Title: Final Draft Evidentiary Evaluations for South Pasco, Cosme-Odessa, Section-21, and Northwest Hillsborough Well Fields
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00001696/00001
 Material Information
Title: Final Draft Evidentiary Evaluations for South Pasco, Cosme-Odessa, Section-21, and Northwest Hillsborough Well Fields
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Final Draft Evidentiary Evaluations for South Pasco, Cosme-Odessa, Section-21, and Northwest Hillsborough Well Fields August 19, 1982
General Note: Box 9, Folder 5 ( SF-SWF 200003/WCR/St. Pete/Section 21 Volume I - 1976-92 ), Item 17
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00001696
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



17


FINAL DRAFT EVIDENTIARY EVALUATIONS


FOR


SOUTH PASCO, COSME-ODESSA,
SECTION-21, AND NORTHWEST HILLSBOROUGH
WELL FIELDS


cuP ?ooo03/WC0 /
s:.f+" / ffc&M 2/


* -tl oC S r hiJY oVer one bound docurdeot,
islid by SdrFwM D COVPwr a ellfeld. er hli^
CAonverien P, aIl r bWnA duplicn ahd ahd tO one
docuweat p heM bWk dowr io itr
i (oMpO rrt mr 0*nr








August 19, 1982


MEMORANDUM


WILLIAM D. COURSER, Acting Director, Resource Regulation Department

DAVID A. WILEY, Hydrogeologist, Resource Regulation Department

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


I. BACKGROUND

A. Date Application was Received: December 28, 1981

B. Property Description: 584 acres owned


C. Location of Property:




D. Proposed Use of Water:


II. 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 southwest
corner of the intersection at Dale Mabry Highway
and Van Dyke Road (See Figure 1, Page 13).

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


Presently Permitted


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


Proposed


13
13
22
22,260
243


MGD
MGD
MGD
gpd/acre
gpd/acre


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

B. Supporting Information


1. Distribution System


(See Evidentiary Summary for
Well Field, CUP No. 200004,
System, Page 2 through 6)


Cosme-Odessa
Distribution


2. History and Development
The Section 21 Well Field (WF) was developed and put into operation
in 1963. The well field was developed with ten wells approximately
400 feet deep. Specific capacity tests were conducted on all the
wells with the result that several wells were deepened to increase
their capacities. Wells, depths, and original specific capacities
are listed below.


S21-1


TO:

FROM:

RE:







William D. Courser
August 19, 1982
Page Two
CUP No. 200003

Casing Depth Total Depth Specific Capacity
Well No. (Feet) (Feet) (gpm/feet)
21-1 70 570 30 J
21-2 73 411 131
21-3 71 411 185
21-4 71 601 112
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 1250 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, 1
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. I
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 operating permit, Permit 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 45).
3. Geology of Well Field Area 3

Several geologic units exist in the northwest Hillsborough County
area (See Figure 5, Page 17). There is an upper zone of unconsolidated
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 approxi-
mately 10 feet thick separates the surficial unit from the
consolidated 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 Hawthorn Formation and is approximately 100 feet thick.
Below the Tampa Formation lies the Suwannee Limestone which is



S21-2 I







William D. Courser
August 19, 1982
Page Three
CUP No. 200003

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. Underlying 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, Page 7 through 9)
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 concentrations,
statistical analyses were performed. These analyses concluded that
with time, chloride concentrations have either stablized or improved
for the wells tested. Attachment E, Page 53, 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 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 1940 to 1921, the average annual rainfall was 51.39
inches with a median of 52.97 inches.


S21-3








William D. Courser
August 19, 1982
Page Four
CUP No. 200003
Thus, the past 20 years have been dryer than usual. 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. Lake Levels and Streamflow
Within a three-mile radius from the center of the well field,
there are over 40 named lakes, and many other unnamed surface
water bodies as well as portions of the Rocky Creek and Sweet-
water Creek watersheds. Land uses within the area, as well as
around most lakes, is primarily residential of low-medium
density. Citrus groves and small cattle-raising operations
are also common-place.
Eighteen lakes within the projected drawdown area were selected
for study in order to evaluate lake level trends and conditions
as they relate to rainfall and pumpage events. The lakes selected
were: Lake Allen, Lake Harvey, Starvation Lake, and Turkey Ford .I
Lake in The Rocky Creek Watershed; Bay Lake, Brant Lake, Chapman
Lake, Lake Charles, Lake Crenshaw, S. Crystal Lake, Lake Ellen,
Lake Hobbs, Lake Magdalene, Platt Lake, Saddleback Lake, Lake
Thomas in the Sweetwater Creek Watershed; and finally Lake
Stemper and Round Lake in western Hillsborough County.
In recent years, lakes have experienced periods of declining and
depressed lake stages, interrupted by periods of high lake levels.
Periods of major stage declines have occurred in 1961-1962, 1968,
and 1973. Major peak periods recorded in 1959-1960, 1974 and 1979, m
are associated with abnormally high rainfall. Following the high
stage conditions of 1979, a gradual decline in lake levels took
place through the year 1981. Currently, (early July 1982) in
spite of having received 65% (34.78") of the expected average
annual rainfall (at the Cosme station) some lakes remain below the
Board-adopted low management levels.
Lake levels are directly related to the interactions of several
hydrologic factors. An analysis of these relationships revealed
that rainfall, antecedent lake stage conditions, and groundwater
pumpage all influenced levels in lakes in the immediate Section
21 WF area. Predicted monthly stage declines associated
with well field pumpage are on the order of 0.17' to 0.42'


S21-4







William D. Courser
August 19, 1982
Page Five
CUP No. 200003

depending on withdrawal rates and rainfall amounts. Pumpage
impacts were demonstrated to be most pronounced during the dry
season. A detailed description of the'above impact analysis is
contained in Attachment F, Page 54.

In addition, there are a number of lakes being augmented in
northwest Hillsborough County. These lakes are listed in
Attachment H, Page 133.

Stream flow in the area is a result of rainfall and runoff.
Brushy Creek is the only stream in the Section 21 WF area.
Due to a lack of data and changes in drainage from development,
no significant change in effect as a result of well field pumpage
has been identified during the life of the existing permit.
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 21). These sites are measured periodically for water
levels of the potentiometric surface and water table.

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 Attach-
ment I, Page 136. 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 16 ). 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 alignment of these sinkholes are such that it appears they
are directly related to fracture traces.
A three-year study was undertaken by the City in order to
determine the causes of the sudden increase in sinkhole
activity. During this study period well field pumpage continued
to increase, however, 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.


S21-5







William D. Courser
August 19, 1982
Page Six
CUP No. 200003

6. Simulated Drawdowns
An adaption of the two-layer Prickett and Lonnquist ground water
flow model was used to simulate water table and potentiometric "
surface drawdowns at the Section 21 WF. The geology of the well
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. Aquifer characteristics, such as transmissivity, leakance,.
and storage for each layer were utilized in simulating drawdowns.
The best available aquifer characteristics for simulating drawdowns
with this'model came from Management of the Water Resources m
of the Pinellas-Anclote and Northwest HiTlsborough Basins,
West-'entral Florida by Geraghty and Miller, March 1976. Draw-
downs were calculated for the quantities requested for this permit
and the quantities for the existing permit, under worst case conditions.
Figure 9, Page 22 illustrates drawdowns of the water table at propose
average annual production for 30 days, maximum daily production for
60 days, and proposed average annual production for 30 days again
without any recharge to the system. Figure 10, Page 23 illustrates
potentiometric surface drawdowns at proposed average annual production
for 30 days and maximum daily production for 60 days with no recharge.
Figure 11, Page 24 illustrates the change in water table drawdowns
from existing permitted quantities to proposed quantities. Figure 12,
Page 25 illustrates the change in potentiometric surface drawdowns
from existing permitted quantities to proposed quantities. These
predicted drawdown changes are expected from an increase of 1 MGD,
on an average daily basis for the proposed permit. This 1 MGD has
been requested by the applicant to provide supplemental capacity
to the Northwest Hillsborough Regional Well Field. The drawdown
contours shown on Figures 11 and 12 show that there will be minimal
additional impacts felt in areas adjacent to the well field for
the requested increase.
The next set of drawdown maps (Figures.13 and 14, Pages 26 and 27 ),
show the predicted cumulative effects of pumpage at proposed g
average daily withdrawal rates of South Pasco, Section 21, Cosme-
Odessa, and Northwest Hillsborough Regional Well Fields. Again,
the predicted drawdowns shown are at the end of a 120-day period
of no recharge to the system. The likelihood of drawdowns at
maximum rates occurring is extremely remote primarily due to.
existing regulatory levels limiting the pumping and water shortage
restrictions.
The final set of drawdown maps (Figures 15 through 18, Pages 28
through 31 ) show the change between actual withdrawals from all
four well fields and the proposed permitted quantities as well as
the change from current permitted quantities and proposed permitted
quantities for the water table and potentiometric surface.



S21-6







William D. Courser
August 19, 1982
Page Seven
CUP No. 200003

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. Regulatory Levels

Section 21 WF has two monitor wells that have regulatory levels
established for each well according to the existing CUP (See
Attachment C, Page 45 ). The two wells with their respective
regulatory levels are listed.below.
Well No. Regulatory Level in Feet Above MSL

Hillsborough 13 33.0
Jackson 26A 34.0

These water levels listed above refer to elevations of the potentio-
metric surface of the Floridan Aquifer. The regulatory levels were
established in 1972 and the existing permit stated that:
"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
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
levels for dry conditions, water years 1967, 1977, and 1981 can
be used. The chart below lists the pumpage and rainfall from the
Section 21 WF, regulatory level, time period the weekly average
elevation fell below the regulatory level, and cumulative weekly
average elevation from each well for its respective year.
Cumulative
Period Weekly Avg.
Reg. Level Below Elevation
Year Well No. Pumpage (MGD) Rainfall (") (' Above MSL) Reg. Level (' Above MSL)
1967 Hills. 13 14.5 42.61 33 (6 months) 34.7
1967 Jackson 26A 14.5 42.61 34 (5 months) 35.8
1977 Hills. 13 9.1 44.02 33 9 weeks 36.1
1977 Jackson 26A 9.1 44.02 34 10 weeks 37.1
1981 Hills. 13 8.5 46.21 33 5 weeks 36.5
1981 Jackson 26A 8.5 46.21 34 5 weeks 37.8


S21-7






I1

William D. Courser
August 19, 1982
Page Eight
CUP No. 200003
For the 1967 water year the pumpage rates were slightly above
those requested for this permit renewal. During 1967 the weekly
average water levels dropped below the regulatory levels in
both regulatory wells for a significant amount of time. However,
the weekly average water levels for that year in both wells did
not drop below the three-foot "swing" levels and the cumulative
weekly average elevations did not drop below the regulatory
level for the year (See Attachment G, Page 110 ). For water years
1977 and 1981, similar circumstances occurred, however the water
level declines were not as significant as those in 1967 due to
the fact that well field pumpage had decreased (See Attachment G).
Based upon past pumpage, rainfall, and water level data, it N
appears that the City could pump approximately one (1) MGD
for every foot the average water levels remain above the regu-
latory levels. For example, in 1967 the cumulative weekly
average elevations for Hillsborough 13 and Jackson 26A were I
34.7 feet and 35.8 feet respectively. The regulatory levels
for those wells are 33 feet and 34 feet. For the amount of
rainfall actually received that year the City could have pumped
approximately 14.5 MGD.
A proposal for changing the three-foot swing to.a five-foot swing g
for the regulatory wells at Section 21 WF has been requested. With
increased production at Section 21 WF and the new Northwest
Hillsborough Regional Well Field (NWHWF) coming on line just to
the south of Section 21 WF, there is a potential for water levels
dropping below the three-foot swing levels during the dry seasons.
During the first 30 months after issuance of this permit and the
new proposed NWHWF permit, the five-foot "swing" may be exceeded g
for six (6) consecutiveweeks- ocean_ a total of eight (8) weeks [
annually (see_att achedpermit). During this 30-month period, 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.
III. 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 19, Page 32 shows the areas objections were received from.
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.


S21-8

I







William D. Courser
August 19, 1982
Page Nine
CUP No. 200003

In response to objections concerning the damaging of cypress heads, staff
feels that new 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 400-2.301, 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.
(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?
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 Board?
No, Sweetwater Creek and Rocky Creek are in the vicinity of
the well field, however, there has been no minimum rate of
flow established for these creeks.
(-b) Cause the level of the potentiometric surface to be lowered below
the regulatory level established by the Board?
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) of the potentio-
metric surface shall not drop 5 feet below regulatory levels except


S21-9





I

William D. Courser
August 19, 1982 I
Page Ten
CUP No. 200003.
for one period of six (6) consecutive weeks and no more than a total
of eight (8) weeks during any annual period commencing November 30
of the water year (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 adequately monitored and a statis-
tical analysis performed on a series of monitor wells showed no I
increase in chloride concentrations with respect to pumpage and I
time (See Attachment E, Page 53). Analyses of production wells
have also shown virtually no increase in chloride concentrations.
(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, declines in lake levets-have occurred on lakes not owned,
leased, or otherwise controlled by the applicant. Lakes in the g
vicinity of the well field have undergone stage declines which U
are attributable, in part, to groundwater withdrawals. On some
lakes, stages have been depressed for a prolonged 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 H
levels below the low management level under particular conditions. I
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 lower-than-normal declines on lakes.
Recovery to normal levels has occurred when exceptionally high
rainfall was experienced.
(3) The withdrawal of water must not: B
(a) Cause stream flow to be reduced by more than five 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 I
lowered more than five feet (5').


S21-10








William D. Courser
August 19, 1982
Page Eleven
CUP No. 200003.
The five-foot drawdown contour of the potentiometric surface
simulated at proposed quantities will lie outside well field
boundaries (See Figure 10). 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 feet (3').
Water table drawdowns were simulated using the Prickett and
Lonnquist ground water flow model at proposed quantities.
During prolonged dry periods, water table drawdowns may exceed
three feet (3') 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.
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), 3(c) 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 Resource Regulation Packet.


S21-11







William D. Courser
August 19, 1982
Page Twelve
CUP No. 200003.

VII. VISUAL DISPLAYS


Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure


Figure 17 -

Figure 18 -

Figure 19 -

Attachment /
Attachment I
Attachment (
Attachment [
Attachment I
Attachment I
Attachment (
Attachment I
Attachment ]


Well Field Map
Distribution System and Water Treatment Facilities
Cosme-Odessa Well Field Pumpage
Section 21 Well Field Pumpage
Generalized Geologic Cross Section
Agricultural Consumptive Use Permits
Industrial, Lake Augmentation and Public Supply CUPs
Domestic Supply Wells
Regional Monitor Wells
Water Table Drawdowns
Potentiometric Surface Drawdowns
Change in Water Table Drawdowns
Change in Potentiometric Surface Drawdowns
Composite Water Table Drawdowns
Composite Potentiometric Surface Drawdowns
Composite Change Map Water Table Actual Vs. Proposed Permitted
Composite Change Map Potentiometric Surface Actual Vs.
Proposed Permitted
Composite Change Map Water Table Permitted Vs. Proposed
Permitted
Composite Change Map Potentiometric Surface Permitted Vs.
Proposed Permitted
Objectors


Water Needs and Sources
St. Pete Water Conservation Program
Existing CUP
CUP list
Summary of Statistical Analyses on Chloride
Summary on Lake Levels
Regulatory Plots
List of Lakes Being Augmented
Summary of Statistical Analyses on Regional


Concentrations


Monitor Wells


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:wp2










S21-12


NNOMMMMEW







SECTION 21
WELL FIELD
Cosumpive Use Permit No. 200003


PERMITTED WELLS


21-4
0

U


Figure 1


Is
Q)


0 Production Well
* Regulatory Well
* Chloride Monitor Well


scale in miles


0


S21-13






Distribution System &
Waste Water Treatment
Facilities


County


Plant


Southwest Wastewater


Figure 2 4


I:'





V4


Cross Ba


Sawlcey


7 Pasco Ca


S21-14

















COSME-ODESSA
Monthly average withdrawal by year


MGD 10.



5o



'30


'40 '50 '60 '70 '80
Year
Period of Record 1931 1981


Figure 3
S21-15


-srl








I











MGD 10
3
















qi











S21 -16
S2 -16





Generalized r
Geologic
Cross Section


dashed grid represents section lines


m!!!


N


General


0 1 2

Section 21


Cosne Odessa


sand

undifferentiated sand & clay

clay

limestone

sandy limestone

chert




Figure 5
S21-17


- I
a"'


-100

-150 feet


17,






Other Consum tive
in the Vicint of the


Agricultural Consumptive Use Permits in the Northwest Hillsborough/South Pasco Vicil


167


158
151 150


ODESSA


175
154
156


084
Si3


121
118119
&J'l


SECTION 21


44

92


Number refe
(Attachm


0 a
wcalei


Figure 6 a
S21-18


130
129


138






117


I



05


I
102
- I

9


n to key
ent C)


2 3 4 I
miles
-------


I

I
nity




177

I


79

77


24 19


28
30 31
34


36
37


A- \






Other Consumptive Use Permits
in the Vicinity of the Well Fields


Consumptive Use Permits in the Northwest Hillsborough/South Pasco Vicinity


2


ODESSA


SOUTH


~~0 -


(Q)


SECTION 21


USE TYPE
Industrial
O Lake Augmentation

Q Public Supply
Number refen to key (Attachment C )
0 1 2 3 4
oae in ues


Figure 6b
S21-19






St. Petersburg Well Fields in Northwest Hillsborough County
CUP No. 200003, 200004 and 203647


DOMESTIC WELLS NEAR THE WELL FIELDS
PERMITTED SINCE 1972


rarus


0


0@


0.e


0o 0o


O::


* / 0:


0
5.?


0 S.
*o SECTION 21
*e 0


* 0


Figure 7
S21-20


I It96
Density of Domestic Wells
represents 1 well
o represents 5 wells
represents 10 wells
* represents 25 wells


0 1 2
scale in miles


* 0*
* 00


cosA


*1

-1

I




I




Ij



I

I


3 4


o .k












Water Level Monitoring for Cosme-Odessa and Section 21


Bexley


No. 2


Lutz-Lake Fern
o


PascooSouth

oPasco 205
Dundee


SECTION 21


E- 100


E -02


Sirotoi


Figure 8
S21-21


Sto TAMPA


0 Water Level Monitor Well


0 1 2 3 4
cale in miles


ODESSA


Branch Anclote.


13.3


Sheldon






SECTION 21
WELL FIELD


Proposed water table drawdowns at the end of 120 days for the following
pumping rates: 30 days at average daily (13 MGD), 60 days at maximum
daily (22 MGD) and another 30 days at average daily with no recharge to t
system.


SOUTH PASCO


-~ vo


F 'i re 9
S21- T


K


-1 ft.-


Drawdown Contour


I1

gE

LI


0 1 2 3 4
scale in miles


I







SECTION 21
WELL FIELD


Proposed potentiometric surface drawdowns at the end of 90 days for the following
pumping rates: 30 days at average daily (13 MGD) and 60 days at maximum
daily (22 MGD) with no recharge to the system


O 0


DO3


- 1 ft. Drawdown Contour


0 1 2 3 4
cale in miles


Figure 10
S21-23






SECTION 21 Change in water table drawdowns between existing permitted with-
W ELL FIELDdrawal rates nd proposed withdrawal rates at the end of 120 days
W ELL FIELD for the following pumping rates:
30 days at average daily (12 MGD permitted; 13 MGD proposed),
60 days at maximum daily (22 MGD permitted and proposed),
and another 30 days at average daily with no recharge to the system.


SOUTH PASCO i


- 1 ft.- Drawdown Contour for Existing
Permitted Withdrawals


-- t...Drawdown Contour for
1 ft Proposed Withdrawals


0 1c 2 3 4
scale in miles


Figure 11
S21-24


I


41
N -'1


j


n .B






SECTION 21
.WELL FIELD


Change in potentiometric surface drawdowns between existing per-
mitted withdrawal rates and proposed withdrawal rates at the end of
90 days for the following pumping rates:
30 days at average daily (12 MGD permitted; 13 MGD proposedA
and 60 days of mraimum daily (22 MGD permitted and proposed)
with no recharge to the system.


3


1 down Contour for Existing
ft- Permitted Withdrawals

--1 ft.- Drawdown Contour for
Proposed Withdrawals


0 1 2 3 4
scale in miles


Figure 12
S21-25








WELL FIELDS in South Pasco & Northwest Hillsborough Counties


Composite drawdown of the water table at the end of 120 days of pumpage
at proposed average annual withdrawal rates with no recharge to the system.


Well Field
Cosme-Odessa
Section 21
South Pasco
NWH


1 ft. Drawdown Contour


0 1 2 3 4
scale in miles


Figure 13
S21-26


w/d rate.
12 MGD
12 MGD
16.9 MGD
8.8 MGD






Hillsborough Counties


Composite drawdown of the potentiometric surface at the end of 120 days
of pumpage at proposed average annual withdrawal rates with no recharge
to the system.


Well Field
Cosme-Odessa
Section 21
South Pasco
NWH


COSME-8D

60-J


ft. Drawdown Contour


0 1 2 3 4
scale in miles


Figure 14
S21-27


w/d rate
12 MGD
12 MOD
16.9 MOD
8.8 MGD


O 0


jl







(1981)


Cosme-Odessa
Section 21
South Pasco
NWHR


Feb. Mar. Apr. May
7.2 8.6 11.7 9.4
7.6 9.7 9.9 7.2
12 11.8 15 15.7
4.1 5.8 8.2 8.4


30 Days 60 Days


12
12
16.9
8.8


22
22
24
18.4


- -1 ft. Drawdown Contour


0 1 2 3 4
cale in miles
S21-28


12
12
16.9
8.8


---1


WI!
I9 I

I3



'It.


I


U'
1'L


Figure 15


k;t~





Composite change in
surface at the end of'
with no recharge


(1981)


Feb. Mar. Apr.


Cosme-Odessa
Section 21
South Pasco
NWHR


7.2
7.6
12
4.1


SOUTH PASCO


- Drawdown Contour


0 1 2 3 4
scale in miles


Figure 16
S21-29


8.6
9.7
11.8
5.8


60 Days


11.7
9.9
15
8.2


12
12
16.9
8.8


22
22
24
18.4







Composite change in water
at the end of 120 days
with no recharge.


30 Days
12
12
16.9
9.2


60 Days
22
22
24
19.9


SOUTH PASCO


--'I- ft. Drawdown Contour


0 1 2 3 4
scale in miles


-Figure
S21-30


30 Days
12
12
16.9
9.2


30 Days
12
12
16.9
8.8


60 Days
22
22
24
18.4


30 Days
12
12


I:,

II







Composite change in potentiomet.. surface
at the end of 90 days with no recharge


Present Permitted (MGD) vs. Proposed Permitted (MGD)


30 Days
12
12
16.9
9.2


60 Days
22
22
24
19.9


30 Days
12
12
16.9
8.8


60 Days
22
22
24
18.4


S SOUTH PASCO H

~15-----


--1 ft. Drawdown Contour

S+ 1 ft. Recovery Contour


0 1 2 3 4
scale in miles


S21-31 Figure 18


Lo


V-










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


ODESSA


SECTION 21


Cloudman


*General Vicinity of Objectors;


0 1 2 3 4
scale in miles


Figure 19
S21-32


v2hurch L






* -.1 -1117


Attachment A 1. Water Needs and Sources


System

St. Pete.

Pinellas County
Water System

West Pasco

Tampa

Hillsborough
County
WCRWSA


Water
Demand
*1990

46
64

76
118

18
30

79
115

33
63


Permitted
Quantities
1981
41
68

38
60

8
15

85
129

22
47


Estimated
System
Capacity
41
48

37
50

3
6

76
86

0
0


1990 Estimated Withdrawals from Existing Major Well Fields


CC CB

15 --
15 --

15 25
15 45
- 5
- 0


S21 CO SP EW

10 10 11 --
15 15 19 -
--- -- 35
55


JBS MB HR NWH SCH

--- -- -- --- ---


1 ---
3 ---

-- 8
- 15


-- -- --- ---
-- -- --- ---

18 61 -- -
25 90 -- -


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


Total
46
64

76
118
13
15
79
115
22
47


1990 System Deficit


Permitted
0
0

0
0

(5)
(15)
0
0

(16)


Capacity

(5i
(161

(39)

(15)
(24)

(3)


--- 60 60 -- -- --- -- -- -- -- --- -- -- -- --- 60
--- 75 75 -- --- -- -- --- --- --- --- 75


AVG 252 254 217
MAX 390 394 265

Total Permitted by Well Field

Total Capacity by Well Field


The major well field systems discussed above are:
Cypress Creek (CC) Cosme-Odessa (CO)
Cross Bar (CB) South Pasco (SP)
Section 21 (S21) Eldridge-Wilde (EW)

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

LHH:wp3
08/09/82


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


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


Total


10 10
15 15

12 12
22 22

12 12
12 12


18 61
25 90

18 67
25 104

18 58
28 58


(35)
(125)









'2. PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY NEEDS(1)


1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1995
Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak

West Pasco County
2.2 ( 4.2) (10.6) (17.1) (23.5) (29.9) (45.6)
St. Petersburg
12.2 5.8 ( 0.6) ( 7.1) (13.5) (19.9) (35.6)
Pinellas County
P* 9.4 2.9 ( 3.5) ( 9.9) (23.6)
Dunedin


C/)
S Tampa (17.7) (20.0) (22.3) (24.5) (26.8) (29.0) (35.8)
Hillsborough County *** 15.3 8.8 4.8 1.0 ( 2.8) ( 6.4) (21.8)



Assumptions: C.U.P. applications/modifications submitted by the WCRWSA are permitted
Cypress Creek 10 mgd increase in maximum quantities
** Starkey 10 mgd increase
*** Tampa By-Pass Canal on-line

Time Table
CUP. Plan Beneficial Use Date
September September April
1982 1985 1988



(1) Source: WCRWSA,
all quantities in MGD
amM _. I.B sing Fe b tit j g L& L g I M'










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
Attachment B


S21-35











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 g
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.
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
and a reduction of 26 percent for the townhouses and apartments. It should
be noted that several other factors must be considered which could
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 Association. .


S21-36









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.


S21-37










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 q
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
from October, 1979 through August, 1980 when reclaimed water was made I
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
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 to a 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.







S21-38








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
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
for irrigation.
F. Continue to watch for possible breakthroughs in desalination technology to
take advantage of any developments that might occur.
G. Develop a strong educational program to acquaint the citizenry with the con-
servation program.


S21-39






FOOTNOTES


1 "Planning and Evaluating Water Conservation Measures", American Public
Works Association Report No. 48, 1981, page 13. 3
2 "Planning and Evaluating Water Conservation Measures", American Public
Works Association Report No. 48, 1981, page 20.





S

N


I


g


I
I

I


S21-40








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.OM $11.2M $12.5M

Wastewater Revenue $ 6.3M $10.7M $12.3M $14.0M


S21-41




ia a am far m m M OM a WA mml Rm imn l mIm NO M


.55


i RVountary-ictions Mandatory Restrictions
50 Restrictions I-
1 (..


SI
245 I/ V9 \



40




3I

.C 'S Lege d: -A- 1981
tO -0- 1980 "
-- 1979

t924 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9
-April I- May I- June- --|July I-August
Weeks 1979, 1980 & 1981
Figure'1 Effects of Water Use Restrictions
.









Table 2


Chronological


Summary of Major
Shortage Events


1981 Water


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


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.


S21-43


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


S21-44


Fiscal
Year


1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981






.I









SOUTHWEST FLORIDA UATER tIAfAGCErEIT DISTRICT
(SAF4UO)
COSUMiPTIVE USE PERIT

PERMIT GRANTED TO: PERMIT nO. 750C003
DATE PEPIT r GRAiEO: -- .. -
City of St. Petersburg DATE PEPWiT APPLICATI01-
P. 0. Box 2842 PFIT.e 197S
P. 0. IBox 284g _______ PERMIT EXPIRFETS Ml 6 e5 31 lI J5a -
~ -- SOURCE B nCSTWOfW: F10erTn 'au lr5
St. Petersburw. Florida USE CLASSIFICATIO: Pub u
LLoAil f1NU and Address)

TERMS AND. CONOITIOM OF THIS PERMIT ARE AS FOLLOWS:
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 statIeMnts 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 sat forth herein, then this Permit shall
S autatically become null and void.
2. This Perait is predicated upon the.assertion by applicant that the
use of water applied for and granted is and continues to be a reason-
able beneficial use as defined in Section 379.019(5), Florida
Statutes, is and continues to be consistent uith the public interest,
and will not interfere with any legal use of water existing on the
date this Permit is granted.
3. In granting this Permit, SFtiHO has, by regulation, reserved from use
by applicant, water in such locations and quantities, for such seasons
of the year, as it determines ray 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, SUIFP(O 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 Permit should be construed to limit the authority of
Southwest Florida Hater 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 Permit authorizes the applicant named above to make a max mum
combined average annual withdrawal of 18.0 million gallons of water
per day with a maximum combined withdrawal rate not to
exceed 2Z.= d during a single day. Uithdrawals.are
authorized as shon in t e table below.
7. WITHORAUAL Po0IT GALLCIS PER DAY GALLONS PER OAT
LATTTUOE LOMGITUOE mAxtir GAV AGE
Production hells
280700 823059,?; 1 4,500000 3300000
280652 823011 .- / 2000000 1500000
280703 02301 f'' 3500C00 3200000
280721 823011. '" 3500000 3200000
280740 823034 -" 3450000 3140000
280740 823020 -'/ 5000000 3660000





Attachment C





S21-45









I









8. The use of said water is restricted to the use classification set forth
above. Any change in the use of said water will require a modification
of this Permit.
9. In the event an emergency water shortage should be declared, the
District my alter, modify or declare to be inactive, all or parts of
this Permit. An authorized Oistrict Representative may. ac any
reasonable time, enter the property to inspect the facilitias and may
require that this Permit be shown.
10. Applicant shall comply with the following conditions, and if Applicant
fails to comply with thee then this Permit shall automatically becmee
mull and void.
A. That the City, its agents and employees, shall not withdrew or cause
to be withdrawn, from the wells in the aforesaid Section 21 Well Field,
SmHillsborough County, Florida, any aEount of water which will cause the
weekly average elevation of the potentionetrlc 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
S"Hllsborough 13" Observation Wall (2807040823030).
(b) Thirty-four (34) feet above mean sea level, as seesured at
"Jackson 26A Observation Well (280753008230S9).
B. In connection with the operation of Section 21 Well Field:
(a) At no time shall the weekly average elevations of the potantfiaetri
surface of the Floridan Aquifer be core than 3 feet bel-w the
elevations set forth in Paragraph 1 above.
(b) Weekly average elevations shall be calculated by adding together- th
high reading for each day and the low reading for each day, than
dividing the. sum thereof by 14; each weekly period shall commence
at 12:01 a:.. on Saturday of each week.
(c) The weekly average elevations shall be determined cuulatively
from november 1, 1973 through Septaeber 30, 1974,.. A new productica
year shall start on October 1, 1974 and each October 1 thereafter.
Cumulative weekly average elevations shall not carry over from one
production year to another.
C. Reports of weekly average elevations for each weekly perf.d shall be
made by City to District by telephone on the following Hor.ay and
confirmed in writing on foras to be provided by Oistrict; such weekly
periods shall commence at 12:01 a.m. on Saturday of each week.
0. That the City construct and install a totalizing flow eter on the
Wel- No. 3A (28060718S23S28).
S. The total maximum withdrawal fro the Section 21 and Cosaz-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 1976, the City can punp an additional ZI
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.


AUTHORIZED SIGCATURE- V ', ..
CO.suIP1PTIV USE S.CTItO:S
WATER RESOURCES OI'11SZIC:
.- .. ."





S21-46 J























Applicant hereby certified that applicant is the owner of the property covered
by this application, that the information contained in this application is truf
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 ao Applicant
SSworn to and subscribed before
e this day of


S IOITAY PU3UC

Hy Comission Expires:


S21-47





CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMITS IN THE WELL FIELD VICINITY
MGD


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


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


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 D. Bostick
Hedrick Properties
Harvesters, Inc.
Fellows Motor Co., Inc.
Wilson and Smolek
Hixon Groves
George Mogyorosy
Spada Fruit Sales Agency, Inc.
Nell C. Milton
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
3.46
1.34
.045
1.68
.803
.980
.022
.014
.580
.018
.010
.033
.116
.007
.091
.018
.019
.048
.083
.998
35.2
.155
19.0
.034
.021
.054
.014
.010
.031
.196
.018
.029
.050
.010
.372
.502
.372
.016
.051
.036
66.536


MAXIMUM
QUANTITIES
12.5
3.00
.326
10.2
14.4
7.95
.429
.432
13.0
.432
.020
.511
.198
.864
.495
.036
.468
.864
1.02
2.29
55.0
1.94
22.0
.450
.468
.660
.468
.468
.540
.480
.256
.600
.330
.110
2.88
2.26
2.88
.810
.071
.180
162.286


m m ms gg mg M i La I--I LM m


Page 1 of 5

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


C+



3




-1. -,-- --I


I.D.#
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
S62
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


--1 --I


--- ---1 -- -7 --I -7 ---1 ---
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
Lawrence A. and Dorothy S. Freeman
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 Walters
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. Milton
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
.008
.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
16.9
18.0
37.162


MAXIMUM
QUANTITIES
.060
.007
.216
.269
.864
.064
1.44
.119
.511
.600
.720
.468
.468
.432
.894
.256
.180
.468
1.65
.255
.360
.468
.066
.396
.468
.255
.468
.084
.432
.511
.576
.360
.351
.468
1.08
.378
.576
1.08
2.88
24.0
22.0
67 198


,--l "---1
Page 2 of 5

NO. OF
WITHDRAWALS*
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
2-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-S
1-G
2-G
1-S
1-G
1-G
5-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-S
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-S
1-G
1-G
1-S
2-G
1-G
1-G
-21-G
10-G


- 1-I ---I


USE
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Public Supply
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Public Supply
Public Supply






CONSUMPTIVE USE


PERMITS IN


I.D. #
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


THE WELL FIELD VICINITY
MGD


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 Morely 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


Page 3 of 5


AVLKAbiL
QUANTITIES
..022
.106
.060
.433
.060
.426
.020
.016
.040
.040
.800
.010
.001
.054
.300
.621
.001
.700
.740
.017
.092
.013
.028
.022
.292
.029
.098
.010
.001
.017
.008
.019
.400
.040
.037
.007
.005
.025
.035
.30
5.675


AX IMUM
QUANTITIES
.090
1.73
.400
1.77
.080
1.73
.030
.240
.600
.060
2.02
.260
.096
.060
.864
2.21
.005
.936
.810
.033
.240
.432
.330
.462
.584
.228
.450
.360
.240
.420
.408
1.44
1.20
.240
.300
.300
.360
.288
.288
.432
23.026


o- i L L m M w
0, I
9~1~ -~ -ii -i ~ -1 er -r ~re B~ejrEz sp


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





CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMITS IN


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


THE WELL FIELD VICINITY
MGD


CUP NO.
200139
202674
200498
203533
200583
201495
201648
200488
200506
200631
200195
205121
203013
200590
202017
202681
202478
201784
202844
206223
200257
206407
200258
202701
203319
202702
205241
202361
206648
200025
203389
202015
200264
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.
Groveland Developments, 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
Water and Sewer District A
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


Page 4 of 5


AVERAGE
QUANTITIES
.019
.022
.064
.014
.045
.006
.028
.085
.019
.019
.133
.173
.043
.262
.308
.011
.116
S.012
.030
.077
.042
.012
.022
.024
.047
.008
.004
.027
.086
.112
.700
.196
.736
.051
.018
.134
.023
.094
.040
.036
.051
T.4 W


MAXIMUM
QUANTITIES
.288
.360
.720
.180
.432
.173
.429
.600
.576
.576
.143
.826
.180
.394
1.15
.270
.360
.594
.351
2.16
.432
.432
.432
.384
.960
.067
.063
.195
.925
.267
1.15
1.44
1.47
1.18
.256
1.32
.405
1.44
1.60
.576
1.73
27 .486


--


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
2-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
2-G
1-G
2-G
2-G
3-S
2-S
2-G
1-G
2-G
1-G
1-G
2-S


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


--I -I I --I ---I -- ---1 -1 -- -- I --I --I --I -- -






CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMITS IN


I.D. #
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182


Total


THE WELL FIELD VICINITY
MGD


CUP NO.
202992
202954
205804
203468
202991
201611
201788
203253
203255
202985
202480
202392
200265
205916
203974
200354
201898
203419
205327


120.921


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
Theron C. and Nancy L. and Ellen C. Griggs
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 Byrd Improvement Assoc.
Sub Total


Page 5 of 5


AVERAGE
QUANTITIES
.037
.080
.011
2.43
.045
.006
.012
.040
.020
.058
.326
.027
3.15
.030
.054
.164
.039
.050
.020
6.599


314.270


* G Groundwater
S Surfacewater


USE TYPE

Public Supply
Agricultural
Industrial
Lake Augmentation

Total


PERMITTED
AVERAGE

99.791
17.429
1.584
1.116

120.921


QUANITTIES (MGD
MAXIMUM

153.521
153.167
2.062
5.520

314,270


bmM ~L3~ US


_A ff uI


MAXIMUM
QUANTITIES
.864
.960
.084
11.5
.865
.480
.487
.360
.900
.360
6.60
.480
6.30
.144
1.55
1.00
.720
.120
.500
34.274


NO. OF
WITHDRAWALS*
2-G, 1-S
1-S
1-G
5-6
2-G, 2-S
1-S
1-G
1-G
3-G
1-G
3-G
1-S
7-G
1-G
3-G
1-G
1-G
1-G
1-G


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






May 21, 1982
Revised: June 23, 1982

MEMORANDUM

TO: David A. Wiley, Hydrologist, Resource Regulation Department
John W. Heuer, Hydrologist, Resource Regulation Department
Robert R. Gordon, Hydrologist, Resource Regulation Department 4

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 five regional
monitor wells, TR12-1, E100, E101, E102, E21-7, 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 time as the indepen-
dent 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 incon-
sistent with the body of the data, i.e. sampling at different depths by use of
probes. The results are summarized below.

Number Correlation
Well Regression of Data Coefficient Period

TR12-1 Cl = 898 .1 x M N = 44 R = -.064 9/77-3/82
TR13/E101 Cl = 11638 + .4 X M N = 64 R = .055 6/73-4/82
E102 Cl = 65.3 .9 x M N = 40 R = -.42* 1/77-4/82
E100 Cl = 2406 .7 x M N = 48 R = -.044 4/76-4/82
E21-7 C1 = 24.4 + .1 x M N = 44 R = .120 11/73-4/82
E105 C1 = 8806 .3 x M N = 33 R = .50* 4/76-4/82

Where: C1 = Chloride concentration in mg/1
M = Time in months
N = Number of data points
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 of less than 1 mg/l per
month. All the rest were not statistically significant 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 stablized or improved for these wells.

RGP:eab
Attachment E


S21-53










August 2, 1982



MEMORANDUM

TO: D. A. Wiley, Hydrologist, Resource Regulation Department


FROM:


M. Lopez, Biologist, Resource Regulation Department

Impacts of Lake Levels in Section 21 Well Field


The following is an investigation of hydrologic conditions in the vicinity
of Section 21 Well Field, a review and analysis of the available information
of lake stages, rainfall amounts, and well field pumpage rates.. This inves-
tigation was made in order to describe and determine historical trends in
lake stages. Additionally, the analyses were used to determine the relation-
ship between lake stages, rainfall events, and pumpage rates.

ML:kk
Attachments as stated


Attachment F


S21-54


'.









SECTION 21 WELL FIELD: LAKE LEVELS INVESTIGATION


PURPOSE

As part of an investigation of hydrologic conditions in the vicinity of Section
21 Well Field (Figure 1), a review and analysis of the available information on
lake stages, rainfall amounts, and well field pumpage rates were made in order
to describe and determine historical trends in lake stages. Additionally, the
analyses were used to determine the relationship between lake stages, rainfall
events, and pumpage rates.

INTRODUCTION

Pumpage History: As part of the St. Petersburg water system, operation of the
Section 21 Well Field began in February 1963. The initial production schedule
for 1963, achieved an average annual pumpage rate of 5.4 million gallons per
day (mgd). From 1964 to 1973 continued municipal demand for water, resulted
in substantial increases in production. The average annual pumpage rate
ranged from 12.5 mgd in 1964, to a high of 18 mgd in 1969. For the years
1970-1973, there was a slight decrease in pumpage, but yearly averages remained
within a range of 13-17 mgd. (Figure 2-b)

Following the peak production years of 1964-1973, the 1974 production schedule
reflected a marked reduction, down to an average annual pumpage rate of 8.9
mgd. An average annual rate of 8-9 mgd has been maintained from 1974 to the
present. This reduction in pumpage from the Section 21 Well Field is coincident
with the development and operation of other well fields within the St. Petersburg
water system (e.g., St. Pete/Pasco Well Field, Cypress Creek Well Field).

Although pumpage from Section 21 Well Field has decreased, withdrawals within
the region have continued to increase. The operation of other major well fields
such as Cosme-Odessa, St. Pete/Pasco, and Eldridge-Wilde has resulted in a con-
tinual rise in municipal withdrawals to a level nearly 20 times the initial
1931 withdrawals (See Figure 2-e). During the years 1963 to the present, which
coincide with the period of operation of Section 21 Well Field, the overall
regional pumpage has nearly doubled (Figure 2-e). Discussion of regional
pumpage trends is appropriate in order to point out that lake levels in the
vicinity of Section 21 Well Field may be affected by more than one well field,
and by the overall regional municipal pumpage.

Agricultural as well as other consumptive uses also may affect local lake
levels. Development, road construction and other activities that may have
altered drainage patterns also would have an impact on lake stages. Therefore,
it should be kept in mind that, although this report is limited to lake level
impacts related to the operation of Section 21 Well Field, the lakes investigated
are subject to the effects of other large-scale ground water withdrawals in the
area.

Data Base: The simulated one-foot potentiometric drawdown area for Section 21
Well Field extends over an area with a three-mile radius from the center of
the well field. Within this area there are approximately 38 named lakes,


S21-55









18 of which were selected for this evaluation (Table 1). These were selected
for review and study on the basis of (1) available information and (2) existence
of adopted management levels for the lakes (presented in Table 2).

Lakes within the study area (Figure 1) which had the longest, most reliable,
and complete records were selected. Lake stage information was obtained pri-
marily from the records of the United States Geological Survey. Additional
and supplemental information was obtained from the City of St. Petersburg
and SWFWMD. The criterion that the lakes have adopted management levels was
used, because adopted levels represent a previous evaluation of the lakes'
cyclic fluctuations supported by biological and physical evidence, all as part
of the District's Lake Level Regulation Project.

Pumpage records were obtained from reports submitted to SWFWMD by the City as
required by Consumptive Use Permit No. 200003. All of this information was
compiled on a monthly basis and subjected to statistical analyses. Statistical
models were developed to describe the interrelationships of lake stages with
rainfall and groundwater pumpage.

The 18 lakes selected for this evaluation are Lake Allen, Lake Harvey, Starvation
Lake, and Turkey Ford Lake in the Rocky Creek Watershed; Bay Lake, Brant Lake,
Chapman Lake, Lake Charles, Lake Crenshaw, S. Crystal Lake, Lake Ellen, Lake
Hobbs, Lake Magdalene, Platt Lake, Round Lake, Saddleback Lake; Lake Thomas
in the Sweetwater Creek Watershed; and finally Lake Stemper in the Cypress
Creek Watershed. Round Lake does not have adopted management levels, but was
included because of its proximity to the well field.
Among the lakes selected, Lake Hobbs, Bay Lake, Lake Stemper, and Lake Magdalene
have the longest continuous period of record, dating back to 1946 and 1947. Other
lakes, such as Platt Lake and Lake Ellen, have a good record for the late 1940s
and into the 1950s, but have a gap in the record through the 1960s. The majority
of the lakes studied share a common period of record which begins in 1970 or
1971, depending on the lake. Nonetheless, most lakes have at least 9 years of
record. Hydrographs for each of the lakes studied, appear in Figures 3 through
20. Presented in Table 3 are (1) the corresponding minimum and maximum values,
and (2) the range of the mean annual stage for each lake, given the period of
record available.

Methods: This evaluation was conducted in two parts. First, review and
analysis of available lake stage data including hydrographs, were performed
to ascertain historical trends in lake levels. The narrative portion of
this evaluation follows.

Second, in an attempt identify and describe the relationship among lake
stages, rainfall and well field pumpage the available data were evaluated
statistically using stepwise regression analysis. Detailed methodology
as well as results and impacts projections appear within the Factors
Influencing Lake Levels section of this report.
For the purpose of this discussion, the lakes were divided into four categories:
Category #1 Lakes having no control structures or augmentation
facilities which are routinely used.
Category #2 Lakes having augmentation facilities only.
Category #3 Lakes having control structures only.



S21-56









Category #4 Lakes having both augmentation facilities and
control structures.
Lakes included in each category are presented in Table 1. Each category is
discussed separately below.

LAKE STAGE HISTORY

Category #1 Includes Lake Allen, Brant Lake, Lake Ellen, Lake Harvey, Lake
Hobbs, Lake Thomas, and Turkey Ford Lake; all of which are unaffected by augmenta-
tion and/or control structures. These lakes have all exhibited similar trends
in stage fluctuations, however, differing slightly in magnitude and duration.
Hydrographs for each of these lakes appear in Figures 3 through 9.

Lake Hobbs with its nearly 35 years of record provides a long-term look at past
patterns of lake stages for many years prior to well field operations in the
area. This record (Figure 7) also serves as an indicator of antecedent condi-
tions for the other lakes with much shorter periods of record. A brief description
of pre-1970 stage conditions for Lake Hobbs is given below.

From 1947 to 1961, Lake Hobbs experienced lake stages well above the adopted
low management level of 63.25 ft. msl, with only two brief periods of relatively
low lake stages, 1949 and 1955 through early 1957. During the remainder of the
time, levels fluctuated nearly three feet above the adopted low management level.
A decline in lake stages in 1961-1962 marked the first time (in the period of
record) that stages at Lake Hobbs were below the low management level. Recovery
of lake stages was observed in 1963-1966, but stages remained relatively lower
than those observed in the 1940s and 1950s. Low lake stages were also recorded
in 1967 through mid-1969.

The most prolonged and drastic decline in lake stages began in 1971 and continued
through 1974, when stages for Lake Hobbs were more than three feet below the
seasonal low (low management level). These low levels continued with a very
gradual recovery that did not bring levels back up to the seasonal low until
1978. The rainfall events of 1979 resulted in high stages for Lake Hobbs as well
as for other lakes in the region. However, by 1980 lake stages began to decline
again and continued their decline through 1981, with levels near or below the
low management stage throughout most of the year.

During their common period of record, (1971 Present) the lakes in Category
#1 all exhibited the same pattern of lake stage fluctuations. Generally,
the record begins in late 1971 (post-rainy season) with most lakes in this
category at levels above their adopted low management level. However, Brant
Lake although reflecting a seasonal peak following the rainy season remained
.5 feet below its estimated seasonal low stage of 56.50 ft. msl (Figure 4).
Furthermore, the record shows that stages for Brant Lake fluctuated below the
adopted low management level until early 1979.
As a unit, Category #1 lakes experienced declining lake stages in 1972 through
1973. Lake Thomas, Brant Lake, and Lake Hobbs were below their respective low
management levels nearly 100% of the time. Frequency analysis of lake stages
is presented in Figure 21. The years 1974-1976 reflect typical seasonal fluctu-
ations with no major trends. Some recovery in lake stage elevations was recorded,
but antecedent conditions kept some lakes below their low management levels,


S21-57









examples include Brant Lake and Lake Hobbs. All the lakes in Category #1 had
reductions in stage elevations throughout 1977, followed by an increasing trend
in 1978. This trend continued and culminated in peak stage elevations in 1979
associated with abnormally high rainfall in the spring and summer of that year. I
The high stages observed in 1979 began to decline in 1980, but all lakes
fluctuated above their low management levels. However, the decline in lake
stages continued in 1981 with stages fluctuating very close to the low
management level over 50% of the time (Figure 21).

Category #2 Includes Lake Charles, Lake Crenshaw, S. Crystal Lake, Round Lake,
and Starvation Lake. The pattern of stage fluctuations described for Category
#1 lakes is duplicated in most cases, however, the effects of augmentation
have masked and/or reduced the magnitude of the fluctuations (Figures 10 through
14). The most dramatic stage pattern is displayed by Starvation Lake, located
within the Section 21 Well Field. From 1965 to 1972 a dramatic decline in lake
stage elevations was recorded, with 1971 levels dropping to nearly ten feet below
the adopted low management level which represents the seasonal low (Figure 14).
The pattern of fluctuation paralleled the regional trends, but the antecedent low
stages maintained the lake at levels two to four feet below the low management
level from 1974-1981.

Lake Crenshaw and S. Crystal Lake followed fluctuation patterns typical of
the region. Low stages were observed in 1972-1973 and 1977. High stages
were recorded for 1978 and 1979, with a return to stage declines in 1980-1981
(Figures 11 and 12). In 1977 these lakes were below their adopted low management
level nearly 95-100% of the time (Figure 21).
Lake Charles and Round Lake displayed stage patterns typical of augmented lakes.
Levels were somewhat stabilized with a reduction in the range and magnitude of
fluctuations (Figures 10 and 13).

Category #3 Includes Bay Lake, Platt Lake, and Lake Stemper. These lakes have
experienced stage declines during 1972-1973 as well as stage peaks (recovery)
in 1974 and 1979, in very much the same pattern described for Category #1 lakes.
Typical of lakes in this region, their most recent period of high lake stages
corresponds with the rainfall events of 1979, followed by a decline in lakes'
stages beginning in 1980 and extending through 1981 (Figures 15-17).
Within the past ten years (1971-1981), these lakes have been at levels near or
below their adopted low management for over 50% of the time. In some years,
levels were below the low management level 100% of the time (Figure 21).
Category #4 Includes Chapman Lake, Lake Magdalene, and Saddleback Lake. The stage
records of these lakes show the stabilizing effect on stage elevations induced
by both control structures and augmentation (Figures 18 through 20). For example, a
stage and hydrograph information for Saddleback Lake (Figure 20) indicate the
appropriate seasonal and annual peaks, but there has been a marked reduction in I
the magnitude and range of these fluctuations. Little difference in stage eleva- I
tions exists between high and low stages. Additionally, lake stages have been
maintained above the adopted low management level for the entire period of record
1972 through 1981 (Figure 21).





S21-58









Lake Magdalene differs somewhat in that for the earlier portions of its period
of record stages exhibit the typical pattern of fluctuation seen in Category #1
lakes (Figure 19). However, beginning in 1978 and continuing through 1981, the
seasonal and annual flucations reflect a reduction in magnitude and range. Stages
do however follow the regional trends in a less dramatic pattern. Patterns of
stage elevations for Chapman Lake exhibit a similar trend, with stabilization
occurring as early as 1974 (Figure 18).

FACTORS INFLUENCING LAKE LEVELS

The previous discussion described the recent and historical trends in lake
levels in northwest Hillsborough County, given the available period of record.
The following section of this report will identify and assess the relative
importance of those factors which have affected lake levels.

STATISTICAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND RELIABILITY

In order to ascertain which factors influence lake levels, available
stage information (primarily from the USGS) for each lake were evaluated
statistically using stepwise regression analysis. Additionally, rainfall
and pumpage information were incorporated into the analysis to examine the
relationships among lake stage elevations,.rainfall, and well field pumpage.
Using the stepwise regression method, a computer-derived equation was generated
for each lake in the study indicating (1) which hydrologic paramters affect
lake levels and (2) the relative importance and/or contribution of each parameter
(Table 4). The equations presented in Table 4 can be viewed as statistical
models describing the interrelationships among hydrologic factors and their
corresponding effect on lake levels. The model equations, in general, have
a high degree of reliability (see "RME" column in Table 4), and therefore,
the relationships illustrated by the models are believed valid. Figure 22
supports the validity of the models, by illustrating the closeness of fit
between actual and predicted lake stages using the model for Turkey Ford
Lake as an example.

Overall, the model equations are most useful in predicting changes in stages
based on proposed changes in pumpage and in showing the relative contribution
or importance of the various hydrologic factors affecting lake levels. However,
the predicting capabilities of the models are at best short-term (one month
to two years) simply because the models require data from one month to
predict the sgage for the following month, and as predictions go further
into the future, the greater the probability of error.

Effects on Lake Levels: Based on a general understanding of lake systems
in west-central Florida and their relationship to the hydrologic cycle,
and as a result of preliminary data analysis, the following factors were
determined to have significant effects upon the average.monthly stage of
lakes: previous average monthly stage, monthly rainfall, previous monthly
rainfall, monthly pumpage at Section 21 Well Field, and time.
All of the factors do not have a significant effect on specific lakes.
Additionally, some factors are more important than others, and their
level of importance to lake levels can intensify with seasonal conditions.


S21-59









In order to demonstrate what information is derived from the models, a
detailed example explaining how the models describe the relationships among
the hydrologic factors studies and how the models are used to predict pumpage 1
impacts follows. I
Turkey Ford Lake, unaffected by augmentation and/or control structures (Cate- 1
gory #1, Table 1) will be used in the example. As per the model equation I
(Table 4), the relationships among the average monthly stage and other
hydrologic parameters are:
X = (19.75) + (.61 Lag X) + (.056 R) + (.071 Lag R) (.019 Q)
where,
X = average monthly stage (ft msl)
Lag X = previous month's average stage (ft msl)
R = monthly rainfall at Cosme Station (inches)
Lag R = previous month's rainfall at Cosme Station
Q = monthly pumpage (mgd) at Section 21 Well Field
*Note: Values for the respective parameters (e.g., Lag X, R, etc) I
must be multiplied by their appropriate numerical coefficients
for use in the equation.
The model equation suggests that the average monthly stage (X) for Turkey
Ford Lake on a given month can be predicted/determined by adding the
previous month's stage (Lag X) and the rainfall for the previous "(Lag R)
and the current month (R), then subtracting the pumpage at the well field;
all values adjusted by multiplication with their corresponding coefficient.
Simply, the model means that (1) rainfall and antecedent lake level conditions
are very important in determining future lake levels, (2) that pumpage has a
negative effect (causes a decline) on the average monthly stage.
Because both rainfall and pumpage appear to be the factors of major concern,
it is important to examine the relative contribution of each to average monthly
stages. For this purpose, we will continue to use Turkey Ford Lake in the
example presented. Actual data for May 1981 will be used in the calculations.
Employing the model equation described previously, rainfall (R and Lag R)
would have been expected to produce a .06 foot rise in average monthly stage.
Pumpage (Q), on the other hand, would have been expected to result in a stage
decline of .14 feet, cancelling rainfall's contribution to lake level
conditions. Actually, a net decline of 0.08 feet in the average monthly stage
could have been expected. Again from the model equation, it should be remembered
that the previous month's lake level is an important contributing factor in the I
current lake level. Consequently, a decline in levels in May will persist into
June unless high rainfall occurs in June to offset the previous month's deficit
and the reverse declining trend in lake levels.

The May 1981 example just presented was characteristic of a period of very low
rainfall. In a dry versus wet season dichotomy, a comparison with a condition
of high rainfall and similar pumpage is also presented. Again Turkey Ford Lake
will serve as the example, this time using data from August 1981. At that time,

I


S21-60


I








it is calculated that rainfall (R and Lag R) would have been expected to produce
a rise of 1.2 feet in average monthly stage, while pumpage would have been
expected to produce a decline of .14 feet. The result is an overall rise
in lake stage of 1.06 feet. To illustrate the isolated contribution of the
previous month's rainfall (Lag R), the rainfall received in July of 1981 would
have been expected to contribute .50 feet of the overall rainfall .contribution.

The above discussion illustates that the direct influence of pumpage on lake
levels is subject to the seasonal variations of rainfall and the subsequent
well field activity, and it is evident that well field pumpage can at certain
times, be the more significant contributor to lake level conditions. Because
thirteen out of the past twenty years (1961-81) have ended in rainfall deficits,
it can be concluded that pumpage has been a more important influence on lake
stages (and perhaps more easily manifested) than would have been expected
under normal rainfall conditions.

Category #1 Statistical models (Table 4) developed for the five lakes in
this group, describe the relationships of lake stage elevations to several
hydrologic parameters with a reliability ranging from 96% (model for Brant
Lake) to 75% (Lake Ellen). The remaining five lakes (Lake Allen, Lake Harvey,
Lake Hobbs, Lake Thomas, and Turkey Ford Lake) had models reliable at the 84,
84, 92, 88, and 74 percent levels, respectively (See Table 4). Therefore, the
relationships illustrated by the models are believed to be valid.

The models indicate that the major factors influencing lake levels on these
lakes are: current rainfall amounts, previous month's rainfall, and previous
month's lake level. Only Turkey Ford Lake had pumpage enter into its model
equation as a contributing factor to lake levels. Lake Thomas was the only
lake in this category whose equation suggests time was a positive factor for
lake levels.

Category #2 Within this group of augmented lakes, three appeared to be
affected by pumpage. Lake Crenshaw, South Crystal Lake, and Starvation Lake,
all had pumpage appear as a negative factor in their respective model equations
(Table 4). The models for these lakes are reliable at the 92, 93 and 96 percent
levels, respectively (Table 4). The remaining two lakes, Lake Charles, and
Round Lake did not have pumpage enter their model equations. Their models
are reliable only at the 60 percent level for Lake Charles, and 56 percent
for Round Lake, indicating that factors not in the equation are important to
lake levels. It is likely that augmentation activities at these lakes may
be among the dominant factors contributing to lake level conditions.

Category #3 The statistical models for all three lakes in this group (Table 4)
did not include pumpage as a contributing factor for monthly lake stage
elevations. Among the three, the Bay Lake model had the highest reliability -
94%, followed by models for Lake Stemper and Platt Lake, with an 88% and a
78% respectively. Therefore, the models suggest that rainfall is the primary
influence on lake levels for this group, however, the operation of control
structures on these lakes may have offset the effects of pumpage, by enhancing
water retention.

Category #4 Only one of the lakes (Chapman Lake) in this group appeared to be
influenced by pumpage. Pumpage did not appear on the model equations describing
lake levels for the remaining lakes (Table 4). The reliability of the Chapman


S21-61








Lake model was at the 93% level, indicating that those factors in the equation I
are the primary contributors to lake level. For Chapman Lake, it is of importance
to note that although it is an augmented lake with control structures, pumpage
exerted a negative influence on lake levels.

Lake Magdalene and Saddleback Lake appeared to be primarily responsive to
the influence of rainfall. Their respective model equations were reliable I
at the 95% and 81% level.

Projected Impacts on Lake Stages Based on Proposed Changes in Pumpage: The
preceding example represented conditions typical of the present scheme of
pumpage directed at achieving an average annual rate of 9 mgd. Such a production
scheme of 9 mgd per year has been generally the documented consumptive use of
water by the City of St. Petersburg from the Section 21 Well Field since 1974
to the present.

The current permit (CUP No. 200003) allows an average pumpage rate of 18 mgd
on a yearly basis. The new requested quantities (by the applicant) indicate
a reduction in the average annual rate--down to 13 mgd. However, it is
expected that an increase in the actual pumpage will take place, with the
present withdrawal rate of 9 mgd (average annual) increasing to the newly
requested 13 mgd. A permit granting the requested 13 mgd average annual
would represent an increase of 4 mgd (average) over the current actual pumpage.

The impacts on lake levels of the increase in actual quantities can be
assessed in comparison with impacts associated with the current pumpage
scheme. Following the previous examples, the model equation for Turkey
Ford Lake will be used. Assuming a dry versus wet season dichotomy, the
first case to be considered is a hypothetical dry season condition. For
purpose of these comparisons a set of hypothetical conditions is provided
in Table 5, indicating pumpage, lake stages, and rainfall. Also in Table 5
are the predicted results of the various comparisons.

Under dry conditions as indicated in Table 5, Turkey Ford Lake would experience
a reduction of .17 feet in the rise of the lake, based on the present actual
pumpage of 9 mgd (annual average) and .34 feet under the 18 mgd pumpage rate
currently permitted (average annual permitted). Under the 18 mgd pumpage
rate, the level of the lake would actually be reduced to a level below that |
of the previous month. The requested increase of actual pumpage to 13 mgd
would be expected to reduce the rise in the lake by an additional .08 feet
over the current 9 mgd, for a total decrease in vertical rise of approximately
0.25 feet (Table 5).

Under wet conditions (Table 5), the effect of increased pumpage again is
characterized by a decrease in the amount of vertical rise expected in the j
lake level. Under wet conditions and a pumpage rate of 9 mgd, the lake
level would be expected to rise 0.89 feet, while under a pumpage rate of
13 mgd, that rise would be 0.81 feet, nearly one-tenth of a foot less than
under the 9 mgd pumping scheme (Table 5). The results of similar analyses
on other lakes are in Table 6.

The above comparisons were based on monthly average pumpage indicated by I
the permitted average annual rate of Pumpage. Both the existing and the
propsoed permits have provisions to allow a maximum pumping rate of 22 mgd




S21-62








for a limited time. Such a withdrawal can be anticipated during extreme
demand periods generally associated with extreme day conditions and/or other
circumstances. The impact of this withdrawal can be predicted. Assuming
that the 22 mgd rate were maintained for four weeks during the dry season,
a decline of 0.41 feet would be expected by the end of the four weeks
assuming the conditions presented in Table 5. This decline would negate any
contribution made by rainfall, and in fact lowers the lake level 0.12 feet
below the level of the previous month.

SIGNIFICANCE OF LOW LAKE LEVELS

The significance of depressed lake stages is based on the physical and biological
changes which occur in a lake basin in response to low levels. Primary concern
is the loss of water from a lake as a result of low levels. This loss can
represent a substantial volume of water in a lake. For example, if an 80-acre
lake declines 1.0' below normal, it is estimated that approximately 25 million
gallons of water is lost from the lake. Even a small decline, i.e., 0.1', can
result in the loss of a considerable quantity of water or about 2.5 million
gallons.

Another concern is the effect on the shoreline and emergent zone habitats as
a result of additional beach exposure due to lowered lake levels. On a lake
having shallow slope (as do most Florida lakes), it is estimated that a decline
of 0.1' beyond usual stage fluctuations results in the exposure of an additional
1.0'-3.0' (horizontal) of beach. If emergent vegetation is left stranded by
this decline, an important component of the lake habitat becomes unavailable
for wildlife utilization. Further, if lake declines occur rapidly, the plants.
of the emergent zone not having the time to respond, will be destroyed and
their habitat value diminished.

Excessive shoreline and emergent zone desiccation have consequences for the
fishery of a lake as well. The ausence of an emergent zone can decrease the
survival of young fish because of a lack of cover and a reduction of surface
area for the attachment of desirable food organisms. Also, excessive exposure
reduces the area of the lake shallows available for fish bedding. Should lake
stages drop below the shallow-sloping zone of the lake basin during the breeding
season, successful fish bedding could be completely eliminated for that year.
Vegetation lost can influence the lakes nutrient assimilation ability.

Low stages can influence the water quality of a lake, particularly with respect
to dissolved oxygen concentrations and temperature. Water depth reduction in
a lake can promote temperature increases associated with direct insulation.
Lake water, at higher-than-normal temperatures, can undergo conditions of
oxygen depletion. Low dissolved oxygen concentrations can produce undesirable
effects on fish and other wildlife ranging from physiological stress and death.

The above discussion refers to prolonged low lake stages not to normal stage
fluctuations associated with seasonal weather patterns.

CONCLUSIONS:

Lake levels were demonstrated to be influenced by several hydrologic parameters
(rainfall, pumpage, and antecedent lake stage conditions) all of which are


S21-63





q


closely interrelated and must therefore be considered together when evaluating
impacts upon lake levels. The complex interaction of factors affecting lake
levels is such that one cannot assign the total decline observed on lakes in
the vicinity of the Section 21 Well Field to any one single factor. The various
factors take on different levels of importance or better yet, contribution to
the condition of lake levels under certain conditions. In the wet season, the
effects of groundwater pumpage are not manifested upon lake stages. However, under
other situations (i.e., dry season) pumpage would cause conditions leading to
lake stages below what is expected in the absence of pumping. It is under
these situations, that pumpage can induce prolonged periods of depressed I
lake levels, to the point where lake levels would have dropped below the
Board-adopted minimum lake level.
The typical scenario for this situation begins early in the dry season when some j
lakes are already approaching or have already reached their low management level.
These lakes are near their seasonal low. Now superimpose on this system the
declines associated with pumpage, and you have a lake below its seasonal low
level earlier in the dry season. As the dry season progresses there is little
input in the way of rainfall, and with continued evapotranspiration losses and
with continued pumpage the lakes decline further. Thus recovery to normal
levels is unlikely as the abnormal deficit, will require significantly high
rainfall amounts to offset the low level conditions.













S21-64
I

I

I








I





S21-64









TABLE 1. Lakes included in the analysis of impacts of Section 21 Well Field.


Category #1 Lakes having no control structures or augmentation facilities
which are routinely used. (Total: 7 Lakes)


Lake Allen
Brant Lake
Lake Ellen
Lake Harvey


Lake Hobbs
Lake Thomas
Turkey Ford Lake


Category #2 Lakes having augmentation facilities only.


Lake Charles
Lake Crenshaw
S. Crystal Lake


(Total: 5 Lakes)


Round Lake
Starvation Lake


Category #3 Lakes having control structures only.


Bay Lake
Lake Stemper

Category #4 Lakes having
(Total: 3 Lakes)

Chapman Lake
Lake Magdalene


(Total: 3 Lakes)


Platt Lake

both augmentation facilities and control structures.

Saddleback Lake


S21-65









TABLE 2. Adopted low management levels*for selected lakes in the vicinity
of Section 21 Well Field.
Low Management
Lake Level (ft/msl)
Lake Allen 59.75'

Bay Lake 44.00'

Brant Lake 56.50'

Chapman Lake 49.50'

Lake Charles 52.00'
Lake Crenshaw 54.50'

S. Crystal Lake 59.00'

Lake Ellen 39.00'

Lake Harvey 60.25'

Lake Hobbs 63.25'

Lake Magdalene 47.50'

Platt Lake 47.75'

Round Lake N/A(1)

Saddleback Lake 53.00'
Starvation Lake 50.00'

Lake Stemper 59.50'

Lake Thomas 61.25'

Turkey Ford Lake 51.50'


*The adopted level reflects a minimum desirable level to which a lake should
drop yearly. For lakes unaffected by control structures and/or augmentation
the low management level generally reflects a seasonal low; it does not reflect
the low levels generally experienced during drought conditions. For lakes with
control structures and/or augmentation facilities, the adopted low management
level reflects the normal yearly low level used as a guide to operate a lake
control structure.

(1) Management levels have not been adopted.


S21-66








TABLE 3. Mimimum and maximum values of mean annual stage
(feet msl) for lakes in the vicinity of Section
21 Well Field.*


CATEGORY #1


Lake Allen
Brant Lake
Lake Ellen
Lake Harvey
Lake Hobbs
Lake Thomas
Turkey Ford Lake


MIN.

59.44'
52.32'
38.94'
59.28'
58.85'
60.19'
50.78'


MAX.

61.59'
57.87'
40.38'
61.58'
66.93'
62.83'
52.42'


Category #2


Lake Charles
Lake Crenshaw
S. Crystal Lake
Round Lake
Starvation Lake


51.79'
49.18'
55.93'
53.30'
42.48'


53.43'
55.48'
60.50'
54.03'
53.46'


Category #3


Bay Lake
Lake Stemper
Platt Lake


42.70'
43.87'
57.48'


Category #4

Chapman Lake
Lake Magdalene
Saddleback Lake


47.18'
43.26'
52.90'


45.29'
49.57'
61.39'


50.78'
49.61'
54.98'


*Category # 1-
Category # 2-
Category # 3-
Category # 4-


Lakes
Lakes
Lakes
Lakes


having
having
having
having


no control structures or augmentation facilities
augmentation facilities only
control structures only
both augmentation facilities and control structures


S21-67


RANGE

2.15'
2.50'
1.44'
2.30'
8.08'
2.64'
1.64'


1.64'
6.30'
4.57'
0.73'
10.98'


2.59'
5.70'
3.90'


3.59'
6.34'
2.08'









Table 4. Equations for the Model Describing the Relationship Among Lake Stage
and Pumpage and Rainfall.


Category #1 (Without control structures and augmentation facilities)


Lake Allen.
Brant Lake
Lake Ellen
Lake Harvey
Lake Hobbs
Lake Thomas
Turkey Ford Lake


9.38 + .84 Lag X + .045 R + .070 Lag R
0.57 + .98 Lag X + .044 R + .056 Lag R
8.96 + .76 Lag X + .062 R + .045 Lag R
7.81 + .86 Lag X + .040 R + .067 Lag R
1.96 + .96 Lag X + .064 R + .043 Lag R
7.97 + .85 Lag X + .038 R + .071 Lag R + .002 T
19.75 + .61 Lag X + .056 R + .071 Lag R .019 Q


96
72
84
92
88
74


P
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
.034
.034


Category #2 (With augmentation facilities)


Lake Charles
Lake Crenshaw
S. Crystal Lake
Round Lake
Starvation Lake


17.31 + .66 Lag X + .061 R + .030 Lag R
4.60 +-.91 Lag X + .030 R + .138 Lag R .040 Q
5.62 + .90 Lag X + .047 R + .032 Lag R .030 Q
27.05 + .49 Lag X + .038 R + .027 Lag R
1.92 + .95 Lag X + .030 R + .109 Lag R .027 Q


Category #3 (With control structures)


Bay Lake
Platt Lake
Lake Stemper


X = 7.84 + .81 Lag X + .052 R + .039 Lag R
X = 2.31 + .94 Lag X + .045 R + .099 Lag R
X = .154 + .99 Lag X + .049 R + .051 Lag R


Category #4 (With both control structures and augmentation facilities)


Chapman Lake
Lake Magdalene
Saddleback Lake


X = 5.55 + .89 Lag X + .041 R + .024 Lag R .031 Q
X = .589 + .98 Lag X + .048 R + .076 Lag R
X = 5.49 + .89 Lag X + .043 R + .033 Lag R


Legend: X =
Lag
R =
Lag
Q
T =
BME
P /A
N/A


Average Monthly Stage
X = Previous Month's Average Stage
Monthly Rainfall at Cosme Station
R = Previous Month's Rainfall at Cosme Station
Monthly Pumpage at-Section 21 Wellfield
Time
=~Reliability" of the model equation
Probability (only applied if pumpage (Q) entered the equation)
= Not Applicable


S21-68


N/A
.020
.079
N/A
.023


N/A
N/A
N/A


.001
N/A
N/A


I










TABLE 5. Hypothetical monthly data used for comparing the effects of
several pumpage rates on lake elevations at Turkey Ford Lake.


Model Equation:


X = 19.75 + .61 Lag X + .056 R + .071 Lag R .019 Q


CASE 1: Dry Conditions (No rainfall)

Average pumpage (Q)
Rainfall (R)
Previous month's rainfall (Lag R)
Previous month's lake level (Lag X)
Predicted lake level (X)

Monthly decline due to pumpage Q

Total change in lake level



CASE 2: Wet Conditions


Average Pumpage
Rainfall (R)
Previous month's
Previous month's
Predicted lake 1


rainfall (Lag R)
lake level (Lag X)
evel (X)


Monthly decline due to pumpage Q

Total change in lake level


"Note:


9 mgd*
10"
9"
51.0'
51.89'

.17'


+.89'


Actual pumpage (avg. annual 1974-present)
Permitted average pumpage (avg. annual)
Proposed/requested average pumpage
Maximum permitted daily pumpage


S21-69


9 mgd*
0.0"
.75"
50.0'
50.13'

.17'


18 mgd*
0.0"
.75"
50.0'
49.96'

.34'


13 mgd*
0.0"
.75"
50.0'
50.05'

.25'


22 mgd*
0.0"
.75"
50.0'
49.88'

.42'

-.12'


-.04'


18 mgd*
10"
9"
51.0'
51.72'

.34'

+.72'


13 mgd*
10"
9"
51.0'
51.81'

.25'

+.81'


22 mgd*
10"
9"
51.0'
51.64'

.42'

+.64'


__





TABLE 6: Hypothetical Monthly Data Used For Comparing the Effects of Severa
of Selected Lakes in the Vicinity of Section 21 Well Field.


CASE 1: Dry Conditions (no
rainfall


effective


1 Pumpage Rates on Lake Levels


CASE 2: Wet Conditions


LAKE CRENSHAW


Average Pumpage (Q)
Rainfall (R)
Previous Month's Rainfall (Lag R)
Previous Month's Lake Level (Lag X)
Predicted Lake Level (X)
Monthly Decline Due to Pumpage
Total Change in Lake Level



SOUTH CRYSTAL LAKE

Average Pumpage (Q)
Rainfall (R)
Previous Month's Rainfall (Lag R)
Previous Month's Lake Level (Lag X)
Predicted Lake Level (X)
Monthly Decline Due to Pumpage
Total Change in Lake Level


STARVATION LAKE


Average Pumpage (Q)
Rainfall (R)
Previous Month's Rainfall (Lag R)
Previous Month's Lake Level (Lag X)
Predicted Lake Level (X)
Monthly Decline Due to Pumpage
Total Change in Lake Level


9 mgd
0"
.73"
52.0'
51.66'
.36'
-.34'


9 mgd
0"
.75"
58.0'
57.57'
.27'
+.43'


18 mgd
0"
.75"
52.0'
51.30'
.72'
-.70'


18 mgd
0"
.75"
58.0'
57.30'
.54'
-.70'


13 mgd
0"
.75"
52.0'
51.50'
.52'
-.50'


13 mgd
0"
.75"
58.0'
57.45'
.39'
-.55'


22 mgd
0"
.75"
52.0'
51.14'
.88'
-.86'


22 mgd
0"
.75"
58.0'
57.18'
.66'
-.82'


9 mgd
10"
9"
54.00'
54.92'
.36'
+.92'


9 mgd
10"
9"
60.00'
60.10'
.27'
+.10'


18 mgd
10"
9"
54.00'
54.56'
.72'
+.56'


18 mgd
10"
9"
60.00'
59.83'
.54'
-.17'


13 mgd
10"
9"
54.00'
54.76'
.52'
+.76'


13 mgd
10"
9"
60.00'
59.98
.39'
-.02'


22 mgd
10"
9"
54.00'
54.40'
.88'
+.40' J


22 mgd
10"
9"
60.00'
59.71'
.66'
-.29'


9 mgd
0"
.75"
46.00'
46.19'
.24'
+.19'


18 mgd
0"
.75"
46.00'
45.94'
.49'
-.06'


13 mgd
0"
.75"
46.00'
46.08'
.35'
-.08'


22 mgd
0"
.75"
46.00'
45.84'
.59'
;.16'


9 mgd
10"
9"
49.00'
49.51'
.24'
+.51'


18 mgd
10"
9"
49.00'
49.02'
.49'
+.02'


13 mgd
10"
9"
49.00'
49.40'
.35'
+.40'


22 mgd
10"
9"
49.00'
49.16'
.59'
+.16'


~y~p~ip ;Y~il







TABLE 6 (CONTINUED)
Page 2

CASE 1: Dry Conditions (no effective CASE 2: Wet Conditions
rainfall)

CHAPMAN LAKE

Average Pumpage (Q) 9 mgd 18 mgd 13 mgd 22 mgd 9 mgd 18 mgd 13 mgd 22 mgd
Rainfall (R) 0" 0" 0" 0" 10" 10" 10" 10"
Previous Month's Rainfall (Lag R) .75" .75" .75" .75" 9" 9" 9" 9"
Previous Month's Lake Level (Lag X) 49.00' 49.00' 49.00' 49.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00'
Predicted Lake Level (X) 48.88' 48.61' 48.77' 48.49' 50.39' 50.11' 50.27' 49.99'
Monthly Decline Due to Pumpage .28' .56' .40' .68' .28' .56' .40' .68'
Total Change in Lake Level -.12 -.39' -.23' -.51' +.39' +.11' +.27' -.01'


Note: For Each Lake See Model Equations in Table 4.


9 mgd Actual pumpage (average annual 1974-present)

18 mgd Permitted average pumpage (average annual)

13 mgd Proposed/requested average pumpage

22 mgd Maximum permitted daily pumpage


--I -I --1 -1 -ICI --I


'II1 C-^l --1-3 C-7


-I -I ---1I --1 --I ---1







I





o 1
141





SOUTH PASCO 0


00



9o

1 b 1






Figure 1. Location map of general
study area and lakes within South
Pasco and Northwest Hillsborough I
counties.

I
0 1 2 3 4
scale in miles
/ /A A c i1
/ -> r
(/^^ II
Fiur Q. LoctYo SJo ofgn
Itd raadlkswti Sout ":
B so yn #otws ilsoog


S21-72




Figure 2. Individu
20




(I) MCD 10




0





M(GD 10





I3


SUMGD 10






0


) MGD 20




10


of the four major well fields (a-d) and the total average pumpage (e).
i I I1? I


Section 21









1 *41 '51 '61


60




MGD sO


YEAR


S21-73





Figure 3. Stage Hydrograph of Lake Allen

LAKE ALLEN
NORTHWEST HILLSBOROUGH BASIN


64



63


62



61


60


59



58
CAL. YEAR


WATER LEVEL,FEET ABOVE NGVD


REPORT DATE 30 APR 82


SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT


- M Im -m m Lm m Im m L Eml :







BRANT LAKE
NORTHWEST HILLSBOROUGH BASIN


61

60

59

58

57

56

55

54


53

52

51
CAL. YEAR


WATER LEVEL,FEET ABOVE NGVD


REPORT DATE 30 APR 82


SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT


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


Sta6e Hvdroaraoh of Brant Lake


ugiF re 4 .





Figure 5. Stage Hydrograph of Lake Ellen

LAKE ELLEN NEAR SULPHUR SPRINGS
N.W. HILLSBOROUGH BASIN
SITE NO. : 02306371
WATER LEVEL, FEET ABOVE MSL REPORT DATE 6 JULY 82
44

43


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


42

41

40

39

38

37


36

35

34
CAL. YEAR


SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

Bm mo Lm 1 U-s 3 B e Sm gm an r am I gm gm L




--- ---- ---1 -- -- I ---I ---I -- -| --- ----I --I* 1--I- -- --I


Figure 5 cont.


Stage Hydrograph of Lake Ellen


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


44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37


36

35

34
CAL. YEAR


6 JULY 82


SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER


___


MANAGEMENT DISTRICT





Figure 6. Stage Hydrograph of Lake Harvey

LAKE HARVEY NEAR LUTZ,FL
N. W. HILLSBOROUGH BASIN
SITE NO. : 02306704
WATER LEVEL,FEET ABOVE NGVD REPORT DATE 7 JULY 82
64



63 .. n


62



61


60


59



58
CAL. YEAR


SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT


m ~f i9 -E m~1% m81 -O mQ mi$ l~ -~"~1 -a~r Ifl ~


3





Figure 7. Stage Hydrograph of Lake Hobbs.
LAKE HOBBS NEAR LUTZ,FL
NORTHWEST HILLSBOROUGH RIVER BASIN


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


69

68

67

66

65

64

63

62


59
CAL. YEAR


WATER LEVEL,FEET ABOVE MSL


REPORT DATE 22 JULY 82


SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT


~*1 ~5) T~-ll ~---7 C-rl ~T '~----7 ~'-C1 C-7


cl x21 "-1-) "-7 ~-7 c~l p-~li "`~






Figure 7 cont. Stage Hydrograph of Lake Hobbs.
LAKE HOBBS NEAR LUTZ,FL
NORTHWEST HILLSBOROUGH RIVER BASIN


69

68

67

66

65

64

63

62


61

60

59
CAL. YEAR


WATER LEVEL,FEET ABOVE MSL


REPORT DATE 22 JULY 82


SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT


I.EJ Ur~ si El E a~~ is is ~19




--I --I --I ---I --I --I --I .--1 --^1 --1---1 -1 ----1 ---1) *--- 7---1 ---1 --1 --1
Figure 7 cont. Stage Hydrograph of Lake Hobbs.
LAKE HOBBS NEAR LUTZ,FL
NORTHWEST HILLSBOROUGH RIVER BASIN


WATER LEVEL,FEET ABOVE MSL


69

68

67

66

65

64

63

62


61

60

59
CAL. YEAR


REPORT DATE 22


JULY 82


SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT





Figure 8. Stage Hydrograph of Lake Thomas
LAKE THOMAS
NORTHWEST HILLSBOROUGH BASIN


65


64


63


62


61


60


59


58
CAL. YEAR


WATER LEVEL,FEET ABOVE NGVD


REPORT DATE 30 APR 82


SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT


)










)


II
am L= Uo "a




--1 "--1 r-l .--7 --7 -- -7 -1,-7 ---7 -7- --1 --I --7 --, --7 -- --1.
Figure 9. Stage Hydrograph of Turkey Ford Lake

TURKEY FORD LAKE NEAR LUTZ
N.W. HILLSBOROUGH BASIN
SITE NO. : 02306723
WATER LEVEL, FEET ABOVE MSL REPORT DATE 6 JULY 82
55


54


53


52


50


49
.YEAR


SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT





Figure 10. Stage Hydrograph of Lake Charles
CHARLES LAKE
NORTHWEST HILLSBOROUGH BASIN


WATER LEVEL,FEET ABOVE'NGVD


REPORT DATE 28 APR 82

i I i I


50

49

48
CAL. YEAR


SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

M WO n- 6M V=g LtO U- I 0I b= U-


58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51


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




--- Figure 11. Stage -- -- -- Hydrogr--aph -- --- --- --of Lake Cr-- --ensha
Figure 11. Stage Hydrograph of Lake Crenshaw


LAKE CRENSHAW NEAR LUTZ
N.W. HILLSBOROUGH BASIN
SITE NO. : 02305175
WATER LEVEL, FEET ABOVE MSL REPORT


DATE 8 JULY 82


55


50


CAL. YEAR


SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT


"





Figure 12. Stage Hydrograph of Crystal Lake
CRYSTAL LAKE
NORTHWEST HILLSBOROUGH BASIN


64

63


E 62
L
E
V 61
A
T
I 60
0
N
59
I
N
N 58
F
E
E 57
T
56

55

54
CAL, YEAR


WATER LEVEL


iii]


II I


,FEET ABOVE NGVD


I a I


I I I


I a I


I t I


REPORT DATE 28 APR 82


I I a


I I B


M


I I I


B B B


I
I


a I I


1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT


E --igeL L


LM, L=g4 sLM L,.M =- L= as L=R ass ": &Ms 1=e Ma= LMm Mur m a
ay i:.-^ ^"a Gi............ u


41


Ar


zi~


rwh-




---


Figure 13. Stage Hydrograph of Round Lake
Figure 13. Stage Hydrograph of Round Lake


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


7 JULY


57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50


49

48

47
CAL. YEAR


I I I


-I

I


-4JH


I I


I I I


I ________


I I I


f-r--wp


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


82


r.3
-4


-


-yr;


~Shryk~y~





Figure 13 cont. Stage Hydrograph of Round Lake


57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50


49

48

47
CAL. YEAR


ROUND LAKE NEAR LUTZ
N.W. HILLSBOROUGH BASIN
SITE NO. : 02305200
WATER LEVEL, FEET ABOVE MSL REPORT DATE 7 JULY 82


SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT


a-L _m 1l1 aB ig ga; se =a la mL= uai age a I LE BB s


~ 1_1~___^___(____1ILIP___LLLICII/L





Figure 14. Stage Hydrograph 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
E
A 50
T
I
N

N

E 45
E
T )





40
CAL. YEAR 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT





Figure 14 cont. Stage Hydrograph 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


50


45


40
CAL. YEAR


SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

"a 4 & I a





Figure 15. Stage Hydrograph of Bay Lake


50

49

48

47

46


45

44

43


42

41
CAL. YEAR


BAY LAKE NEAR SULPHUR SPRINGS
N.W. HILLSBOROUGH BASIN
SITE NO. : 02306300
WATER LEVEL, FEET ABOVE MSL REPORT DATE


6 JULY


SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT


82





Figure 1I cont. Stage Hydrograph of Bay Lake


WATER LEVEL,


BAY LAKE NEAR SULPHUR SPRINGS
N.W. HILLSBOROUGH BASIN
SITE NO. : 02306300
FEET ABOVE MSL REPORT DATE 6 JULY 82


43

42

41
CAL. YEAR


SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
LI ;'Im LmJ &.a L-* LZA Lm L j ij-.


50

49

48

47

46

45

44




1 "-- l --1 -- ~ 1 "- r -I -1 -- -- T -1 -- --'" -- -- -- --

Figure 15 cont. Stage Hydrograph of Bay Lake
BAY LAKE NEAR SULPHUR SPRINGS
N.W. HILLSBOROUGH BASIN
SITE NO. : 02306300
WATER LEVEL, FEET ABOVE MSL REPORT DATE 6 JULY 82
50_

49


48

47

46

45

44


43

42

41
CAL. YEAR


SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT





Figure 16. Stage Hydrograph of Platt Lake

PLATT LAKE NEAR LUTZ
N.W. HILLSBOROUGH BASIN
SITE NO. : 02305342
WATER LEVEL, FEET ABOVE MSL REPORT DATE 7 JULY 82
52

51 1.


50

49

48

47

46

45


44

43

42
CAL. YEAR


SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT


WAMB MMg A9= M' Lm| on S3B Lgm Ell Lma f"eSSu m mB Im um La im




--I --- --II1 --I


--


Figure 16 cont. Stage Hydrograph of Platt Lake


WATER LEVEL,


PLATT LAKE NEAR LUTZ
N.W. HILLSBOROUGH BASIN
SITE NO. : 02305342
FEET ABOVE MSL REPORT DATE 7


SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT


52

51


JULY 82


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







CAL.


50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42
YEAR


--I --I --1 --- -- -1 -1 -1 -1 --1 -1 --1


- I





Figure 17. Stage Hydrograph of Lake Stemper.

LAKE STEMPER NEAR LUTZ,FL
HILLSBOROUGH RIVER BASIN


63


62


61


60


59


58


57


56


55
CAL. YEAR


WATER LEVEL,FEET ABOVE MSL


REPORT DATE 21 JULY 82


SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

m ifS Lm ; lm Lm M m




1117 1111. 11 -7 ---11 | i i. 111111 11 ---. --1 -- -- -- C-- ---1 -* -1 --* 11111 -"-" ---
Figure 17 cont. Stage Hydrograph of Lake Stemper.
LAKE STEMPER NEAR LUTZ,FL
I HILLSBOROUGH RIVER BASIN


WATER LEVEL,FEET ABOVE MSL


63


62


61


60


59


58


57


56


55
CAL. YEAR


REPORT DATE 21 JULY 82


SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT





Figure 17 cont. Stage Hydrograph of Lake Stemper.

LAKE STEMPER NEAR LUTZ,FL
HILLSBOROUGH RIVER BASIN


WATER LEVEL,FEET ABOVE MSL


REPORT DATE 21 JULY 82


-62


E
L
E
V
A
T
I
0
N


61


60


59


58


57


56


55
CAL. YEAR


SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

- ^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ *^--l^ --- Ii-- *iB--^ IH-1- j_ j^ _^ ---- ---^ -*^




--- -- --1 --- --I --1 --- -- -- ---I -- --1 --1 -- -- --- --7
Figure 18. Stage Hydrograph of Chapman Lake
CHAPMAN LAKE
NORTHWEST HILLSBOROUGH BASIN
WATER LEVEL,FEET ABOVE NGVD REPORT DATE 28 APR 82
54

53

E 52 .
L )




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