Observation eall (2807.040823032).
(b) Thirty-four (34) feet above mean sea level, as measured at
"Jackson 26A" Observation all (280753,,082305).
& In connection with the operation of Section 21 Well Field:
(a) At no time shall the weekly average elevations of the paoanti eetric
surface of the Floridan Aquifer be more than 3 feet below the
elevations set forth in Paragraph I above.
(b) Weekly average elevations shall be calculated by adding together t6;
high reading for each day and the low reading for each day, than
dividing the sum thereof by 14; each weekly period shall comAence
at 12:01 a.m. on Saturday of each week.
(c) The weekly average elevations shall be determined cutulatively
from floveIber 1, 1973 through September 30, 1974,,. A new production
year shall start on October 1, 1974 and each October 1 thereafter.
Cumulative weekly average elevations shall not carry over from one I
production year to another.
C. Reports of weekly average elevations for each weekly pari-d shall ba
made by City to District by telephone on the following Harday and
confirmed in writing on forms to be provided by Oistrict: such weekly
periods shall commence at 12:01 a.m. on Saturday of each we..
0. That the City construct and install a totalizing flow meter on the
Well No. 3A (2e06071i823S28M).
E. The total maximaumwithdrawal from the Section 21 and Cos=e-Cdessa Well
Fields shall not exceed 168 million gallons per week, which amount
shall not be figured cumulatively; provided that during any six (6)
weeks in the production year 1973, the City can pump an additcieal 21
million gallons per week in excess of the 168 million gallons per
week. However, all production by the City shall be reasonably
balanced between the two well fields.
F. This permit is issued pursuant to Part 2 of Chapter 1SJ, F.A.C.
and authorizes the consumptive use of water.

AUTiIZEO S"nrE: .V' '-..
CO::Sti4PTIVE USE SECTION*
VATER RESOURCES OVI''SIG;





S21- 48
______ _^ ^^ ^ ^^ ^^^ ^ ^-^'- -~ ----
























Applicant hereby certified that applicant is the owner of the property covered
by this application, that the information contained In this application is true
and accurate and, if applicant is a corporation or a partnership, that the
undersigned has the legal authority to execute this application and affidavit on
behalf of said corporation or partnership.


Signature of Applicant
mrnm to and subscribed before
m this day of


tOy C ARn Y Expir
My Commission Expires:


S2149






05/27/83


CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMITS IN


I.D.#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
41

LM |


CUP NO.
203182
205408
200479
201580
202704
200411
201642
203200
201321
202668
200412
202312
206312
200692
201544
201848
202301
200243
203227
200620
202673
202481
200004
200330
202302
201971
202303
202306
200448
201945
202284
202676
202734
201813
202784
203679
202705
200333
205749
200529


THE WELL FIELD VICINITY
MGD


PERMITTED
Aloha Utilities, Inc.
Pasco County Utilities
E. J. & Audry Manos
Jay B. Starkey
Milo Thomas
Austin M. Davis
L. M. Hawes
Ray Jeffords
Oakley Groves, Inc.
Edward F. Scott
Austin M. Davis
Hillsborough Citrus Properties
C.W.D., Inc.
Campbell and Lillian Cridlebaugh
Fred S. Johnston, Jr.
John A. and Janet E. Eckel
R. J. and Valrie Sissions
Robert A. Strang
Sharon D. Ryan
Deksen Corp.
Pinellas County Water System
Murray Groves
City of St. Petersburg
Andrew J. Dempsey
R. J. Sessions and 0. Bostick
Hedrick Properties
Harvesters, Inc.
Fellows Motor Co., Inc.
Wilson and Smolek
Hixon Groves
George Mogyorosy
Spada Fruit Sales Agency, Inc.
Nell C. Burton
Chris A. Van Leeuwen
John L. McMullen
Tom F. Brown
Milo Thomas
John H. Bradshaw
FL Mining and Materials Corp.
J. B. Jackson, Jr. & Iva Jackson
Sub Total


AVERAGE
QUANTITIES
3.460
1.340
.045
1.680
.803
.980
.022
.014
S.580
.018
.010
.033
.116
.007
.091
.018
.019
.048
.083
.396
35.200
.155
19.000
.034
.021
.054
.014
.010
.031
.196
.018
.029
.050
.010
.372
.502
.372
.016
.051
.036
65.934


1 of 6


MAXIMUM
QUANTITIES
12.500
3.000
.326
9.360
14.400
7.950
.429
.432
13.000
.432
.020
.511
.198
.864
.495
.036
.468
.864
1.020
.790
55.000
1.940
22.000
.450
.468
.660
.468
.468
.540
.480
.256
.600
.330
.110
2.880
2.260
2.880
.810
.071
.180
159.946


.. .,.... ..


o Lo m bsas Uaa > m sa r Lu LA Lax- L= riIa L-& i-N 6ja & "
MI'3I I^^ I^^ I^B --^M B^M *^^ ^^^


NO. OF
WITHDRAWALS*
24-G
2-G
1-G
6-G
5-G
9-G
1-G
1-G
9-G
1-G
11-G
1-G
1-G
1-S
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
2-G
3-G, 3-S
77-G
3-G
26-G
1-G
1-S
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
2-G
1-G
1-S
1-G
3-G
1-G
3-G
1-G
2-G
2-G
1-G


USE
Public Supply
Public Supply
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Public Supply >
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Public Supply.
Agricultural
Public Supply
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Industrial
Agricultural




0-1 --
05/27/83


I.D.#
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82


CUP NO.
200106
203621
200107
203308
200045
202209
202021
206273
202308
202749
204548
202314
202307
205143
203369
202309
205854
202532
201812
202315
202477
202310
201373
202029
202304
202280
202311
201587
203199
202531
206455
204947
202733
202313
206462
200735
201608
202686
202013
203647
200003


CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMITS IN THE WELL FIELD VICINITY
MGD


PERMITTED
Carl F. Cowgill, Jr.
U. S. Postal Service
Carl F. Cowgill, Jr.
David J. Cowart
Baker Coarsey Enterprises, Inc.
Caleb E. Wright
Lykes Brothers, Inc.
Edward L. Bolding
Emma Hatcher
Cora Baldwin
Blake Harper Groves
C & H Groves
Tierra Investments, Inc.
Robert J. Ellis
Lake LeClair, Inc.
James G. and Omera B. Edwards
Paul and Emma Hatcher
S and W Groves
Davis Optical Co.
Thomas E. Earle
Lem P. Woods Estate
Thomas G. Earle
David R. Ellinor
J. Carey Wolters
H. M. and Doris Vinson
George Mogyorosy
Hillsborough Citrus Properties
William C. Erler'
Roy, Robert and Shirley Hagman
Big T Groves
Frank Gregorio
Mrs. Walter Michaels
Nell C. Burton
Big T Groves
Alton D. Rogers
Lee R. Wilson
National Papaya Company
Mike Tomkow
Meadow Land Ranch
City of St. Petersburg
City of St. Petersburg
Sub Total


AVERAGE
QUANTITIES
.025
.002
.024
.045
.058
.016
.060
.048
.005
.099
.027
.025
.021
.036
.147
.018
.022
.039
.240
.011
.116
.020
.014
.023
.020
.012
.039
.028
.045
.021
.016
.083
.029
.007
.145
.010
.067
.446
.170
16.900
18.000
37.179


MAXIMUM
QUANTITY

OC0
.21
.26
.86
.f06
1.44
.11
.51
.6C
.72
.52
.46
.43
.89
.25
.18
.46
1.65
.25
.36
.46
.06
.39
.46
.25
.46
.08
.43
.51
.57
.36
.35
.46
1.08
.37
-.57
1.08
2.88
24.00
22.0(
67.25


1


--I 1 --'i -- 7 --
2 of 6
F NO. OF
ES WITHDRAWALS* USE
0 1-G Agricultural
7 1-G Agricultural
6 1-G Agricultural
9 1-G Agricultural
4 2-G Agricultural
4 1-G Agricultural
0 1-G Agricultural
19 1-G Public Supply
11 1-G Agricultural
0 1-q Agricultural
!0 1-G Agricultural
1 1-G Agricultural
8 1-S Agricultural
32 1-G Agricultural
4 2-6 Agricultural
6 1-S Agricultural
10 1-G Agricultural
8 1-G Agricultural
0 5-G Agricultural
5 1-G Agricultural
0 1-G Agricultural
8 1-G Agricultural
6 1-G Agricultural
>6 1-G Agricultural
8 1-G Agricultural
5 1-6 Agricultural
8 1-G Agricultural
t4 1-S Agricultural
2 1-G Agricultural
.1 1-G Agricultural
6 1-G Agricultural
0 1-G Agricultural
1 1-S Agricultural
8 1-G Agricultural
10 1-G Agricultural
'8 1-S Agricultural
'6 2-G Agricultural
10 1-G Agricultural
10 1-G Agricultural
)0 21-G Public Supply
0 10-G Public Supply
1






CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMITS IN


THE WELL FIELD VICINITY
MGD


I.D.#
-BI--
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
C,,
a,-
(31


CUP NO.
203375
201921
204549
204874
203994
203024
203572
206334
202156
201084
205886
200521
202118
204028
206100
202320
202524
200148
206017
202838
202628
203733
201093
201969
203097
203104
203563
203371
202037
200035
204794
203651
204672
200497
200084
203617
202767
202860
201985
202845


PERMITTED
Crenshaw Lake Improvement Assoc.
W. L. Van Dyke
Lake Charles Improvement Assn.
S.I.C.O., Inc.
Hills. Co. Parks Bond Program
Lake Magdalene Restoration Assn.
Charles J. Bearss
Lake Merely Improvement Assoc.
Paul & Mary Bearss
Jane Cralle Hall
Florida Cities Water Co.
E. M. Martin
John A. Grant, Jr.
Hillsborough Co. Parks & Rec. Dept.
Tampa Sports Authority
Busch Entertainment Corp.
Camden Grain Co. of Tampa
Schlitz Brewing Co.
Reynolds Metals Co. Tampa Can P1
Florida Mental Health Institute
Cone Brothers Contracting Co.
North Tampa Best Western Inn
F. W. Moody Sr.
Hedrick Properties
Jack 0. Homes, Inc.
Robert J. Forkel
Robert J. Clark, Sr.
Thomas J. Constantine
Thomas Powell and R. D. Whitaker
Charles A. Phelps
Thomas P. Evans
Gloria J. Sparkman ,
Groveland Developments, Inc.
W. Dehart Ayala
Richu Groves, Inc.
Ruby Mae Medard
Ollie Mae Grossenbacher
Sunrise Mobile Park
R. W. Burch, Inc.
South Crystal Lake Improvement Assoc.
Sub Total


AVERAGE
QUANTITIES
.022
.106
.372
.433
.060
.426
.020
.016
.040
.043
.800
.010
.001
.054
.300
.621
.001
.700
.740
.017
.092
.013
.028
.022
.292
.029
.098
.010
.001
.017
.008
.021
.400
.040
.037
.007
.005
.025
.035
.300
6. 262


MAX IMUM
QUANTITIES
.090
1.730
.792
1.770
.080
1.730
.030
.240
.600
.264
2.020
.260
.096
.060
.864
2.210
.005
.936
.810
.033
.240
.432
.330
.462
.584
.228
.450
.360
.240
.420
.408
.216
1.200
.240
.300
.300
.360
.288
.288
.432
22.398


r-^ r ga 3 B & l =a E -


NO. OF
WITHDRAWALS*
1-G
2-G
1-G
3-G, 2-S
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
3-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
2-G
8-G
1-G
4-G
1-G
1-G
2-G
2-G
1-G
1-G
4-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
2-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-S
1-G
2-S
1-G


USE
Lake Augmentation
Agricultural
Lake Augmentation
Agricultural
Agricultural
Lake Augmentation
Public Supply
Lake Augmentation
Agricultural
Agricultural
Public Supply
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Industrial
Industrial
Industrial
Agricultural
Industrial
Public Supply
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Public Supply
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Public Supply
Agricultural
Lake Augmentation


I


05/27/83


Page 3 of 6


Lims wso* L.;3a um LMy





05/27/83
05/27/83


I.D.#
TZ3-
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163


CUP NO.
200139
202674
200498
203533
200583
201495
201648
200488
200506
200631
206811
205121
203013
200590
202017
202681
202478
201784
202844
206223
200257
206407
200258
202701
203319
202702
205241
202361
206648
.200025
203389
202015
200356
203129
202530
202014
200329
200727
201787
202269
201989


PERMITTED
Lutz Lake Assoc.
Wildcat Groves, Inc.
W. Dehart Ayala
Jimmie S. Way
Faye E. Suarez
Oliver J. Eikeland
Lena P. Lenfestey
Rabin Groves, Inc.
Pauline G. Story
Thomas A. Knaus and Marthann Leary
Scarecrow Utility Inc.
Richu Groves, Inc.
Dr. James R. Robinson
Criterion Corp.
County Line Groves, Inc.
Julia N. Burris
R. Todd Woods
Ida and Jack and Irene Edwards
Blue Key Growers, Inc.
Paradise Lakes, Inc.
Wayne Woodward
Alvin L. Magnon
Wayne Woodward
Gordon L. Henley
CL and RL and L and WC and Bryson Clark
Robert L. Henley
Robert L. Henley
John M. Law
Delmar F. Williams
Water and Sewer District A
Evans Properties, Inc.
W. C. Law
Hillsborough County Utilities
Wendell V. and Ruth E. Harpster
J. C. Hughey Estate Grove
W. C. Law
Andrew J. Dempsey
Kinsman, Inc.
Gilbert Tucker and W. K. Baker
Anne W. King
Theodore J. Couch
Sub Total


AVERAGE
QUANTITIES
.019
.022
.064
.014
.045
.006
.028
.085
.019
.019
.055
.173
.043
.262
.308
.011
.116
.012
.030
.077
.042
.012
.022
.024
.047
.008
.004
.027
.086
.262
.700
.196
1.100
.051
.018
.148
.023
.156
.040
.036
.051
4.461


---I 1---I --], --1 -) --I ----I ---I -I ---I --I ---I
CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMITS IN THE WELL FIELD VICINITY Page 4 of
MGD


MAXIMUM
QUANTITIES
.288
.360
.720
.180
.432
.173
.429
.600
.576
.576
.109
.826
.180
.394
1.150
.270
.360
.594
.351
2.160
.432
.432
.432
.384
.960
.067
.063
.195
.925
.717
1.150
1.440
2.350
1.180
.256
1.440
.405
1.580
1.600
.576
1.730
29.042


NO. OF
WITHDRAWALS*
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-S
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G, 1-S
2-S
1-S
1-G
2-G, 2-S
2-G
2-G
2-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-S
2-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-S
1-G
4-G
1-G
2-G
10-G
3-S
2-S
2-G
1-G
2-G
1-G
1-G
2-S


-1 --1 --
6

USE
Lake Augmentation
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Public Supply
Agricultural
Agricultural
Public Supply
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Public Supply
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Public Supply
Agricultural
Agricultural
Public Supply
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural







CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMITS IN THE WELL FIELD VICINITY
MGD


I.D.# CUP NO.


AVERAGE
QUANTITIES


164
165
166
167
168
169
170
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203


MAXIMUM
QUANTITIES


202992
202954
205804
203468
202991
201611
201788
203255
202985
202480
202392
200265
205916
203974
200354
201898
203419
205327
200462
200588
200593
200741
200743
200768
201333
201729
201786
201960
202062
202155
202156
202157
202298
202305
202546
202637
202639
202692
202695


5 of 6


NO. OF
WITHDRAWALS*


PERMITTED

Mrs. Gus T. Hagman
H. J. Stark
William G. Wilde
S. C. Bexley
Mrs. Gus T. Hagman
Francis P. Barrett
Gilbert and Mary Tucker
Kenneth T. Williams et. al.
Dueward Atkins
Caroline Groves, Inc.
Kenneth M. Kahle
Water and Sewer District A
Pasco Co. District School Board
William T. Morgan
Pinellas County Water System
N. Crystal Lake Improvement Assoc.
Lake Chapman Assoc.
Lake Bryd Improvement Assoc.
Bertha J. Saylor
Hillsborough County Utilities & WCRWSA
Martin Penner
H. F. & Emille Warren
Hillsborough County Utilities & WCRWSA
Hillsborough County Utilities
Edward Netscher
Delores Ramsay
Gilbert Tucker
University of South Florida
Tampa Water Department
Paul & Mary Bearss
Paul & Mary Bearss
Paul & Mary Bearss
Calm Lake Groves
Michael & Barbara Kasica
Ken & Jane Barnes
Hillsborough County Utilities
Plymouth Development Corp.
Hillsborough County Utilities
Hillsborough County Utilities
Sub Total


.037
.080
.011
2.430
.045
.006
.028
.020
.058
.326
.027
3.150
.030
.054
.164
.039
.050
.020
.018
.800
.070
.052
.950
.032
.108
.007
..018
2.190
67.100
.067
.040
.201
.018
.006
.012
1.340
.300
.970
.500
81.374


SO


07/08/83


.864
.960
.084
11.500
.865
.480
.420
.900
.360
6.600
.480
6.300
.144
1.550
1.000
.720
.120
.500
.720
1.600
.140
.297
2.140
.072
.600
.250
.360
2.340
104.000
.600
.600
.720
.468
.468
.468
2.460
.960
2.720
1.000
156.830


2-G, 1-S
1-S
1-G
5-G
2-G, 2-S
1-S
1-G
3-G
1-G
3-G
1-S
7-G
1-G
3-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
2-G
3-G
1-G
1-G
3-G
1-G
1-S
1-S
1-G
20-G
9-G, 2-S
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-S
2-G
4-G
5-G
2-G


USE

Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Public Supply
Agricultural
Agricultural
Lake Augmentation
Lake Augmentation
Lake Augmentation
Lake Augmentation
Agricultural
Public Supply
Public Supply '
Agricultural
Public Supply
Public Supply
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Public Supply
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Public Supply
Agricultural
Public Supply
Public Supply




--07/ 1
07/08/83


I.D.#
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229


CUP NO.
202730
202754
202917
203102
203535
203571
203810
203811
204011
204012
204135
204273
204476
204624
204936
204937
204943
205212
205300
206125
206425
206527
205064
200912
200913


--1 -


--1 "--1 -- -1 --1 C-- --'1 "" -1 -- ---1
CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMITS IN THE WELL FIELD VICINITY
MGD


PERMITTED
Spotless Cleaners & Laundry
Nell T. Milam
H. G. Wilde
Charles Culbreath
Armenia Nursery Inc.
Hillsborough County'Utilities & WCRWSA
Criterion Corp.
Criterion Corp.
Hillsborough County Utilities
Hillsborough County Utilities
Criterion Corp.
Hillsborough County Utilities
Hillsborough County Utilities
Criterion Corp.
Spaulding Groves
McMichael Groves
Joe & Erma Baker
Dris Inc.
Nelson P. Zambito
Pasco County Utilities
Larry A. Seckel
Lincoln Property Company Inc.
Criterion Corporation
Hillsborough County Utilities
Hillsborough County Utilities
Sub Total


AVERAGE
QUANTITIES
.008
.011
.030
..016
.029
.595
.009
.070
.160
.093
.008
.341
.896
1.080
.006
..039
.040
.005
.365
.220
.034
.037
.014
.075
.157
4.338


MAXIMUM
QUANTITIES
.008
.040
.240
.072
.108
1.120
.075
.080
.320
.200
..016
1.000
1.800
2.270
.468
.745
.305
.015
1.030
.550
.450
.190
.028
.233
.470
11.833


NO. OF
WITHDRAWALS*
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
3-G
1-G
1-G, -1-S
2-G
1-G
1-G
5-G
4-G
3-G
1-G
1-G, 1-S
5-G
1-G
2-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
2-G


6 of 6
6 of 6


---1


USE
Industrial
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Public Supply
Agricultural
Agricultural
Public Supply
Public Supply
Agricultural
Public Supply
Public Supply
Public Supply
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Public Supply
Public Supply
Agricultural
Agricultural
Public Supply.
Public Supply
Public Supply


* G Ground Water
S Surface Water


PERMITTED
AVERAGE


USE TYPE


Public Supply
Agricultural
Industrial
Lake Augmentation


Total


--


Total


199.548


447.300


175.986
20,542
1.592
1.428

199.548


QUANTITIES (MGD)
MAXIMUM

277.970
161.348
2.070
5.912

447.300






r I
Attachment E
May 21, 1982
Revised: June 23, 1982
Revised: May 26, 1983

MEMORANDUM

TO: DAVID A. WILEY, Hydrologist, Resource Regulation Department
JOHN W. HEUER, Hydrologist, Resource Regulation Department
ROBERT R. GORDON, Hydrologist, Resource Regulation Department

FROM: ROBERT G. PERRY, Hydrologist, Resource Regulation Department

RE: Cosme-Odessa/Section 21/South Pasco Water Quality
Consumptive Use Permit Nos. 200003, 200004, 203647

In order to determine the effects of pumpage on water quality a time series analysis was
performed upon the chloride concentration of six regional monitor wells, TR12-1, E100,
E101, E102, EZ1-7, and E105 (see Figure 8).

If well field pumping was resulting in either upwelling or intrusion of saltwater the
monitor wells should detect the increasing chloride over time. A straight line regression
was fitted for each well using as the independent variable and chloride as the dependent
variable. The raw data supplied by the USGS was first tested for outliers by application
of chauvenets Rejection Test. Data points which were thus tagged as suspect were
removed from the data set when the USGS verified that they had been derived by
sampling methods inconsistent with the body of the data, i.e. sampling at different I
depths by use of probes. The results are summarized below.

Number
Well Regression of Data Coefficient Period
TR12-1 Cl = 887 +.01M N= 48 R = +.047 09/77-04/83
TR13/E101 Cl= 11753 +ZZM N= 69 R= .091 06/73-03/83
E102 Cl = 63.3 -.8M N = 46 R = -.501* 01/77-03/83
E100 Cl = 2354 -.01M N = 54 R = -.026 04/76-03/83
E21-7 Cl = 27.2 +.02M N = 49 R = +.023 11/73-01/83
E105 C1 = 9093 -48M N = 38 R = -.53* 04/76-02/83

Where: C1 = Chloride concentrations in mg/1
M = Time in months
N = Number of data points I
R = Correlation coefficient

*Significant linear relationship in excess of 99%.

Only wells E102 and E105 had significant linear correlation over time and each of these
indicated a decreasing chloride concentration. All the rest were not statistically signif-
icant and therefore we are unable to give any credance to the regression over a simple
averaging of the data. We have not addressed seasonality of the data but rather the
long-term average trend of the data.

It is therefore concluded that in spite of the well field pumpage and seasonal variations
the water quality has either stabilized or improved for these wells.

RGP:eab:bh


S21-56 I


I







Attachment F


June 9, 1983
June 21, 1983 Revised

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

TO: D. A. WILEY, Hydrologist, Municipal Permits, R.R.D.

FROM: YP. M. DOORIS, Manager, Environmental, R.D.D.

RE: CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT NO. 200003, Effects on Lakes and Streams


Below is a brief description of the expected effects of the withdrawals allowed by the referenced
permit on surface water bodies.

PURPOSE

This report was prepared to assist in addressing District Rule criteria relating to conditions for the
issuance of permits (Chapter 40D-2.301) and as an aid in answering questions from the public con-
cerning potential effects of well field withdrawals on lakes, wetlands, and streams.

PUMPAGE HISTORY

The operation of Section 21 Well Field began in 1963. During the first ten years of continuous oper-
ation, the pumpage rate at the well field averaged in excess of 12.5 MGD (Figure 1), and beginning in
1974, pumpage has averaged less than 10 MGD.

Ground water withdrawals and their effects on surface water from Section 21 should be viewed in light
of other municipal ground water withdrawals in Hillsborough County. The combined pumpage rate for
the four large well fields in the area (Cosme-Odessa, South Pasco, Section 21, and Eldridge-Wilde) has
averaged over 50 MGD since the early 1970's (Figure 1). Total area pumpage is important as the water
levels of surface water bodies may be affected by regional municipal withdrawals as well as by
pumpage from individual well fields.

DESCRIPTION OF LAKES, STREAMS, AND WETLANDS

GENERAL Approximately 15 named lakes, numerous other unnamed ponds, and a reach of Brushy
Creek are located within the area influenced by the predicted 0.5' water table drawdown1 (Table 1,
Figure 2). The area also contains wetlands including cypress ponds and marshes as well as other areas,
primarily now used as pastures, which are former wet meadows. These present-day pastures still
become saturated during wet climatic conditions and are considered wetlands for the purpose of this
report. The total area within the 0.5' predicted drawdown occupied by open water and wetlands is
1,742 acres or 25% of the total area of 6,920 acres.

Most of the lakes are relatively small, and are surrounded by residential and agricultural land use
(Table 1). Of the 15 named lakes, seven have levels officially (Chapter 40D-8) adopted and established
by the Governing Board of the Southwest Florida Water Management District.



1 Drawdown predicted as a result of the following pumpage scheme: 30 days at average permitted
pumpage, followed by 30 days at maximum permitted pumpage, followed by 60 days at average
permitted pumpage.
S21-57







Technical Memorandum CUP No. 200003
June 9, 1983
Page 2 I

The wetlands, aside from those mentioned as being used as improved pasture, are cypress ponds and
marshes, occurring as isolated features in pasture or citrus groves or as borders of streams and lakes.

Brushy Creek, the major stream in the area, essentially exits the well field at its southwest corner. At
a point approximately 0.5 mile from the well field, the creek receives discharges from Hillsborough
County's Interceptor Canal which drains areas to the east of Dale Mabry Highway. The creek alter-
nates between occupying well-defined channel and a condition of essentially unconfined flow through
cypress-dominated areas. Along some reaches, artificial channel improvements have been made and
control structures have been emplaced at points in the creek.

LAKE STAGES AND STREAM DISCHARGE Of the lakes located within the predicted 0.5' zone of
water table drawdown, seven have data describing previous lake stages (Figures 3 through 9). Stage
records for these lakes vary from 30 years or more (Lake Ellen) to 10 years (Lake Crystal). From the
hydrographs for these lakes, the stage behavior of other area surface water features, at least during
the recent past, can be discerned. A period of decline in the lake levels began in 1961, following the
extremely wet years of 1959-1960. This decline lasted until mid-1964 when lake levels underwent a
period of recovery lasting through 1966. Another, longer, decline began in early 1967 and lasted
through mid-1974 with a very brief recovery in late 1969/early 1970. Following the heavy rainfall of
1974, lake levels fluctuated through an approximately normal range during 1975 through mid-1979 g
when exceptionally high rainfall caused a substantial increase in lake stage. From the end of 1979,
lake stages fell gradually, reaching near-record low levels in 1980 and early 1982. Since that time,
lake levels have risen to high elevations and most lakes are now (April, 1983) at elevations above
ordinary seasonal low stages. This description represents most natural lakes in the area. However,
some lakes were augmented (see Attachment ) beginning after the major decline in lake stages which
occurred in 1970-1972, and this activity has somewhat altered the hydrographs for those lakes.

It is known through observation that the discharge of Brushy Creek generally is variable throughout the
years; however, there are no long-term discharge measurements for Brushy Creek.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SURFACE WATER LEVELS AND GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS 3

In the vicinity of the well field, the relationship between surface water levels and the ground water
system is a close one. The surficial system, in particular, can be especially important to the mainte-
nance of the water levels of surface water features (Figure 10). For example, in many cases, lakes are
hydraulically connected on all sides with the surficial aquifer, and the elevation of water in that
system directly influences lake levels. Water levels in marshes and cypress ponds, too, frequently
represent the water table above land surface (Figure 10) and, like lakes, are sensitive to fluctuations in I
water table elevations. Changes in the water levels of surface water bodies can be expected in
response to seasonal and catastrophic rainfall events, evapotranspiration, and the magnitude of inflows
and outflows (including ground water inflows and outflows). These factors act together dynamically to
determine water elevations in lakes and wetlands.

In the vicinity of the well field, the water table is higher than the potentiometric surface. Therefore,
water moves from the surficial aquifer to the Floridan Aquifer as a function of several factors,
including the head difference between two aquifers, the transmissivity of the Floridan Aquifer,
hydraulic conductivity of the surficial aquifer and the leakance characteristics of the upper confining
bed. At a given point, the variable factor in determining recharge rate to the Floridan Aquifer is head
difference, other factors being fixed. The head difference changes seasonally in response to rainfall U
and to ground water withdrawal rates. Activities which increase ground water withdrawals encourage
the downward movement of water from the surficial aquifer to the Floridan Aquifer, causing a decline
in the water table. Elevational changes in the water table will be reflected in elevational changes in
lakes because lakes in the area substantially depend on the flow of water from the surficial aquifer.


S21-58 3


I







Technical Memorandum CUP o4o. 200003
June 9, 1983
Page 3

As indicated previously, lake levels are highly responsive to the water table. A linear regression
analysis of data for Lakes Crenshaw and Dosson from the 1981 water year indicates a significant
correlation between end-of-month lakes stages and end-of-month water table elevation (r = .96 + .80,
respectively; p. 001, Figures 11 and 12). While it remains significant, the value of r decreases as-one
relates lake stage to a water table elevation which has been lagged (2, 7, 11, and 14 days), indicating
that lake stage reacts rapidly to changing water table. Therefore, insofar as the influence of ground
water withdrawal, lakes can be expected to reach a condition of steady.state within the time required
for the water table to achieve steady state.

Lake stage is also dependent upon the prior lake elevation, that is, the stages of Lakes Crenshaw and
Dosson today are very much affected by what they were yesterday. This is, of course, an expected and
intuitively understood fact; however, it has implications relating to the perception of the effects of
ground water withdrawals on lakes. Lake levels fluctuate annually between high and low levels and, by
the end of the dry season, can be expected to be at the lowest elevation in a normal year. Thereafter,
following the beginning of the wet season, lake levels start upward from the seasonal low, eventually
reaching a normal high elevation by the end of the wet season. A lake subject to stage decline in
addition to ordinary dry season-induced decline will essentially be at a lower-than-normal starting
elevation when the rainy season begins. Consequently, the chance of a lake reaching the expected wet
season high stage is reduced unless above average rainfall is available to fill up the additional storage
in the lake created by water table drawdowns.

Water levels in cypress ponds change in response to several factors including surface runoff into the
pond, evapotranspiration, vertical infiltration, ground water seepage into the ponds, lateral movement
of water from the ponds to the water table, direct precipitation, and, where present, surface outflow.
The elevation of the water table around a pond significantly influences all of the above factors, partic-
ularly those which are directly ground water-related. During periods of high water table elevation, a
condition of standing water is maintained in a cypress wetland as ground water moves in and through
the pond. Also, a high water table reduces infiltration and can increase the rate of surface outflow.
As the water table declines, water levels in the cypress pond drop as a result of enhanced infiltration
to the surrounding sands. Further, evapotranspiration, an important loss factor throughout the year,
becomes even more important as the pond water level drops to ground surface and to somewhat below
ground surface. Under conditions of seasonal dryness, water table depressions result in the absence of
standing water in cypress ponds, and the pond soil may become dry in the upper 3-5". Prolonged water
table depressions, caused by unseasonable drought or by nearby ground water withdrawals result in
longer periods of dryness in a cypress pond. This, in turn, brings about excessive soil desiccation and a
substantial change in the vegetational characteristics of the pond. Should the changes include the
eventual toppling and death of the cypress trees themselves, the hydrologic features of the area
formerly occupied by the pond are altered for an undetermined period of time. Occurring regionally,
this phenomenon could produce detectable changes in the previously established hydrobiologic relation-
ships in the area.

Streams in the area of the well field are also closely related to the ground water systems. Streamflow
or runoff in this part of Florida is dependent on ground water contributions to a varying extent
depending on climatic conditions. Estimates of ground water seepage to area streams range from 10%
to nearly 100% under conditions of high and low flows, respectively. Therefore, both the potentio-
metric surface and the water table are important indicators of the ability of the ground water system
to contribute to streamflow.

IMPACT OF MUNICIPAL WITHDRAWALS ON SURFACE WATER LEVELS

Because of the intimate relationship between lake levels and the water table, drawdowns induced in
the water table will induce declines in lake stage. Analyses done using a modified Prickett-Lonnquist
Model (reported elsewhere in this Evidentiary Summary) estimate that, under the conditions specified,
a water table drawdown of 0.5' or greater will cover an area of approximately 10.81 mi The levels of
S21-59






Technical Memorandum CU No. 200003
June 9, 1983
Page 4
lakes within this zone of influence can be expected to decline, potentially up to the amount of the
water table drawdown. In other words, in that area, a 0.5' drawdown in the water table could produce
a decline in lake levels ranging between approximately 0.25' and 0.5'. The same could be said of water
levels in the marshes and cypress ponds located within the area of concentrated water table drawdown.
Streams located within the major zone of drawdown are dependent upon ground water inflow for a
variable percentage of flow. Generally, drawdowns in the water table can be expected to produce
declines in streamflow; however, due to the absence of discharge records for Brushy Creek, it was not
possible to determine quantitatively the magnitude of the expected decline. I
PMD:GSC:bh
















21-60
1



1



1












S21-60 I







Technical Memorandum CUP No. 200003
June 9, 1983
Page 5

REFERENCES

CHERRY, R. N., J. W. STEWART, AND J. A. MANN. 1970. General hydrology of the Middle Gulf
Area, Florida. Fla. Bur. Geol. Tallahassee, Florida.

HEIMBURG, K. 1975. Surface Hydrology. In.Cypress Wetlands for Water Management Recycling and
Conservation, 2nd Ann. Rpt. U. of Fla. Gainesville, Florida.

HUNN, J. D. AND R. C. REICHENBAUGH. 1972. A hydrologic description of Lake Magdalene near
Tampa, Florida. U. S. Geol. Surv. Tallahassee, Florida.

HUTCHINSON, C. B., D. M. JOHNSON, AND J. M. GERHART. 1981. Hydrogeology of well field areas
near Tampa, Florida, Phase I Development and documentation of a two-dimensional finite-
difference model for simulation of steady-state groundwater flow. U. S. Geol. Surv. Talla-
hassee, Florida.

MENKE, C. G., E. W. MEREDITH, AND W. S. WETTERHALL. 1961. Water resources of Hillsborough
County, Florida. U. S. Geol. Surv. Tallahassee, Florida.

SINCLAIR, W. C. 1977. Experimental study of artificial recharge alternatives in northwest Hillsbor-
ough County, Florida. U. S. Geol. Surv. Tallahassee, Florida.

STEWART, J. W., AND G. H. HUGHES. 1974. Hydrologic consequences of using groundwater to
maintain lake levels affected by water wells near Tampa, Florida. U. S. Geol. Surv. Talla-
hassee, Florida.

WHARTON, C. H., H. T. ODUM, K. EWEL, M. DUEVER, A. LUGO, R. BOYT, J. BARTHOLOMEW, E.
DeBELLEVUE, S. BROWN, M. BROWN, AND L. DUEVER. 1977. Forested wetlands of
Florida their management and use. U. of Florida. Gainesville, Florida.


S2161






0


CUP No. 200003
June 9, 1983
Page 6


TABLE 1.


1


NAMED LAKES AND STREAMS LOCATED WITHIN THE PREDICTED1
0.5' DRAWDOWN CONTOUR SECTION 21 WELL FIELD.


Lakes


Size (Acres)


Board-Adopted Lake Levell


Barbara
Charles
Crenshaw
Crystal
Dasson
Ellen
Helen
Pearl
Rheinheimer
Round
Saddleback
Sapphire
Starvation
Sunshine
VanDyke


Streams
Brushy Creek


N/A


N/A


1 Contour is predicated using a modified Prickett-Lonnquist Model based on 30 days of
average permitted pumpage, followed by 30 days at maximum permitted pumpage,
followed by 60 days at average permitted pumpage.


S21- 62






riyur'e i.


MGD 10





O,


MCD 10


MCD 20





10


.60





MGD 50


40 F


S21-63


'51 '6
YEAR


"1 -l YE 01
YEAR


indiviaual average y page ot the tour major well tields (a-dj : ? che total average pumpage (e).
20 Come.Odem Total





MGD 10 9
















iouth Pasco


asco Co.
SHiltborough Co.


Eldridge-Wilde


Section 21


TAMPA


OtiarT.'m Ba


2 Echo Lake
3 Lake Juanita
4 Rainbow Lake


8 Keystone Lake
9 Calm Lake
10 Pretty Lake


14 Lake Chales
15 Civysl Lake
(So. Crystal Lake/


Figure 2. Location of selected lakes in the vicinity of Section 21


K


d


*F J


odrae
wdsbrrid'i^1


S21-64 |


Wellfield







*Line Indicates Low Management Level


Figure 3. Stage Hydrograph of Lake Charles


CHARLES LAKE
NORTHWEST HILLSBOROUGH BASIN


LEVEL,FEET ABOVE'NGVD


REPORT DATE 28 APR 82


58

57

56

55

54

53

52-

51

50

49

48
YEAR


aI\...


ITVTFi


WATER


u rn


E
L
E
V
A
T
I
0
N
I
N
F
E
E
T







CAL.


I I I


I I I


I I I


'1


a


iI I


al


r a a


I Al


I I


i a i


1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982

SOUTHWEST-FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT


m', '1 {I


s rl ~lur ii IIIL.I II


~-.11 11-11 11 1 ~`1 1111 cl 1 ~3 '-7 "17 ~-'--7 -


V


I


II i


i





*Line Indicates Low Management Level


b SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT D

La-i L= Im Wu LAN L= LM 6M ur LM




-* Li-ne -Indicats Lw M t L- -
--1 -1 --1 *One Indicates Low Management Level


Figure 5 Stage Hydrograph of Crystal Lake
CRYSTAL LAKE
NORTHWEST HILLSBOROUGH BASIN


LEVEL,FEET ABOVE NGVD


REPORT DATE 28 APR


7 N N 7 I 1 T I N -T


E
L
E
V
A
T
I
0
N
I
N
F
E
E
T






CAL.


A!


I I I


j'


n


I I I


SI I


I I I


J "V


IAN A


I I I


I I I


I I I


II I


WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT


WATER


64

63


82


I I I


61

60


58

57

56

55


54
YEAR


I I I


1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982


II I


-wni


I


VV ,,,,. ___ __~ _. ~_ I


--- I --I -


--I


---I


mi


SOUTHWEST


FLORIDA


.k


71






Figure 6. Stage Hydrograph of Lake Ellen


*Line Indicates Low Management Level


LAKE ELLEN NEAR SULPHUR SPRINGS
N.W. HILLSBOROUGH BASIN
SITE NO. : 02306371
WATER LEVEL, FEET ABOVE MSL REPORT DATE 6


JULY 82


43


40

39-


38
F
E
E 37
T
36

35

34
CAL. YEAR


S a a


i I


a a a I a a a


a* a


7 FC~T


0


SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

_m _m Lm Umm U -m ki -m


*


i I


II -


- -


W


IN




-~ ~ -1 `1 -11 ~11


*Line Indicates Low Management Level
*Line Indicates Low Management Level


Figure 6 cont. Stage Hydrograph of Lake Ellen


WATER LEVEL


LAKE ELLEN NEAR SULPHUR SPRINGS
N.W. HILLSBOROUGH BASIN
SITE NO. : 02306371
, FEET ABOVE MSL REPORT DATI


E 6 JULY 82


E
L
E
V
A
T
I
0
N
I
N
F
E
E
T


44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37


36

35

34
CAL. YEAR


Ia a


ixl


a I


_______ I I T T T


I I


a *


Rh


I I


.4


N


I I


V


I I I


V


1k


I a a


AX~


A I I


k


i i i


1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT


"'" '


--- --I


.I .






Figure 7. Stage Hydrograph for Round Lake.


ROUND LAKE NEAR LUTZ
N.W. HILLSBOROUGH BASIN
SITE NO. : 02305200
WATER LEVEL, FEET ABOVE MSL REPORT DATE


JULY 82


K\


E
L
E
V
A
T

N
I
N
F
E
E
T





CAL.


I I I I I


55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47
YEAR


I A a


a a A


I a i


a i a


I I I


A a a


I I a


1974 1975 1976 .1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982


SOUTHWEST-FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DIST IC
___________~t Lm un I camj ,y ss S i B l "6


.J


57

56


l


A f


a A I


)









)


r


07


r"N~~


y~h




F-i g- "- ---1F7 -- -- --1r -7- co---. Sa-g1 ---] f1--]o --ound 7ake.


Figure 7 cont. Stage Hydrograph for Round Lake.
r


ROUND LAKE NEAR LUTZ
N.W. HILLSBOROUGH BASIN
SITE NO. : 02305200
WATER LEVEL, FEET ABOVE MSL REPORT DATE 7 JULY


82


---1


57

56


55

54

53

52

51

50


49

48

47
CAL. YEAR


I I


I I I


4~-


4 I I


U I


7


I I I


I I I


I I I


I I I


I I I


I I I


1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT


, .


IrU~IIY~


J 1 ""


r~Jv~





*Line Indicates Low Management Level
Figure 8. Stage Hydrograph for Saddleback Lake.


WATER


SADDLEBACK LAKE NEAR LUTZ
N.W. HILLSBOROUGH BASIN
SITE NO. : 02305178
LEVEL, FEET ABOVE MSL REPORT DATE 7 JULY 82


~JAM


SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT


M *


-


-n -


- ---;;----- V--; --


57


56


55


54


E
L
E
V
A
T
I
0
N
I
N
F
E
E
T


53


CAL.


52
YEAR


-- --------


---


I


L


6ri rjj-^ LM LM





-- -1


.11---- ---1 -- 7 -1 I I -1 --- .1 -- -- --- ---
*Line Indicates Low Management Level
Figure 8 cont. Stage Hydrograph for Saddleback Lake.
SADDLEBACK LAKE NEAR LUTZ
N.W. HILLSBOROUGH BASIN
SITE NO. : 02305178
WATER LEVEL, FEET ABOVE MSL REPORT DATE 7 JULY 82
57


56


55


54


53


52
CAL. YEAR


SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT





*Line Indicates Low Management Level


Figure 9. Stage Ilydrograph of Starvation Lake
STARVATION LAKE NEAR LUTZ
N.W. HILLSBOROUGH BASIN
SITE. NO. : 02306800
WATER LEVEL, FEET ABOVE MSL REPORT DATE 8 JULY 82
55




E
L

A 50-_-
E \ .
T
I
N
I
N
F
E 45
E
T





CA 40. YEAR 1962 19 i 1964 19i 5 1966 1967 168 1969 197 1971
" CAL. YEAR 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971


Mela asag -m sil s La L-l W i-IB us -H SUa





~~~1 ~ II c1-l-,- -1 ~ c p -1 cll -1 c--3 cl -3 c -


*Line Indicates Low Management Level


Figure 9 cont. Stage Hydrograph of Starvation Lake


55


50


45


40
CAL. YEAR


STARVATION LAKE NEAR LUTZ
N.W. HILLSBOROUGH BASIN
SITE NO. : 02306800
WATER LEVEL, FEET ABOVE MSL REPORT DATE 8 JULY 82


SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT


---I ---I --1 "--









31


I |I







I l ]




7II \PLODAN AQU IPER 3I

T I I









Figure 10.
Generalized relationship of lakes and wetlands to the water table S21- 76




















Figure 11
Elevations of Lake Crenshaw, Lake Dosson and shallow well versus month for water year 1981


57
---Shallow Well
56 Lake Creshaw
--Lake Dosson





54 9
--
S53





4 5 1*


50 -....


49


48


47 i, i,, I
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
1980 1981


S21-77



















Figure 12
Relationship between lake leave and water table: Lakes Dosson and Crenshaw



a Lake Crenshaw
O Lake Dosson


51 52


53 54
Shallow Wel Water Elevation
(FT. NCVD)


0


S21-78


~o


--


-














Attachment G








Regulatory Wells




















Legend

-- Regulatory Level
-- With 3 ft. Swing

A Weekly Average Water Levels

Cumulative Weekly Average
Water Level for Water Year


S21-79







SECTION 21 WELL FIELD JACKSON 26 A WELL


CCDCCY *CJI C SJ~ *,~


C..'CC CII OIC CU ..I.C C.J


S21-80


O..CCC. CWCa CCCYC a..... CEJ


S, IU *U Ie Y~ CI 2


SI !I
a
91'
Od

ig,
I I Is


9



~1


1
at]3





:1





:1

1

VI

I





C -u





II









SECTION 21 WELL FIELD JACKSON 26 A WELL


'..~~-. .a-m- a-a--r- ----- amnm sea


-- --I
3wl 3ru r r


6-aw. 2--.... afla so.,


S21-81





SECTION 21 WELL FIELD HILLSBOROUGH 13 WELL


oI

H












V. .1













S21- 82
I S










Iea Sm m s s ao In











SECTION 21 WELL FIELD HILLSBOROUGH 13 WELL


SC.3J 23*.- 3m 4 J a.,


C1-- ----~
Ct C i


SUCCn ==LY ,- C.C U.- C.J


S21-83


.... I


--------~









Attachment H


August 2,.1982
Revised: June 13, 1983


TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

TO: D. A. Wiley, Hydrologist, Resource Regulation Department I
R. R. Gordon, Hydrologist, Resource Regulation Department
J. W. Heuer, Hydrologist, Resource Regulation Department

FROM: \ P. M. Dooris, Environmental Manager, Resource Regulation Department

RE: Lake Augmentation in Northwest Hillsborough County

The following is a summary of the history and current status of lake augmentation
in northwest Hillsborough County.

Background I

In the late 1960's and early 1970's, augmentation facilities were constructed
on several lakes in order to provide a means of raising lake stages from the
low elevations to which they had dropped beginning in the mid- to late-1960's.
Vertical stage declines on many lakes were on the order of three or more feet,
resulting in the exposure of significant shoreline area, the stranding of emergent
aquatic vegetation, and in large reductions of lake surface area.

The problems of low lake levels and augmentation became sufficiently important
that several technical investigations into these matters were done. It is the
information contained in these studies, together with information from District
records and from the District's Lake Level Project, which was used in preparing
this Memorandum.

Augmented Lakes

Twelve lakes have augmentation facilities in northwest Hillborough County (Table 1). 1
Of these, nine lakes have SWFWMD permits. Total permitted average pumpage for
the nine lakes is approximately 680,000 gpd, while total maximum permitted pumpage
is approximately 4.5 mgd.
Results of Augmentation
The use of augmentation facilities has returned most lakes to levels more in keeping
with those normally expected. As a result, lake emergent habitat and lakes' recrea-
tional value has been restored.
The introduction of ground water to lakes has been associated with other changes in
lake environment. Such changes include an alteration of the chemical characteristics
of the lake as well as the proliferation of Hydrilla verticillata in some of the lakes
The aquatic weed problem is serious in some of the lakes, and chemical and biological
methods have been used in control efforts.
Further explanation of the aspects of augmentation mentioned above may be found in
the attached bibliography.
S21-84
PMD:kk










Table 1. Lakes being augmented from groundwater facilities in Northwest
Hillsborough County.


Permit #

Lutz 200139


Permitted
AUg/Max (gpd)

18,600/288,000.


Well
Diameter (in.)

6


Strawberry
(N. Crystal)

Crystal

Magdalene

Crenshaw

Chapman

Charles

Bird

Morely

Round

Saddleback

Starvation
** Sunset, Garden,
and Jackson


201898

202845

203024

203375

203419

204549

205327

206334


200354


39,452/720,000

30,000/432,000

426,082/1,728,000

22,190/90,000

50,000/120,000

372,000/792,000
20,000/500,000

16,000/240,000






164,000/1,000,000


* Augmented by St. Petersburg Water System
** Augmented by Pinellas County Water System


S21-85








BIBLIOGRAPHY


Dooris, P. M., G. M.
addition on the
Resources Bull.

Dooris, P. M. and D.
lake chemistry.


Dooris, and D. F. Martin. Effects of ground water
phytoplankton of central Florida lakes. Water
18:335.

F. Martin. 1979. Ground water-induced changes in
Ground Water 17:324-327.


Dooris, P. M. and R. J. Moresi. 1975. Evaluation of lake augmentation
practices in northwest Hillsborough County, Florida. Technical
report prepared by the Southwest Florida Water Management District,
Brooksville, Florida.


Martin, D., D. Victor, and P. M. Dooris. 1976.
introduced ground water on the chemical and
of six Hillsborough County (Florida) lakes.


Effects of artificially
biochemical characteristics
Water Res. 10:65-69.


1976. Implications of lake augmentation on the growth
of Hydrilla. Environ. Sci. Eng. Al1:245-253.


Stewart, J. W. and G. H. Hughes. 1974. Hydrologic
Ground Water to Maintain Lake Levels Affected
Tampa, Florida. OPR #74006 U.S. Geol. Surv.


Consequences of Using
by Water Wells Near
Tallahassee, Florida.


S21-86





Attachment I


July 21, 1982
?-Revised: June 13. 1983
MEMORANDUM

r TO: DAVID WILEY, Hydrologist, Resource Regulation Department
SBOB GORDON, Engineer, Resource Regulation Department
JOHN HEUER, Senior Hydrologist, Resource Regulation Departme t /

E FROM: BOB PERRY, Hydrologist, Resource Regulation Department /'
RE: Aquifer Levels Analysis for Section 21, Cosme-Odessa,
r South Pasco Well Fields, (CUP Nos. 200004, 200003, and 203647)
OBJECTIVE: To determine the multiple-variable affects of applicable hydrologic
r variables on water-stage elevations and discharges at specific monitor sites.
Methods Used: In order to determine the effect of these well fields on
the aquifer, monthly average water levels for the period of record for
r the following listed wells were retrieved from USGS WATSTORE.
Sheldon Road Deep Dundee Road BM Pasco BM
r ROMP TR 13-3 Deep/ElOl E102 Harry Matts Deep & Shallow
E100 Pasco 205 Deep Doyles Ranch Deep
1-C6 Pasco 210 Deep Pasco 207 Deep
Berger Road Deep Sirotowitz Highway 54 Shallow
21-7 Deep Lutz Lake Fern Deep Pasco 305 Deep & Shallow
Van Dyke Shallow Bexley
(Figure No. 8 shows the location of all data points.)
F In addition water level for Camp Lake near Denhem, and discharge for the Anclote
River near Elfers and South Branch of the Anclote River near Odessa were also
F retrieved.
The monthly average water level or discharge from these sites are the dependent
variable which are to be explained by a set of suitable independent variables.
Proposed independent variable for this set were monthly total rainfall (averaged
for the area using Tampa, Tarpon Springs and Cosme-Odessa rainfall), individual
monthly average well field pumpages of Section 21, Cosme-Odessa, South Pasco,
Eldridge-Wilde, monthly average water table elevation and time. These were
acquired and merged into a data set for statistical analysis using standard
statistical programs. Two other independent variables were created, one month
lagged water level or discharge and one month lagged rainfall, which were used
F to describe the antecedent conditions.
The objective now it to separate and determine the effects of each of these
variables on the potentiometric levels. While a controlled experiment is
impossible the available collected data has been used in the multiple linear
regression technique. The following equation was proposed:


S21-87






Wiley, Gordon, Heu .
June 13, 1983
Page Two
y = a + by.I + cR + dR1 + eQ1 + fQ2 + 9Q3 + hQ4 + ix1 + jX2 + kT
Where: j

y = Average monthly water level of a well, lake or stream discharge
y-1 = y the prior month
R = Month total rainfall
R-1 = R for the prior month
Q1 = Monthly average pumpage from Cosie-Odessa Well Field
Q2 = Monthly average pumpage from Section 21 Well Field
Q3 Monthly average pumpage from South Pasco Well Field
Q4 = Monthly average pumpage from Eldridge-Wilde Well Field
X1 = Surface water table elevation at Cosie-Odessa Well Field
X2 = Surface water table elevation at Section 21
T = Sequential time in months
Lower case (a-k) constant (a) and coefficients (b to k) determined from the data.
This equation fits the present month average potentiometric water level or
stream discharge to an equation that takes into account not only the individual
monthly average well field pumpages but also total monthly rainfall for the
present and prior months, monthly average water table elevation, time dependent
trend and the last months water elevation or stream discharge.
Results
An equation was determined for each of the sites which included a unique set
of coefficients for each of the independent variables; the equation can be
used to determine the dependent variable. The equations developed for each
of the sites are shown in Table 1.
Discussion
In this table the R2 values indicate the degree of correlation between the
dependent variable and ;he equation. For example, the first equation for
Sheldon Road well the R is 0.878. This indicates that 87.8% of the variability
of the potentiometric data at this site is explained by a combination of all
independent variables in the equation. Also the entire equation is statistically
significant in excess of 90%. These calculated coefficients indicate realistic
and logical hydrologic relationships although not of equal value or significance
in each equation. Equations marked with a asterisk were derived from sparse
data, often only one value per month and generally have lower R' values. The
derived coefficients are each statistically significant at a minimum of 90%
otherwise it was dropped from the equation and was equated to zero.









S21-88

[








Wiley, Gordon, Heuer
June 13, 1983
Page Three
Conclusions
1. The antecedent conditions y-1 are significant for all wells except two
wells (305 Deep and Shallow) and indicated a positive relationship with
respect to antecedent conditions as expected.
2. At many artesian wells the correlation with total monthly rainfall and
antecedent total monthly rainfall are significant with positive values.
This indicates a positive response of the potentiometric surface to
rainfall.

3. At many artesian wells the correlation with water table elevation is
significant with positive values. This shows a positive response of the
potentiometric surface to increase in water table elevation. This may
be a result of leakage, reduced pumpage or loading effects during periods
of high water table; all of which are related to rainfall.
4. Many artesian wells and one water table well reveal a significant negative
time dependent trend indicating a declining potentiometric surface of up
to 1.99 feet over the last 7-8 years. This could be caused by several
factors, first reduced rainfall over that interval, secondly increases in
withdrawals and finally increased drainage of the surface waters thereby
reducing the elevation of the recharge head in the area.
5. In many artesian wells with long-term data, well field pumpage in various
combinations had negative coefficients depicting a declining potentiometric
surface with increased pumpage. The shallow wells coefficients were
substantially smaller (1 to 2 orders of magnitude) indicating smaller
but still significant relations to pumpage.
6. Several artesian wells with sparse data failed to show significant
relationships to more than a few of the independent variables. This most
likely is due to the sparseness of the record and the length of record.
7. Camp Lake water elevation has significant relationship to antecedent, water
level, rainfall and antecedent rainfall, pumpage of the South Pasco Well
Field, water table elevation and time.
8. Discharge of the Anclote River at both stations had significant relationship
r to antecedent discharge, rainfall, water table elevation and time however
only 65-76% of the variation is explained by the data and pumpage did not
enter the equations and was therefore less than 90% significant.






S21-
r




r "'*









Wiley, Gordon, Heuer
June 13, 1983
Page Four
Summary
We have been able to identify and separate the significant factors affecting
water table and potentiometric levels in this area but because of their
inter-dependence single variable studies will not provide as much information
as the multiple linear technique used here. These equations were derived
from data sets, which describe a limited period of real operational ranges,
therefore all possible combinations of extreme ranges of data are not represented.
Even with that limited data base the equations have high correlation coefficients
and statistical significance. They are valuable for use in the regulation of
the resource, as predictive tools with the constraint of being subject to an
increasing uncertalnity proportional to the departure of the data outside the
range of that used to their derivation.
RGP:eab:wp2
cc: L. M. Blain
J. E. Current J




I


S21-90





1 -1 "1 -TABLE 1 1
TABLE 1


= a + by-1


+ cR + dR-1 + eQi + fQ2 + gQ3 + hQ4 + iX1 + JX2


Sheldon Road

TR13-3/E101

E102

E100

1-C6 Shallow

Berger Road

21-7

Van Dyke Shallow

Dundee Road BM

Lutz Lake Fern

Pasco South BM

* Sirotowitz

* Pasco 210

* Pasco 205

* Pasco 305 Deep

* Pasco 305
Shallow

* Matts Deep

* Matts Shallow

* Pasco 207 Deep


4.568

8.557

5.772

5.381

9.470

4.029

0.006

8.196

1.261

19.228

7.084

10.166

10.600

2.456

27.986

29.468

-4.426

-1.716

10.768


+ .582y-1+ .059R

+ .39y_-1+ .032R

+ .269y_1+0R

+ .289y_1+0 R

+ .760y-+1 .099R

+ .311y-1+ OR

+ .261y.1 +0R

+ .840y.1+ .071R

+ .191y-.1+R

+ .342y-1+ .044R

+ .171y-1+0 R

+ .671y,1+ .396R

+ .880y.1+ .149R

+ .185y.1+ROR

+ 0y-1 +R OR

+ HY-1 +OR


+.023R.11 -.039Q1- .039Q2

+.042R1 .078Q1- .025Q2

+.041R_1 -.182Q1 .076Q2

+0R_1 -.310Q1 -.108Q2

+.098R1 .028Q1- .028Q2

+.070R.1 -.157Q1 -.428Q2

+0R-1 -.146Q1 -.625Q2


+.127R,1 -.025Q1

+R-1 +0Q1
+.102R.1 -.149Q1

+9R-1 +Q91

+0R-1 +Q 1

+0R-1 -.066Q1

+0R.1 -.199Q1

+0R_1 -.035Q1

+0R.1 +Q 1


+ .752y,1+ .0544R +0R-1

+ .460y.1+ .086R +0R.1

+ .338y.1+.126R +0R.1


+0Q

+01Q
+0Q


-.025Q2

-.439Q2
-.332Q2

-.275Q2

+OQ2
-.066Q2
-.427Q2

-.035Q2

+0Q2


40Q2


40Q2
#2


- .039Q3-

- .054Q3.

- .076Q3

- .108Q3
- .028Q3

- .157Q3

- .146Q3

- .025Q3

-.326Q3

-.332Q3

-.542Q3

+0Q3
-.066Q3
-.199Q3

-.035Q3

+0Q3


+0Q3 +

+0Q3 +
-.222Q3 +


.0001Q4+ OX1


+


S.025Q4 + .143X1+

. .076Q4 + .470X1+

. .108Q4 + .671X1+

- .028Q4 + X1 +

- .030Q4 +.309X1+

- .051Q4 +.468X1+

- .025Q4 +X1I +

+ OQ4 +.669X1 +
- .016Q4 +.310X1+

+ 0Q4 +.566X +

+ OQ4 +OX 1 +
- .066Q4 +OX +

+ .030Q4 +1.079X1 +

- .035Q4 +.918X1 +

+ 0Q4 +.863X1 +


0Q4

0Q4

Q04


+OX1

+OXi
+X 1
+X 1


+ .337X2 + 0t

+ .621X2 +0t

+ .546X2 + Ot


(A
s-h
'.
s-


OX2

Ox2
Ox2

OX2

OX2
.459X2

.459X2

OX2
.329X2

.182X2

.399X2

OX2

OX2

OX2
OX2

OX2


- .003t

- .Ollt

- .016t

- .017t

+ Ot

- .015t

- .008t

+ .002t

+ Ot
- .022t

- .013t

+ Ot

+ Ot

+ Ot

+ Ot

+ 0t


.944

.932

.881


--


---I ---I


-- -- -1


---I


"-1 -- --I


.878

.905

.899

.878

.886

.950'

.938

.902

.938

.939

.963

.735

.778

.831

.678)

.622








Highway 54
Shallow

Doyles Ranch

Bexley

Camp Lake

Anclote South B

Anclote Elfers


19.959 + .675y.1+ .128R + OR_1 .030Q1 .fl30Q2-.030Q3 .030Q4 + OX1 +


27.039

28.105

.250

-55.507

-449.575


+ .269y_1+ OR + .094R-1

+ .346y_,+ OR + OR_1

+ .830y1I+ .044R + .066R_1

+ .297y_1+1.494R + OR_1

+ .299yjtl3.92.7-R+ OR1


..152Q1-

..025Q1,

+ 0Q1 +

+ 001 +

+ 0Q1 +


.152Q2

.025Q2

PQ2

0Q2

0Q2


- .327Q3
- .134Q3

- .070Q3

+ 0Q3

+ 0%Q


- .003Q4

- .025Q4

+ 0Q4
+ Q4
+ OQ4


+ OX1 +
+.659X1+

+ OX1 +

+ X1 +

+ 0X1 +


OX2 + Ot


.629X2

0X2

.269X2
1.377X2

19.060X2


S.027t

S.016t

.011t

S.061t

S.712t


LM L;;2 LP~m &ZA Lm ;.J LAN L" A LAI LM L"I Lim


.650

.900

.863

.962
.649

.760


3









REGIONAL


9.0-


6.7-


8.4-


6. 1-


7.6-


7.5-


7.2-


6.9-


6.6-


6.3-


6.0-


GROUNDWATER LEVELS SHELDON ROAD DEEP


"--


o .:. o |-rrr . . . . . . . .


---I --I7 __l --I -- -- .-- --"" -" --I --I "-- --I --7 --I







REGIONAL GROUNDWATER LEVELS TR 13-3


17.



17.






16.



15.



15.



15.



Il,


63 64 65 65 57 66 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84


TEAR


M M---- ----- W---- -~ ^ -~----. --.....-- ----... .... .ai ---- ----M..1 b--l- i- ---i--g l -









REGIONAL GROUNDWATER LEVELS E-100


32-



30

E
R
N

0
N
28



H 26
L



r
R 24-
T
E


L 22-
E
V
E
L
20
F
T

m I
t





1


(A

ID
C'.


.I ... I... ... .. I .... I ..... I'.".... '" I.."" I '- r -l I '' I- I I I I I I 1
63 6'1 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 61 62 63 61J
TERR


. ,. I I








REGIONAL GROUNDWATER LEVELS 1-c6


Lamsm L"s L4s U.. lr *-.. ur L= Lim use "us a" ".- Lm me L" 1


40-



39-
E
A

N
38-
0
N
T
H 37-
L
T

R 36-
T
E
R
L 35-
E
V
E
L
34-
F
r

S 33-
L


32-


(n


.................................Ir.--1~.--.--.--.


I- .. I .... .... I .... .... .... . I .... I .... I .... .... .. I. I I I. I .. I .... I .... I '' i. I -' r
63 6U 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 60 61 82 63

T ~F







REGIONAL GROUNDWATER LEVELS -BERGER ROAD DEEP


REGIONAL GROUNDWATER LEVELS -.BERGER ROAD DEEP


50.0



y6.0



46.0-








42.0-



40.0




36.0-




36.0



34.0
31-


..... ..V I I I II . . . . ..IIII 1 11. ....


65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 7U 75 76 77 78 79 80 61 82 83

TR


! i _


FB


| I I e








REGIONAL GROUNDWATER LEVELS 21-7 DEEP


50.0-



47.5-



45.0-



42.5-



40.0-



37.5-



35.0-



32.5-


30.0-


En 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 76 79 80 81 82 83 84
TERB

&Me Lim Lim te Jm u us we um um wa u ua ra Lim IM Li uLm im M







SRE GIONAL G GROUNDWATER LEVEL VAN- -DY -HALLOW
REGIONAL GROUNDWATER LEVELS-VAN.DYKE.SHALLOW


59-

58-
Ii
57-

56-
M
0
N 55-
T
.'
L 5-1
r

W 53-
T
E 52
R
L 51-
V
E 50
L
F J9-
T
. q8-
L
L7-

46-


S63 64 65 66 67 66 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 76 79 .60 81 82 83 84
TERR










REGIONAL GROUNDWATER LEVELS DUNDEE ROAD BM


49


MH
E 7-
R
N
6-
M


H
L 14-
r





L l1-
E
E o40
L
F 39
T

H 38-
5
L
37-

36-


S63 64 65 66 67 66 69 70 71 72 73 7Q 75 76 77 78 79 60 81 62 63 6B
TEAR
4 =__
j_ L


)


p~rrTnlrl"T'1' "'l""l''''r' -''I "'~'~1`"'1'''' 1""1'"'1""1'"'77 r t IlrrrT~( IT-)--~~~r-~T


w- -




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs