text: UFDC Home | Help | RSS Title: Memorandum: Evidentiary Evaluation, Cosme-Odessa Well Field CITATION PAGE IMAGE Full Citation STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00051261/00001 Material Information Title: Memorandum: Evidentiary Evaluation, Cosme-Odessa Well Field Alternate Title: Memorandum: Evidentiary Evaluation, Cosme-Odessa Well Field, CUP No. 20004, Renewal, Feb. 8, 1984, together with a copy of the Permit granted Physical Description: 139p. Language: English Publication Date: March 7, 1984 Subjects Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida Notes General Note: Box 2, Folder 5C ( COSME-ODESSA SFWMD - SWFWMD ), Item 102 Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida. Record Information Bibliographic ID: UF00051261 Volume ID: VID00001 Source Institution: 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 February 8, 1984 MEMORANDUM TO: WILLIAM D. COURSER, Director, Resource Regulation Department FROM: DAVID A. WILEY, Hydrogeologist, Resource Regulation Department RE: Evidentiary Evaluation, COSME-ODESSA WELL FIELD, CUP NO. 20004, Renewal I. BACKGROUND A. Date Application was Received: December 30, 1981 B. Property Description: 591.5 acres owned. C. Location of Property: Portion of Sections 11, 14, 23, 26, 27, and 34, Township 27 South, Range 17 East in northwest Hillsborough County. Wells are generally located along Race Track Road (between Gunn Highway and Patterson Road), along the east shore of Lake Rogers, and along Gunn Highway (between Tarpon Springs Road and North Mobley Road) (See Figure 1, Page 22). D. Proposed Use of Water: Twenty-three wells to provide public supply for the City of St. Petersburg service area; approximately 53,454 acres. I. INVESTIGATION A. Water Use Quantities *Presently Permitted **Proposed Average Annual 19 MGD 13 MGD Consumptive Use 19 MGD 13 MGD Maximum Daily 22 MGD 22 MGD Consumptive Use Owned Area 32,122 gpd/acre 21,978 gpd/acre Consumptive Use Service Area 355 gpd/acre 243 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. **Of the 13 MGD proposed for this Permit, 12 MGD are authorized and intended for the purpose of meeting water supply requirements of the City of St. Petersburg. The additional 1 MGD (average annual) is author- ized solely for withdrawal by West Coast Regional Water Supply Author- ity at a rate not to exceed 3 MGD for any single day, for use to supply supplemental water to the northwest Hillsborough service area when water supply requirements for such area are not met under CUP No. 206676. At no time, however, shall the maximum daily withdrawal rate for any purpose exceed 22 MGD. CO-1 CUP 200004 February 8, 1984 Page 2 B. Supporting Information 1. Distribution System a. The City of St. Petersburg Well Fields, South Pasco, Section 21, and Cosme-Odessa, are interconnected to the 84-inch regional transmission main that delivers water from Cross Bar Ranch and Cypress Creek Well Fields to Pinellas County areas. A 42-inch main interconnects with the 84-inch regional main north of South Pasco Well Field, passes through the well field and extends to the south where it interconnects with the Section 21 Well Field. The main then makes a 900 turn to the west along Van Dyke Road and interconnects the Cosie-Odessa Well Field (WF) where the water enters the water treatment facility. At this point the water leaves the facility via a 36-inch main and a 48-inch main and travels southward to the service areas in or near St. Petersburg (See Figure 2, Page 23). b. The St. Petersburg Water System is interconnected to the Pinellas County Water System at two locations. (1) A 24-inch interconnection is located on the east side of McMullen Booth Road, 1,000 feet south of State Road 580 at the City's Booster Station near Clearwater. The maximum capacity of the interconnect is about 11.52 MGD. (2) A 12-inch interconnection is located on the south side of 54t Avenue and 64 Street North in St. Petersburg. These interconnections are utilized only when emergency conditions exist which necessitate the exchange of water. c. An interconnect is under construction between Section 21 Well Field and Hillsborough County's proposed pumping station. This interconnect exists near the well field entrance, along Dale Mabry Highway. The existing 30-inch water main will be tapped with a 30-inch connector. The hydraulic capacity of this interconnection is anticipated to be approxi- mately 20 MGD. d. St. Petersburg sells water retail to the following entities: Service Area % of Supply (Acres) from St. Pete South Pasadena 365 100 Lealman District 4,885 100 Bear Creek Sanitary District 570 100 Gandy District 1,335 100 Bay Pines 470 100 Total 7,625 CO-2 CUP 200004 February 8, 1984 Page 3 e. St. Petersburg also sells water wholesale to: Service Area % of Supply (Acres) from St. Pete South Oldsmar 3,854 100 Gulfport 1,405 100 Total 5,259 f. The estimated per capital use for the St. Petersburg Water System in 1982 was 130 gpcd. This rate was compared with use rates from other municipal systems in the tri-county area. Listed below are the per capital use rates projected for 1982-2000 by the WCRWSA in the report entitled Regional Water Supply Needs and Sources, 1982-1995 Update Report. Per Capita Water Use 1982-2000 Hillsborough County System Rate (GPD) Tampa 150 Northwest Hillsborough County 150 Temple Terrace 145 Brandon/Gibsonton/Riverview 200 Plant City 120 Pasco County System Pasco County Utility Department 135 New Port Richey 135 Dade City 126 Zephyrhills 94 Pinellas County System Pinellas County Water System 150 St. Petersburg Water System 130 Dunedin 130 Belleair 225 Clearwater 153 Projected population, and water demands from 1982 through 2010 at 5-year intervals for St. Petersburg are listed below. The WCRWSA projections for supply and demand are discussed in Attachment A, Page 41. 1982 1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 Population 311,300 328,700 352,300 366,900 383,700 385,000 Water Demands (MGD) 40.4 42.8 45.8 47.7 49.9 51.4 CO-3 CUP 200004 February 8, 1984 Page 4 g. Water quantities pumped from Cosme-Odessa Well Field from 1961 through October 1983 (See Figure 3, Page 24). Monthly Monthly Year Average (MGD) Year Average (MGD) 1961 19.6 1973 11.1 1962 19.3 1974 8.6 1963 16.8 1975 9.7 1964 10.0 1976 9.1 1965 10.0 1977 11.2 1966 5.8 1978 8.7 1967 12.7 1979 8.1 1968 10.1 1980 7.4 1969 8.0 1981 8.2 1970 11.0 1982 9.0 1971 12.8 1983 8.7 1972 18.0 h. Water quantities pumped from Section 21 Well Field from 1963 through October 1983 (See Figure 4, Page 25). Monthly Monthly Year Average (MGD) Year Average (MGD) 1963 5.4 1974 8.9 1964 12.5 1975 9.6 1965 13.2 1976 8.9 1966 17.6 1977 9.4 1967 13.6 1978 9.0 1968 15.9 1979 8.6 1969 18.0 1980 8.6 1970 17.4 1981 8.3 1971 17.2 1982 8.7 1972 16.5 1983 8.4 1973 13.1 i. Water quantities pumped from South Pasco Well Field from April 1973 through October 1983. Monthly Monthly Year Average (MGD) Year Average (MGD) 1973 15.3 1979 11.6 1974 16.9 1980 12.3 1975 15.7 1981 11.9 1976 15.1 1982 10.1 1977 15.5 1983 11.4 1978 13.6 CO-4 CUP 200004 February 8, 1984 Page 5 j. Water quantities received from Cypress Creek Well Field April 1977 through November 1983. Year Monthly Average (MGD) 1977 .2 1978 5.3 1979 9.8 1980 10.0 1981 10.1 1982 10.0 1983 10.0 k. The City of St. Petersburg presently operates four waste- water treatment facilities (See Figure 2). Three of the facilities use the complete-mixing process for waste treat- ment while the fourth uses contact stabilization. Deep well injection and reuse as spray irrigation of effluent are the disposal methods used at three of the facilities. The other facility discharges effluent directly into saltwater. The four facilities are: (1) Northeast This facility is located in northeast St. Petersburg along 54th Avenue near Tampa Bay. It is a 16 MGD capacity facility and uses the complete-mixing process for treatment. Approximately 60% of the treated effluent is injected in a deep well at this site while the remaining 40% is reused as spray irrigation on golf courses. (2) Albert Whitted This facility is located in southeast St. Petersburg, downtown on the bayfront, at Albert Whitted Airport. The facility presently has a 20 MGD capacity and uses contact stabilization for treatment. The City proposes to upgrade effluent quality but reduce treatment capacity to 12.4 MGD. All effluent is discharged into Tampa Bay. Deep well injection at the Northeast facility is proposed for handling effluent from the Albert Whitted facility. (3) Northwest This facility is located in St. Petersburg just off Tyrone Boulevard on Boca Ciega Bay. The facility has a 20 MGD capacity and uses the complete mixing treatment process. All effluent is discharged into Boca Ciega Bay. Deep well injection has been proposed for this site and is presently being developed. (4) Southwest This facility is located along the Pinellas Bayway at U. S. Highway 19 in southeast St. Peters- burg. The facility has a 20 MGD capacity and uses the complete-mixing treatment process. Deep well injec- tion at this site handles approximately 50% of the effluent while the remaining 50% is reused as spray irrigation. CO-5 CUP 200004 February 8, 1984 Page 6 The total capacity of the four treatment facilities is 76 MGD, of which about 10 MGD is presently reclaimed. The North- east, Northwest and Southwest facilities are interconnected for effluent transport at this time. Ultimately all four facil- ities will be interconnected. The City utilizes treated wastewater as spray irrigation on golf courses and plans to increase activities for this process as the system grows and customers can continue to utilize reclaimed water. The reuse of treated wastewater as spray irrigation will become the primary means of disposal with deep well injection as backup. The City has adopted this approach as a water conservation measure, in that it reuses treated wastewater for irrigation purposes instead of potable water. A copy of St. Petersburg's water conservation pro- gram is included in this summary as Attachment B, Page 43. 2. History and Development The initial development at the Cosie-Odessa WF occurred at Cosme in 1929 by the Pinellas Water Company, which was pur- chased later (1940) by the City of St. Petersburg. From 1950 to 1955 the well field was expanded along the Seaboard Airline Rail- road right-of-way toward Odessa causing the well field to be refer- red to as Cosme-Odessa. The well field now contains 23 public supply wells serving St. Petersburg water system (See Figure 1). The total depths of these wells range from 300 to 350 feet. The casing depths range from 80 to 125 feet. Thus, all of the produc- tion at Cosme-Odessa WF is from the same zone. The original specific capacities of the Cosme-Odessa wells ranged from approximately 20 to 150 gpd/ft. The water use from the City of St. Petersburg's Cosme-Odessa, Section 21, and South Pasco Well Fields, was reviewed during public hearings held in December 1971 and January 1972, by the Governing Board of the Southwest Florida Water Management District. Order No. 72-1 established regulatory levels for the three well fields. Regulatory levels will be discussed in more detail later in this summary. In November 1973 at a regular public hearing, Order No. 73-6R was entered which established a gallonage cap of 168 million gallons per week on the Cosme-Odessa and Section 21 Well Fields. In August 1976 the current CUP No. 7500004, was issued to the City of St. Petersburg for Cosme-Odessa Well Field under Order No. 76-2 by the Governing Board (See Attachment C, Page 53). 3. Geology of Well Field Area Several geologic units exist in the northwest Hillsborough County area (See Figure 5, Page 26). There is an upper zone of unconsoli- dated deposits and a lower zone of consolidated rocks. The upper CO-6 CUP 200004 February 8, 1984 Page 7 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 consoli- dated 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 and Suwannee Lime- stone. The Tampa Formation underlies the Hawthorn Formation and is approximately 100 feet thick. Below the Tampa Formation lies the Suwannee Limestone which is about 200 feet thick. This unit is a very good producer of potable water and is the primary source of production at the Cosme-Odessa WF. 4. Inventory of Uses in the Well Field Vicinity An area of approximately 230 square miles in northwest Hills- borough County and south Pasco County was investigated for permitted water uses (See Figures 6a and 6b, Pages 27 and 28). Attachment D, Page 56 lists information pertinent to the CUP's illustrated on Figures 6a and 6b. a. Public Supply CUP's Including several CUP's that are being consolidated under the Northwest Hillsborough Regional Well Field CUP (No. 206676), there are a total of 38 CUP's for public supply use in the area defined on Figure 6b. They are listed below with their permitted quantities and number of wells. Public supply use accounts for approximately 90% of the permitted with- drawals on an average annual basis within the described area. Public Supply CUP's Avg. Max. Quantity Quantity No. CUP Permittee (MGD) (MGD) Wells No. Aloha Utilities, Inc. 3.46 12.5 24 203182 Pasco County Utilities 1.34 3.0 2 205408 C.W.D., Inc. 0.116 0.198 1 206312 Eldridge-Wilde/ Pinellas County Water System 35.2 55.0 52 202673 Cosme-Odessa/ City of St. Pete 19.0 22.0 23 200004 Section 21/City of St. Pete 18.0 22.0 8 200003 CO-7 CUP 200004 February 8, 1984 Page 8 Avg. Max. Quantity Quantity No. CUP Permittee (MGD) (MGD) Wells No. Edward L. Bolding 0.048 0.119 1 206273 South Pasco/City of St. Pete 16.9 24.0 8 203647 Chas. J. Bearss 0.02 0.03 1 203572 FL Cities Water Co. 0.8 2.02 3 205886 N. Tampa Best Western Inn 0.013 0.432 2 203733 Groveland Develop- ments, Inc. 0.4 1.2 2 204672 Sunrise Mobile Park 0.025 0.288 1 202860 Scarecrow Utilities 0.055 0.109 2 206811 Criterion Corp. 0.262 0.394 2 200590 Paradise Lakes, Inc. 0.077 2.16 2 206223 Water & Sewer Dist. A 0.262 0.717 4 200025 Water & Sewer Dist. A 3.15 6.3 7 200265 Hillsborough Co. Utilities (River Oaks) 1.1 2.35 10 200356 Hillsborough Co. Utilities (Carrollwood Meadows) & WCRWSA 0.8 1.6 3 200588 Martin Penner 0.07 0.14 1 200593 Hillsborough Co. Utilities (Northdale) & WCRWSA 0.95 2.14 3 200743 Hillsborough Co. Utilities (Fairway Village) 0.032 0.072 1 200768 Tampa Water Dept. 67.1 104.0 *9 202062 CO-8 CUP 200004 February 8, 1984 Page 9 Avg. Max. Quantity Quantity No. CUP Permittee (MGD) (MGD) Wells No. Hillsborough Co. Utilities (Dale Mabry) 1.34 2.46 2 202637 Hillsborough Co. Utilities (Benjamin Rd.) 0.97 2.72 5 202692 Hillsborough Co. Utilities (Lakewood) 0.5 1.0 2 202695 Hillsborough Co. Utilities (Country Place) & WCRWSA 0.595 1.12 3 203571 Hillsborough Co. Utilities (Henderson Rd.) 0.16 0.32 2 204011 Hillsborough Co. Utilities (Sun Lake Park) 0.093 0.2 1 204012 Hillsborough Co. Utilities (Sheldon Rd.) 0.341 1.0 5 204273 Hillsborough Co. Utilities (Plantation) 0.896 1.8 4 204476 Criterion Corp. (North Lakes) 1.08 2.27 3 204624 Pasco Co. Utilities 0.22 0.55 1 206125 Criterion Corp. (Crippenwood) 0.014 0.028 1 205064 Hillsborough Co. Utilities (Woodbriar) 0.075 0.233 1 200912 Hillsborough Co. Utilities (Cherry Creek) 0.157 0.47 2 200913 Nelson P. Zambito 0.365 1.03 2 205300 Total 175.986 277.970 216 *Does not include two Surface Water Withdrawals b. Agricultural Supply CUP's There are a total of 173 agricultural CUP's in the area described in Figure 6a. Most of the agricultural use is for citrus irrigation. Ground water is the principal source of supply for agricultural use in the area. However, there are permits that authorize lake withdrawals. Nine (9) percent of the permitted withdrawals or approximately 21.0 MGD, on an average annual basis within the described area are for agri- cultural use. CO-9 CUP 200004 February 8, 1984 Page 10 c. Other CUP's Six industrial CUP's and ten lake augmentation CUP's con- stitute the remaining 1% of the permitted withdrawals or 3.02 MGD on an average annual basis, in the area described in Figure 6b. d. Domestic Supply Wells in the Vicinity of the Well Fields in Northwest Hillsborough County and South-Central Pasco County. Within northwest Hillsborough and south-central Pasco Counties there are many residents who have privately owned wells for domestic use. Most of these wells are centralized in the lake areas along Highway 587, between the Cosie-Odessa and Section 21 Well Fields and areas just west of South Pasco Well Field (See Figure 7, Page 29). The average total depths of these wells range from 100 to 200 feet and the average casing depths range from 50 to 150 feet. These wells obtain water from the upper Floridan Aquifer. It is estimated that each well pumps approximately 350 GPD, assuming 3.5 persons per household (Estimated Water Use in the Southwest Florida Water Management District and Adjacent Areas, 1980, USGS Open-File Report 81-060). An estimate of the total average annual withdrawal rate from private wells for the well field region of northwest Hillsborough County and south Pasco County is approximately 2 MGD. This value was estimated from the District well permitting program and may need some adjustment because many wells were constructed prior to the initiation of the well permitting program. 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 Cosme-Odessa WF on chloride concentrations, statistical analyses were performed. These analyses concluded that with time, chloride concentrations have either stabilized or improved for the wells tested. Attachment E, Page 62, displays the wells tested and the summary of the statis- tical analyses. In addition, the City of St. Petersburg analyzes water samples quarterly from each production well in the Cosme-Odessa WF. These analyses show that there has been virtually no change in chloride concentrations from 1965 to the present. CO-10 CUP 200004 February 8, 1984 Page 11 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 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 1921 to 1940, the average annual rainfall was 51.39 inches with a median of 52.97 inches. A rainfall curve showing the departure from average for the Cosme rainfall station is included as Figure 17, Page 39. Thus, the past 20 years have been dryer than the average for the 67-year period of record. However, it is impossible to say whether this is cyclic in nature. Rainfall is highly variable in time and space in Florida due to the convective nature of the precipitation. More than likely, the variability in rainfall from year to year can be attributed to large-scale global forces disrupting to some extent the expected seasonal Florida rainfall. A secondary effect is the general decrease in tropical disturbances during the past 20 years. 3. Environmental Summary More detailed information on this subject is available in the Appendix (Attachment F, Page 63). a. General Approximately 20 named lakes and the reaches of Rocky and Brooker Creeks are located within the area influenced by the predicted 0.5' or greater water table drawdown The area also contains wetlands including cypress ponds and marshes as well as other areas, primarily now used as pastures, which are former wet meadows. The total area within the 0.5' predicted drawdown occupied by open water and wetlands is 1,379 acres or 25% of the total area of 5,550 acres. Most of the lakes are relatively small lakes surrounded by residential and agricultural land uses. Of the 20 named lakes, 13 have levels officially adopted and established by the 1Drawdown predicted as a result of the following pumping scheme: 30 days at average permitted pumpage, followed by 30 days at maximum permitted pumpage, followed by 60 days at average permitted pumpage. CO-11 CUP 200004 February 8, 1984 Page 12 Governing Board of the Southwest Florida Water Management District. The wetlands, aside from those mentioned as being used as improved pasture, are cypress ponds and marshes, occurring as isolated features in pasture or citrus groves or as borders of streams and lakes. The major streams in the area, Rocky Creek and Brooker Creek, alternate between occupying well-defined channels and a condition of essentially unconfined flow through cypress-dominated areas. Along some reaches, artificial channel improvements have been made, and control struc- tures have been emplaced at points in both creeks. b. Lake Stages and Stream Discharge Of the lakes located within the predicted 0.5' zone of water table drawdown, nine have data describing previous lake stages. Stage records for these lakes vary from 20 years or more (Lakes Church and Keystone) to 10 years (Lake Juanita). From the hydrographs for these lakes, the stage behavior of other area surface water features, at least during the recent past, can be discerned. A period of decline in the lake levels began in 1961, following the extremely wet years of 1959-1960. This decline lasted until mid-1964 when lake levels underwent a period of recovery lasting through 1966. Another, longer, decline began in early 1967 and lasted through mid-1974 with a very brief recovery in late 1969/early 1970. Following the heavy rainfall of 1974, lake levels fluctuated through an approximately normal range during 1975 to mid-1979 when exceptional rainfall caused a substantial increase in lake stage. From the end of 1979, lake stages fell gradually, reaching near-record low levels in 1980 and early 1982. Since that time, lake levels have risen to high elevations and are now (April, 1983) at elevations above ordinary seasonal low stages. This description represents most natural lakes in the area with the exception of lakes whose stages are controlled by outlet structures, e.g. Lake Keystone and Lake Pretty. These two lakes did not undergo prolonged, serious stage declines during the periods of avail- able record. In fact, they have fluctuated through relatively normal annual ranges and are now (April, 1983) at elevations above expected seasonal low stages. In addition, there are a number of lakes being augmented in northwest Hillsborough County. These lakes are listed in Attachment H, Page 103. Discharge of Rocky and Brooker Creeks has been variable during the period of available record. The average discharge for Rocky Creek at Sulfur Springs, a station approximately four miles south of the well field area, is 35.0 cfs. In ten years of the 30-year record, the stream has exceeded the CO-12 CUP 200004 February 8, 1984 Page 13 record average, and in 20 years of the record, stream dis- charge has averaged less than 35.0 cfs (Figure 12 of Attach- ment F, Page 87). Extreme peaks have occurred in 1957, 1959, 1960, 1964, and 1979; while significantly lower-than- normal discharge has been observed in 1955, 1956, 1972, and 1977. The average discharge for the 31-year period of record for Brooker Creek at Tarpon Springs, a station approximately eight miles west of the well field, is 21.1 cfs. In a total of 13 years having record, discharge has averaged higher than the record average, and in 19 years stream discharge has aver- aged less than the record average. Extreme peaks occurred in 1953, 1957, 1959, 1960, and 1964; while significantly lower- than-normal discharge occurred in 1961, 1967, 1972, 1973, 1977, and 1980. c. Relationship Between Surface Water Levels and Ground Water Withdrawals In the vicinity of the well field, the relationship between surface water levels and the ground water system is a close one. The surficial system, in particular, can be especially important to the maintenance of the water levels of surface water features. Changes in the water levels of surface water bodies can be expected in response to seasonal and catas- trophic rainfall events, evapotranspiration, and the magnitude of inflows and outflows (including ground water inflows and outflows). These factors act together dynamically to deter- mine water elevations in lakes and wetlands. Water levels in cypress ponds change in response to several factors including surface runoff into the ponds, evapotrans- piration, vertical infiltration, ground water seepage into the ponds, lateral movement of water from the ponds to the water table, direct precipitation, and, where present, surface outflow. The elevation of the water table around a pond significantly influences all of the above factors, particularly those which are directly ground water-related. During high water table conditions, standing water is maintained in a cypress wetland as ground water moves in and through the pond. Also, a high water table reduces infiltration and can increase the rate of surface outflow. As the water table declines, water levels in the cypress pond drop as a result of enhanced infiltration to the surrounding sands. Further, evapotranspiration, an important loss factor throughout the year, becomes even more important as the pond water level drops to or slightly below ground surface. Under conditions of seasonal dryness, water table depressions result in the absence of standing water in cypress ponds, and the pond soil may become dry in the upper 3-5 inches. Prolonged water table depressions, caused by unseasonable drought or by nearby ground water withdrawals result in longer periods of dryness in a cypress pond. This, in turn, brings about CO-13 CUP 200004 February 8, 1984 Page 14 excessive soil desiccation and a substantial change in the vegetational characteristics of the pond. Should the changes include the eventual toppling and death of the cypress trees themselves, the hydrologic features of the area formerly occupied by the pond are altered for an undetermined period of time. Occurring regionally, this phenomenon could produce detectable changes in the previously established hydrobiologic relationships in an area. Streams in the area of the well field are also closely related to the ground water systems. Streamflow or runoff in this part of Florida is dependent on ground water contributions to a varying extent depending on climatic conditions. Estimates of ground water seepage to area streams range from 10% to nearly 100% under conditions of high and low flows, respec- tively. Therefore, both the potentiometric surface and the water table are important as indicators of the ability of the ground water system to contribute to streamflow. Because of the intimate relationship between lake levels and the water table, drawdowns induced in the water table will induce declines in lake stage. Analyses done using a modified Prickett-Lonnquist Model (reported elsewhere in this Eviden- tiary Summary) estimate that, under the conditions specified, a water table drawdown if 0.5' or greater will cover an area of approximately 8.7 mi The levels of lakes within this zone of influence can be expected to decline, potentially, up to the actual amount of the water table drawdown. The same could be said of water levels in marshes and cypress ponds located within the area of concentrated water table draw- down. Streams located within the major zone of drawdown are dependent upon ground water inflow for a variable percentage of flow. The large annual variability in discharge makes a quantitative estimate of flow reduction due to well field- induced water table decline difficult; however, under dry conditions such reductions potentially could be significant. 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 30). These sites are measured periodically for water levels of the potentiometric surface and water table. Hydrographs of each monitor site are included with Attachment I, Page 106. These hydrographs show the seasonal fluctuations clearly. Well fields came under regulation in 1973 which is evident by observing the long-term graphs on Lutz-Lake Fern Deep, Van Dyke Shallow, and Berger Road Deep. Statistical analyses were performed on these sites to determine the significance of rainfall, pumpage, and time with respect to water levels. A description of these analyses appears in Attachment I. These analyses conclude that the potentiometric surface responds to water table elevations which both in turn respond to rainfall, pumpage, and time. CO-14 CUP 200004 February 8, 1984 Page 15 5. Simulated Drawdowns An adaptation of the two-layer Prickett-Lonnquist ground water flow model was used to simulate water table and potentiometric surface drawdowns at the Cosme-Odessa 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 Cosie-Odessa WF come from depths from approximately 80 to 350 feet. Aquifer charac- teristics, such as transmissivity, leakance, and storage for each layer were utilized in simulating drawdowns and are listed below. These values were taken from a report entitled Management of the Water Resources of the Pinellas-Anclote and Northwest Hills- borough Basins West-Central Florida by Geraghty and Miller, March 1976. Water Table Floridan Aquifer Transmissivity (gpd/ft) 1,000 400,000 Storage .16 .0006 Leakance (gpd/ft3) -0- .001 Drawdowns were calculated for the quantities requested for this permit and the quantities from the existing permit under average and worst case conditions. Figures 9 and 10, Pages 31 and 32 illustrate drawdowns of the potentiometric surface and water table at proposed average annual production for 30 days without recharge to the system. Figure 11, Page 33 illustrates drawdowns of the water table at proposed average annual production for 30 days, maximum daily production for 30 days, and proposed average annual production for 60 days again without recharge. Figure 12, Page 34 illustrates dfawdowns of the potentiometric surface for 30 days at proposed average annual production and 30 days at maxi- mum daily production with no recharge. Figure 13, Page 35 illus- trates the change in water table drawdowns from existing permitted quantities to proposed quantities. Figure 14, Page 36 illustrates the change in potentiometric surface drawdowns from existing permitted quantities to proposed quantities. These pro- jected drawdown changes are expected from an increase of 1 MGD, on an average daily basis for the proposed permit. One (1) MGD has been requested by the applicant to provide supplemental capa- city to the Northwest Hillsborough Regional Well Field. The draw- down contours shown on Figures 13 and 14 show that there will be minimal additional impacts felt in areas adjacent to the well field for the requested increase. Due to the close proximity of well fields in northeast Pinellas, northwest Hillsborough, and west Pasco Counties, drawdowns were simulated for the well field area at average permitted pumping rates. Listed below are the well fields with their respective per- mitted quantities. CO-15 CUP 200004 February 8, 1984 Page 16 Quantities Average Maximum Well Field Permitted (MGD) Permitted (MGD) Cross Bar 30 45 Cypress Creek 30 40 Starkey 8 15 Eldridge-Wilde 35 55 East Lake 3 5 South Pasco 16 24 Cosme-Odessa 12 22 Section 21 12 22 *Morris Bridge 18 30 *Northwest Hillsborough 8 18 *Proposed Permitted Amounts Water table and potentiometric surface drawdowns are illustrated on Figures 15 and 16, Pages 37 and 38. The likelihood of draw- downs at maximum daily rates occurring is extremely remote primarily due to existing regulatory levels limiting the pumping and water shortage restrictions during drought conditions. Calibration and verification of this model will continue as addi- tional data are collected. Improvements to this model incorpor- ating climatic conditions, observable water levels, and refinements of hydrologic characteristics will be an ongoing project. 6. Well Field Regulation a. Regulatory Levels Regulatory levels have been established for each of the three monitor wells within Cosme-Odessa WF (See Figure 1), which are set forth in the existing CUP (See Attachment C). The three wells with their respective cumulative weekly average and weekly average regulatory levels are listed below. Cumulative Weekly Average Weekly Average Regulatory Level in Regulatory Level in Well No. Feet Above MSL Feet Above MSL Grace 3 (Cosme 3) 20.0 17.0 James 11 25.0 22.0 Calm 33A 24.0 21.0 These water levels listed above refer to elevations of the potentiometric surface of the Floridan Aquifer and were established in 1972. The levels indicated in the first column are levels that the cumulative weekly average water levels in the respective monitor wells are to remain above. The levels indicated in the second column are levels that the weekly average water levels are to remain above. CO-16 CUP 200004 February 8, 1984 Page 17 Both restrictions are included on the existing permit which states: "The City, its agents and employees, shall not withdraw or cause to be withdrawn from the wells in the Cosme- Odessa Well Field any amount of water which will cause the weekly average elevation of the poten- tiometric surface of the Floridan Aquifer as deter- mined cumulatively to be less than the levels listed above. In connection with the operation of the Cosme- Odessa Well Field; at no time shall the weekly average elevations of the potentiometric surface of the Floridan Aquifer be more than three feet below the elevations listed above." To best demonstrate water levels with respect to regulatory levels under dry conditions, water years 1977 and 1981 are appropriate to look at. The chart below lists the pumpage and rainfall from Cosme-Odessa WF, cumulative weekly average regulatory level, the cumulative weekly average water level from that regulatory well for the end of the year, the weekly average regulatory level, and the lowest weekly average water level for that year. Cumulative Cumulative Weekly Lowest Weekly Avg. Weekly Avg. Average Weekly Avg. Regulatory Elevation Regulatory Elevation Pumpage Rainfall Level (Feet (Feet Level (Feet (Feet Year Well No. (MGD) (Inches) Above MSL) Above MSL) Above MSL) Above MSL) 1977 James II 10.8 43.83 25 30.2 22 22.56 1977 Calm 33A 10.8 43.83 24 29.7 21 22.76 1977 Grace 3 10.8 43.83 20 24.9 17 17.42 1981 James II 8.5 48.09 25 30.8 22 24.91 1981 Calm 33A 8.5 48.09 24 30.4 21 23.83 1981 Grace 3 8.5 48.09 20 25.2 17 19.25 As shown above, at no time during years 1977 and 1981 did the cumulative weekly average elevation ever go below the cumulative weekly average regulatory level. The table above also shows that for the same years the weekly average water levels did not drop below the weekly average regulatory levels. For the last ten years or since regulation of water levels, the weekly average regulatory levels adopted for the regulatory wells at Cosme-Odessa WF have not been exceeded. There- fore, it is anticipated that under average rainfall conditions the average requested withdrawal of 13 MGD for the proposed permit should not cause the regulatory levels to be exceeded on a cumulative weekly average or a weekly average basis. However, during prolonged dry periods average requested withdrawals may cause regulatory levels to be exceeded. CO-17 CUP 200004 February 8, 1984 Page 18 During the first 18 months after issuance of a renewal permit for Cosne-Odessa WF, it is proposed that a regulatory scheme for the pending NWH permit be developed which may or may not affect the existing regulatory levels for Cosme- Odessa. b. The existing Permit contains a condition that limits (or caps) production from Cosme-Odessa and Section 21 Well Fields in combination to 168 million gallons per week or 24 MGD (See Attachment C, Page 53). The average daily rate permitted on the existing Cosme-Odessa and Section 21 CUP's are 19 MGD and 18 MGD, respectively. The pumpage cap actually limits the two well fields to 12 MGD each on an average daily basis. The applicant has requested an average of 13 MGD to be permitted for each well field. This withdrawal limitation eliminates the need for the existing pumpage cap condition, however condition 11 on the proposed permit will require pumpage continue to be reasonably balanced between the two well fields. In addition, the well fields are regulated by regulatory wells that limit production when artesian water levels are low. c. All CUP's and the conditions contained within are subject to the District Water Shortage provisions. Any regulatory level limitations are subject to change at times when the Board declares a water shortage. III OBJECTIONS The District has received greater than 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 and groves. Figure 18, Page 40 shows the areas objec- tions were received from. Two conferences were held by the District staff in order to explain the appli- cation for the permit renewal to the public and hear their concerns. The first meeting was held in May 1982 and the second in June 1983. Similar concerns as those mentioned above were expressed by the public at these conferences. Using the best information available it is concluded that production from the Cosme-Odessa WF will create less than one (1) foot of drawdown on the average on lakes in the Cosme-Odessa area. Some domestic wells may be affected by well field pumpage, however, the well field has been an existing use and the applicants are required to investigate complaints in the well field area and mitigate when appropriate. IV. RULE CRITERIA (40D-2.301) Section 40D-2.301, Florida Administrative Code sets forth the criteria to be considered before a permit can be issued. A discussion of each of the criteria applicable to the permit request is shown below. CO-18 CUP 200004 February 8, 1984 Page 19 (1) Will the intended consumptive use: (a) Be reasonable and beneficial? Yes. Cosme-Odessa WF has been in operation for the City of St. Petersburg supplying water to the City's residents since 1931. Water conservation efforts have been made and the per capital water use rate is reasonable. (b) Be consistent with the public interest? Yes. The well field is used to meet the municipal water demands of St. Petersburg residents. (c) Interfere with any legal use of water existing at the time of the application? No. The well field has been in existence since 1931. 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 water course to be lowered below the minimum rate of flow established by the Board? No. Brooker 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? No. The Board established regulatory levels for the Cosme-Odessa WF in 1972. The proposed consumptive use permit is conditioned so that recurring weekly average elevations (non-cumulative) and cumulatively weekly average elevations of the potentiometric surface shall not drop below regulatory levels (see proposed Permit). (c) Cause the level of the surface of water to be lowered below the minimum established by the Board? No. The application is for ground water withdrawals. (d) Significantly induce saltwater encroachment? No. The well field area has been monitored and statistical analyses performed on a series of monitor wells showed no increase in chloride concentrations with respect to pumpage and time (See Attachment E). Analyses of production wells have also shown virtually no increase in chloride concentrations. CO-19 CUP 200004 February 8, 1984 Page 20 (e) Cause the water table to be lowered so that lake stages or vege- tation will be adversely and significantly affected on lands other than those owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the applicant? Yes. Lakes in the vicinity of the well field have undergone stage declines which are attributable, in part, to ground water with- drawals. On some lakes, stages have been depressed for a 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 levels below the low management level under particular conditions. This will happen when lakes are very close to the low management level prior to the dry season. Low rainfall combined with pumpage has historically caused greater-than-normal declines on lakes. Temporary recovery to normal levels has occurred when exceptionally high rainfall was experienced. (3) The withdrawal of water must not: (a) Cause stream flow to be reduced by more than five (5) percent. Consideration of withdrawals from a stream is not applicable. (b) Cause the level of the potentiometric surface under lands not owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the applicant to be lowered more than five (5) feet. The five-foot drawdown contour of the potentiometric surface simulated at proposed quantities will lie outside well field bound- aries (See Figure 12). However, the well field is an existing use and the permitted has a policy to investigate any complaints that may be related to well field pumpage. (c) Cause the level of the water table under lands not owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the applicant to be lowered more than three (3) feet. Water table drawdowns were simulated using an adaptation of the Prickett-Lonnquist ground water flow model and analytical solutions at proposed quantities and were estimated to be less than three (3) feet at well field property boundaries. (d) Cause the level of the surface water in any lake or other impound- ment to be lowered more than one (1) foot unless the lake or impoundment is wholly owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the applicant. The lakes in the vicinity of the Cosme-Odessa WF are directly influenced by the water table and any effects on the water table are reflected in the lakes. Water table drawdowns were simulated using the Prickett-Lonnquist ground water flow model at proposed CO-20 CUP 200004 February 8, 1984 Page 21 quantities and were estimated to be less than one (1) foot on all lakes outside well field boundaries (See Figure 9). (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) and 3(b), and approval of attached Permit, the conditions set forth in the Permit, and the proposed Order. VI. PROPOSED PERMIT Attached to Order in Regulatory Packet. VII. VISUAL DISPLAYS Figure 1 Well Field Map Figure 2 Distribution System and Water Treatment Facilities Figure 3 Cosme-Odessa Well Field Pumpage Figure 4 Section 21 Well Field Pumpage Figure 5 Generalized Geologic Cross Section Figure 6a Agricultural CUP's Figure 6b Industrial, Lake Augmentation, and Public Supply CUP's Figure 7 Domestic Supply Wells Figure 8 Regional Monitor Wells Figure 9 Average Potentiometric Surface Drawdowns Figure 10 Average Water Table Drawdowns Figure 11 Water Table Drawdowns Figure 12 Potentiometric Surface Drawdowns Figure 13 Change in Water Table Drawdowns Figure 13a Change in Water Table Drawdowns Figure 14 Change in Potentiometric Surface Drawdowns Figure 14a Change in Potentiometric Surface Drawdowns Figure 15 Regional Water Table Drawdowns Figure 16 Regional Potentiometric Surface Drawdowns Figure 17 Rainfall Curve Figure 18 Objectors Attachment A Water Needs and Sources Attachment B St. Petersburg Water Conservation Program Attachment C Existing CUP Attachment D CUP List Attachment E Summary of Statistical Analyses on Chloride Concentrations Attachment F Summary on Lake Levels and Streamflow Attachment G Regulatory Plots Attachment H List of Lakes Being Augmented Attachment I Summary of Statistical Analyses on Regional 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:bh CO-21 COSME- ODESSA WELL FIELD PERMITTED WELLS Consumptive Use Permit No. 200004 PERMITTED WELLS 9 10 12 33 A Lake Calm O31 R g16 t15 We4 13 Lake Alices I SVan Dyke Road 23 0. 24 5 21 \ 22 23 / 12A 24 ames 11 \ 10 SA 8 North Mobley Rd. /'/ .. .. O .. .\ 3u 19 C .....-- O i( O Production Well Race Track Rd. j--10 Regulatory Well 33 34 (J 35 g Chloride Monitor Well / s _cLe in miles Figre 1 CO-22 Distribution System & Waste Water Treatment Facilities S. He o Co. Pasco Co. 60 W Cyprescre Starkey . New Port Richey 66" SSouth _____co Pasco CCa VHilsborough Co. &ast, Lake Road Odearf J I I tIrte S*Sdon 21 16 I erteertie "CountyadCit24 in -4ctk - 30" Intert* Ze Northwest Wastewater Treatment Pat t Albert Whitted Wastewater Treatment Plant Southwest Wastewater Treatment Plant -- -CO-23 S" ;oFigure 2 COSME-ODESSA Monthly average withdrawal by year 20 15 --; Q 6i '30 '40 '50 60 '70 80 Year Period of Record 1931 -19S2 Figur 3 CO_24 SECTION 21 Monthly average withdrawal by year 20 '65 '70 7 5 '80 5O-25 Year Period of Record 1963 1982 Figure 4 CO-25 Generalized Geologic Cross Section General Vicinity of Cross Section Pasco Co. Hillsborough Co. 0 1 2 Scale dashed grid represents section lines S-e -n "Section 21 .-. -. Cosme- Odessa 7 24 -^^ FOMA limestone "0 . 100 Fiur 5OROAIg 0 Ssand sandy limestone cher t so -100 .igure 5 C0-2O6 3 4 167 168 LANU O' LAES 73 166 186169170 163 7 154 1 77 159 161 16 172 16 1 1 11 65 7 156 151 49 53 145 8 14 222 South Pasco 140 --... P'asco Co. 134 137 S 6 Hillsborough Co. 135 76 77 132 130 7 57475 214 126 131 7 .de-w 72 73 .198 LUTZ 129 Eldridge- Wil 71 219 112/ 124 1 9 S68 69 66 19 189 127 128 117 67 183 61 121 116 62 97 119 114 65 59... 9 63 64 60 84 11 Coose-OdessaS 58 Ill 112 11 12 18 4 56 Section 21 108 0 14 16 53 55 86 107 12 0 51 87 41 224 5 210 106 105 20 19218 25 26 45 44 91 East Lake 22205 27 46 Road 28 29 48 47 f 92 2 1 30 31 32 201 194 95 35 33 43 36 38 207 192 1 37 42 197 OLDSMAR rA V R 1 2 3 208 It J 208 TAMPA.............. .. .. u ,w-: CO-27 Figure 6a LAND O LAKESj . 2 54 South Pasco I9 8 "--Hills boroug Co. 1 ._, S023 8 1 Cosme dessa East Lake RoadD820 41 587 I --1e- - Old Tanipa Bay 60 Other Consumptive Use Permits in the Vicinity of the Well Fields USE TYPE Industria Consumptive Use Permits in the Northwest L^' Hillsborough/South Pasco Vicinity Lake Augmentation Number refers to key (Attachment D) O Public Supply Figure 6b Consumptive Use Permit Numbers 200003, 200004, 203647, and 206676 DOMESTIC WELLS NEAR THE WELL FIELDS PERMITTED SINCE 1972 LAND O LAKES 41 ODE& o : o o*.' SOUTH PASCO PASCO CM 3 C O. o0 ( >* *. 00 S: L UTZ go w0 : * COSME-ODESSA EMr) *.0 00 So o o to TAMPA 0 o13 @ *. 000 Density of Domestic Wells go g o go a represents 1 well 0 represents 5 wells i represents 10 wells represents 25 wells .0 1 2 3 4 Scale in miles Figure 7 CO-9 Water Level Monitoring for Cosme-Odessa and Section 21 Bexley Well No. 2 Anclote River (1 mile west) Pc S.R. 54 ODESSA O Branch Anclote Rive o E .I SOUTH PASCO L Doyles oCamp Lake Pasco 305 E-1 Hay Matts PASCO CO. 0______ _________ _ Iont 587 PascooSouth o0 03 Lutz-Lake Fern y S0 o oPasco 205 (- 2) Oo oo LUTZ SDudee asco21 O Van Dy ke COSME-ODESSA / 7 ] 7 Berger 10 6 SECTION 21B n / c^ E- 102 Sirotowitzo o ooTR 13-3 o to TAMPA Sheldon Rd. o Water Level Monitor Well 0 1 2 3 4 0 scale in miles Figure 8 C0-30 LAN4 X' LAKES Cosme-Odessa 54 South Pasco -__ PIasco Co. Hillsborough Co. 587 Eldridge-Wilde LUz Cosme-Odessa 0.2 Section 21 597 East Loake Road T r 75 0 92 SLDSMA' TAMPA ....--------- .. OldTampa Bay ... Scale ,e miles Proposed water table drawdowns at steady-state: 30 days pumping at average permitted quantities (13 MGD). Figure 9 CO-31 LAND 0' LAKES Cosme-Odessa 54 L .ESouth Pasco ..Pasco Co. Hj .i h Co. Eridge-Wilde LUTZ I i- --- Cosme-Od a Section 21 u 10 C-5' -23 East La e Road 580 J: TA M PA- .. .......le Figure i0 m He dpt sLercsrac rwon tsed-sae 0dy upnga vrg emte LAN., 0'"LAKES Cosme-Odessa 54 South Pasco i'a__sco Co. Hillsborou gh Co. Eldridge-Wilde LUT Co~ e-Odessa -0.5' Section 21 East Lake 597 Road U 587 i - 7-- 580 4J -0 6 TAMPA ..-------- OldTmnpa Bay ^ 2 3 Bay scle J r ou .e Proposed water table drawdowns at the end of 120 days for the following pumping rates: 30 days at average daily (13 MGD), 30 days at maximum daily (22 MGD) and another 60 days at average daily with no recharge to the. system. Figure 11 CO-33 LAND O' LAKES Cosme-Odessa 54 South Pasco Pasco Co. Hillsborough Co. 58 7 Cosme-O ssa Section 21 -10 -5 -2 597 Road I 1 /.41 75 LDSMAR TI A--M .........-9-------- ,,- j .. .. -y scale in m.,es + ,J,, rates: 30 days at average daily (13 MGD) and 30 days at maximum daily (22 MGD) with no re- charge to the system. Figure 12 C0-34 LAN LAKES LEGEND Cosme-Odessa OSS ---- Proposed S------Existin 54 South Pasco .Pasco Co. '" illsbor ogh Co. Eldridge- Wilde 1I.UTZ Co e-Odessa i I Section 21 e. \ S 597 587 LDSMAR 580 605 S ''^ _TAMPA. ------- Smils Change in water table drawdowns between existing permitted withdrawal rates and proposed withdrawal rates at the end of 120 days for the following pumping rates: 3P days at average daily (12 MGD permitted; 13 MGD proposed), 30 days at maximum daily (22 MGD permitted and proposed), and another 60 days at average daily with no re- charee to the systein. LAND O' LAKES LEGEND Cosme-Odessa Pro eon------- Existing 54 Pasco Co. HilUsborough Co. 587 LUTZ Eldridge-Wilde Cosme-Odessa Section 21 597 East Lake Road I B 0 27 75 wht rates: OLDSMAR < " J 9 , TAMPA ...----------- Change in water table drawdowns between existing permitted withdrawal rates and proposed withdrawal rates at the end of 30. days for the following pumping rates: 30 days at average daily (12 MGD permitted; 13 MGD proposed). Figure 13a C0-35a LAND u'LAKES LEGEND Cosme-Odessa Proposed -m wExisting 54 Sou th Pasco SPasco Co. Hillsborough Co. 587 LUTZ Eldridge-Wilde Cosme-O / / Section 21 I I -5' \ "Ia 597 EastLake \ Road I 1 f K41 587I i I s75 ..p-- ,;-, , TAMVPA \ ......-- -------- i: h^ : ~Old Tmnpa Bay 60 12 3 -. .. -s- s T r Change in potentiometric surface drawdowns between existing permitted withdrawal rates and proposed withdrawal rates at the end of 60 days for the following pumping rates: 30 days at average daily (12 MGD permitted; 13 MGD proposed), and 30 days of maximum daily (22 MGD permitted and proposed), with no recharge to the system. Figure 14 CO-36 LAND O0 LAKES LEGEND Cosme-Odessa op -- - E x i s t i n g 8South Pasco Sage-Wilre LUTZ SCCosme-Od. s Sect 21 2/ 97 Road 41I 587 7 Change in potentiometric surface drawdowns between existing permitted withdrawal rates and proposed withdrawal rates at the end of 30 days for the following pumping rates: 30 days at average daily (12 MGD permitted; 13 MGD propose). Figure 14a C0-36a Pasc Co. .......... 5 t, ....... e':;:; ::.: :.r Ox. Cross Ba It;-2~,t~st;~5Cf.YnHetnrnak Co Ww. ...0.1. .'LEAKWATos Barr P mgi Figurees 15C0k FIX~z~ ~o o N PORTZZ iRI EYi MKI, V XON.,t~ ~ T Elrdg-Sot ~i~SI~ I~~ /l~il~ll~liif~l~ill I~osBcr E (osm ~wo o rs"2 fr T"MPA LEARWATE ~ l ltAm Wr~~~iSS ~X ~~v ~iiM 0i i-_ "Hernando Co. t Pasco Co. Z.. ,-8' -5' -V-1' CyprCreek b /)/ Starkey -5' --- ridge-Wilde S th Pasco _ac o ..........1 ........e ..:xn .. ......%.... IMF8 H rboohCo. .LEARWATE ) TMA n., ,..O ST. PETERSBURG( .... ..... k o as o t ~r .t';:"::':'";`;-:!":5 :i.;.;I~::.~1: ~:::~f.:.: ' scale in miles Regional Well Field Drawdowns of the Potentiormetric Surface for 120 days with no recharge at Average Permitted Quantities. Figure 16 C0-38 Q zx -:0 .1 V _ 6'I .z WE* ::::-:on::K-*- ........ ~ : -0 .5e ss~ssi :~::::::'~:S~~ Mv.n o o x-e-gr-N :.'~''I::~:;:: ... ........... 51~.s~..~ P~CO C~ i~ii ~ .~z~~2 NO~ ................. % tts 21R.,V 4 ect.,.pzn jr;:; I~Ze ~ :5 ~IBif~li ~ Cyp Creekr84 .0-8 Wv*- :~~~~r~;:~~ sr:~:::: ,.%XV. Starkey;;-; i-si me'8- $-' 0y ONEWPR ... ....... ... Wtlderci th Pasco / V~La HO borough o 6% % 6 ROM I;R 21 0 I ors r X.. -8 ....... .. TAMPA EARWATE0 64~ 6 2: ~~0 3%r % z~ f n i g%~i~ e ee x- nm rm-. ~ii~~t ~ ss~ ; f: ~gm ~s ~:n~s::::: 4~::~~~i AM--r NA ----- .~~;~t;::~~c^` r t~f~ ~ i~:""'; ~~~:TAMPAc~::; LEARWATE Nc;~s~;:~: 2; ~c-- f ~ ~ W M210t~l""' iI~~ .0~:5f~:: V.r:"'z ~r~;I.z ~ s i- '.5t':I':.~t::.~:~~;::~::~i:~ t::::~:::'"fS.;P~s~S.~ :~::~~:~sWX :':~Zi~;r. r. ~ :~:~t::.~s ~; xw; COSME Rainfall departure from annual average 30 25 20 15 10 Y 5 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 Year Period of Record 1932 1982 Figure 17 CO-39 Objectors for CUP's 200003 & 200004 (Section 21 & Cosme Odessa) LAND O'LAKES ODESSA o__ SOUTH PASCO PASCO CO. U 587 0 LaeC Lake obbsrl LUTZ General ViciLakenity of Objectors *_ O__________ _Lake Crenshaw__ Lake stone .. ... SRou nEs c Lak e Charles Figure 18 C040 Lake Ma Fiur 18 CO-TO !/ A/ Attachment A #r- U M, CO VLOd C o CMrM' O LO LUl ) CM 0 IV .g %00 00w Co M l aC O 00 PllO I1 I %0 M C.I",.)*_ W...-,-- ,. ,-- I I ,.d ( O) cS sS. -ul S0) 0 v. InS. 0 0C I I I I I I 0, O II IOL C wu F- .) I I I I I I I .14C%4I I m- '-41 0 I I I C01CII CII on n CM - V-4 S. : - ID lI I I 1" I I V II I. 00 4 L. to w o i <-< I L 4A L. m en s of : (I I) 1 11 I~ I, .II I ,0 It = 1.1" I I I3 I II I I I I CI 0 0 4, < . wn Lin M C I I I I I C QC C) 0 I C) I- a i i, mu is - 0 as II I 1 1. II " l -p- (A r LM l-. ^ l 3 I t I I i I I CrII Co L n a s *0 C .-..- CA , IS 1 1 *- I I C C "0 S, ,0 ( 1 1 1 J1 0 ) .C j I I 1 1 1I II mI0) ^0' T C I -- -- I I I I I I a( (c- t'.. >j 4- &* CQ r CM N CM ^r m X C o * '0(0| 0 rN Or r0 u3 Co CM *a %0 co e Z .- r l . 4-) 0 / 1-- ___ ^-^ -^- ^- ^-^ 00 N N e% aO 0t CO *U Q| * Co o C m OL. ^^-40co LAO Qy ro ,y ^. CL x gm 0 0 0 0 0t 0 LUJ 0 >_ N O^ VL) 3: 04A* C)LLJ = w LU V) C) *ck: 9- (i ( 9 -J > S 0| 0 * ) j CJ 2 C 0 ,- r- ro CL^ 03 (D^^ ^ ^^ - EEJ ) 0 Q. *Q. j Z J 1 1.. co )a j z 00 c ko IL Co -J~~~~~~ e -J^XQ 0 . C4-4 L a). A a- 3: S. > L ) 4J 1 3:L0 LA *^ LA c CO ^O LA r- LA 1^ 0) 0U Q . L">C| 0 i9- LA LA vo 0- o CM wa.D W I 9 (4 CL. c^b . CO4 Attachment B WATER CONSERVATION Introduction This report has been prepared to summarize past and ongoing water conservation programs of the City of St. Petersburg and to examine the dependence of water and wastewater revenues upon quantities of water sold and to set forth conser- vation actions. Table 1 summarizes water production, water and wastewater rates, and water and wastewater revenues for the past three years. This table also includes some future estimates for these values. The quantity of water produced and sold has maintained a more or less constant level in recent years and is not expected to vary significantly from this trend in the near future. Several factors contribute to the level trend: Increasing use of reclaimed water for irrigation. A decline in the rate of growth and development within the water service area. Increasing awareness of the public for the need to conserve water. Increasing service rates which encourage conservation. Recent water use restrictions which have resulted from drought conditions which may reoccur. Past and Present Conservation Measures A. Metering: Metering of potable water is among the most effective and most widely used water conservation methods. As compared to the unmetered (flat rate) water system, metering discourages waste and many nonessential uses of water while not discouraging essential domestic use by the customer. Records date back as far as 1909 concerning the use of meters to control water consumption in St. Petersburg. Over the years the metering system has grown with the water system keeping control of nonessential and wasteful use. Since no history exists as to unmetered modern day usage, it is not possible to determine the extent of water conservation brought about by metering. In recent years the City has become involved with the replacement of older inaccurate meters. As meters age and wear they become inaccurate in that they do not record all of the flow of water. Since water flow is the driving force that operates the meter, a worn meter should never record more than the actual flow but almost always will record less. Source: City of St. Petersburg CO-43 Tests conducted earlier in the City have concluded that meters 20 years or older may be as much as 45 percent inaccurate. Based upon this information, a meter replacement program began and through September, 1981, more than 46,000 meters of various sizes have been replaced. An additional 21,000 smaller meters remain in the City's system with more than 20 years of service. These will be replaced in time as this ongoing meter replacement program continues. In addition to having a direct impact upon water and sewer revenues, the meter replacement program has an indirect influence upon water conservation. 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 Association2. CO-44 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. CO-45 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 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 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. CO-46 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 $4.00 per 1,000 gallons. This type of technology has not shown cost reductions that some had anticipated. At present there does not appear to be any type of cost breakthrough on the horizon. The direction of future water conservation should include the following: A. Continue to maintain a good metering and meter replacement program. This will help ensure that those using potable water pay for their consumption. B. Encourage consumers to use water saving devices. This will allow consumers to have water available for essential needs without wasting water. C. Continue the expansion of the reclaimed water system in accordance with the priorities and procedures established by the Council. D. Use the ordinances previously approved if in the future SWFWMD should issue water shortage orders to meet these orders. Previously adopted ordinances should be studied and recommendations made to Council where improvements can be made. E. Institute and maintain a review of water and sewer revenues so that shortfalls will not be experienced due to use of reclaimed water in lieu of potable water for irrigation. F. Continue to watch for possible breakthroughs in desalination technology to take advantage of any developments that might occur. G. Develop a strong educational program to acquaint the citizenry with the con- servation program. CO-47 FOOTNOTES 1 "Planning and Evaluating Water Conservation Measures", American Public Works Association Report No. 48, 1981, page 13. 2 "Planning and Evaluating Water Conservation Measures", American Public Works Association Report No. 48, 1981, page 20. CO-48 City of St. Petersburg Water System Production, Rates, and Revenues TABLE 1 Actual Estimated FY'79 FY'80 FY'81 FY'82 FY'83 FY'84 Water Produced (Billion Gals.) 13.8 13.5 13.6 13.6 13.8 13.8 Water Sold (Billion Gals.) 10.9 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.1 12.1 Percent Unaccounted Water 21% 11% 11.8% 12% 12% 12% St. Petersburg Rate ($/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 CO-49 \' Weekly Average Water TreatedcthuD) o n / 10 U) 0. Sr--4 .. ID .. .. 12 0 C ,r ,<. o4 -n . C 00 c, .u a co '-6 0 0 r Om .. \^ 1 T -S -'- 0 - 0 0 IO I 0 O 3 c, (0 Table 2 Chronological Summary of Major 1981 Water Shortage Events Date Item Description 4/20/81 St. Petersburg Voluntary Lawn Sprinkling Ban News Release 5/6/81 SWFWMD Order Water shortage declared Voluntary restrictions. 5/13/81 St. Petersburg Color coded water use restrictions News Release announced. 5/20/81 SWFWMD Order Water shortage continued Mandatory restrictions: 20% reduction for public supply & private wells, 10% reduction for agriculture & industry. 5/22/81 St. Petersburg Lawn sprinkling prohibited during daylight Ordinance 502-F hours, allowed only under odd/even system during night time hours. Vehicle washing prohibited except at commercial establishments. 5/22/81 St. Petersburg Wholesale water customers notified of need Correspondence to comply with 20% reduction mandated by SWFWMD. 7/16/81 St. Petersburg Suspended water use restrictions. Ordinance 514-F 8/5/81 SWFWMD Order Water shortage continued but mandatory restrictions terminated. CO-51 Table 3 Per Capita Water Consumption Estimated Fiscal Water Produced Service Area Gallons Per Year Billion Gallons Population Person Per Day 1976 12.08 284,338 116.4 1977 12.61 284,813 121.3 1978 12.98 285,275 124.7 1979 13.72 286,096 131.4 1980 13.52 286,699 129.2 1981 13.59 287,327 129.6 CO-52 Attachment C SOUTHWEST FLORIcA lATER tANIAGEMEHIT DISTRICT (SWFW;O) CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT PERMIT GRANTED TO: PERMIT 1;O. 75COC04 OATE PERM(T G.XilfED: City of St. Petersburg DATE PERMIT APPFLCATTO-ri - SFILED: Seotember 4. 1975 P. 0. Box 2842_ PERMIT EXPIRES OI: Ocerair 31 193'0 SOURCE CLASSIFICATON: Florin Acuiter St. Petersburn, Florida USE CLASSIFICATION: Public Sual vl (Lega It ame and Address) TERMS AND CONDITIONS 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 statements in the application and in the supporting data are found to be untrue and inaccurate, or if applicant fails to comply with all of the conditions set forth herein, then this Pernmi shall automatically become null and void. 2. This Permit is predicated upon the assertion by applicant that the use of water applied for and granted is and continues to be a reason- able beneficial use as defined in Section 379.019(5), Florida Statutes, is and continues to be consistent with the public interest, and will not interfere with any legal use of :.ater existing on the date thick Permit is granted. 3. In granting this Permit, SlIFIO40 has, by regulation, reserved from use by applicant, water in such locations and quantities, for such seasons of the year, as it determines may be required for the protection of fish and wildlife and the public health and safety. Such reservations are subject to periodic review and revision in light of changed conditions. 4. Based upon the application and supporting docucants, St;F:.itO 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 linit the authority of Southwest Florida Water 1lanagewent Oistrict to declare water shortages and issue orders pursuant to Section 373.175, Florida Statutes, or to formulate 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 raxi.=us combined average annual withdrawal of 19 million gallons of water per day with a rxi.mum combined ri cr.drai-al rate not to exceed 22 cod during a single day. Withdrawals are authorized as shown in the table below. 7. WITHODRA'WAL POrIT GALLONS PER DAY GALLC:IS PE~. Y'. LATITUDE LONGITULOE .:AX I-UW AV'E.AG E Production Wells 28o5'50" 82035'49'" 120CCCO 34134:80 280S' 50 82S'43"- 575C000 563480 2806' 6" 82o35'29" r 500GO0 443430 2806'11" 02035'16" Y 12000CO 99S4ao 28o0622" 82035'14" lZ 12000CCO 93430 2806' 1" 02035' 3 1200000 953480 28o6'43" 82034' 25 1000000C 943480 28o6'49" 82034'20 12 CC00 100COO L 286'S35" 02o35' 4" 100000 980440 2of' S'" 823.14'17' 'r l7onnnn n.tO.i.n CO-53 2807'13" 82034'13"/A 1200000 993480 2806' 0" 8235' 3"/b 1000000 873480 206' 1" 82035'18*"/ 575000 543480 -" 2806' 8" 82035' 3"/9 1000000 983480 2806'14" 82035'30"* y 1200000 963480 2806'22' 82035'33"*' 1150000 1000000 287'14" 82034'20*" 575000 566950 2807o21"8 82o34'21" 850000 723480 2807'33" 82034'21- a 1 1000000 783480 2807'44" 82034'29 3 575000 543430 28a0752" 82034'30" 750000 643480 2007'58" 82034'33" 850000 763480 2808412" 82'34'40"3 q 1000000 789960 S.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 may alter, modify or declare to be inactive, all or parts of this.Permit. An authorized District Representative may, at any reasonable time,- enter the property to inspect the facilities and ray require that this Permit be shown. 10. Applicant shall comply with the following items, and if Applicant fails to comply with them, then this Permit shall automatically become null and void: A. That the City, its agents and employees, shall not withdraw or cause to be withdrawn, from the wells in the aforesaid Cos.:e-Cdessa .:ell Field, Ilillsborough County, Florida, any amount of water which will cause the weekly average elevation of the potentiometrit surface of the Floridan Aquifer as determined cumulatively to be less than: (a) Twenty (20) feet above mean sea level as measured at Grace 3 Observation Well (280607:823530:). (b) Twenty-five (25) feet above mean sea level as measured at tha "James II" Observation call (280703::C323417). (c) Twenty-four (24) feet above mean sea level as measured at the GCalm 33A" Observation ':all (2808z;OO32343e). 73 '6 B. In connection with the operation of the Cosie-Cdessa Well Field: (a) At no time shall the weekly average elevations of the potentoimetric surface of the Floridan Aquifer be more than 3 feet below the elevations set forth in Paragraph 1 above. (b) Weekly average elevations shall be calculated by adding together the high reading for each day and tha low reading for each day, then dividing the sum thereof by 14; each weekly period shall comnmence at 12:01 a.:. on Saturday of each week. (c) The weekly average elevations shall be determined cumulatively from Novemberr 1, 1973 through Septi-.ber 30, 1974. A ne. production year shall start on October 1, 1974 and each Cctcber 1 thereafter. Cu..ulative weekly average elevations shall not carry over from one production year to another. C. Reports of weekly average elevations for each weekly period shall be made by City to District by telephone on the following londay and confirmed in writing in a form to be provided by District: such weekly periods shall conrence at 12:01 a.:. on 5Sturday of each we-k. CO-54 D. Well E-100 shall he modified or replaced with a well to serve as a chloride monitoring well. Specifications for such modification or replacement shall be submitted to the District within thirty (30) days following the date of this Order. E. The total maximum withdrawal from the Cosea-Odessa and Section 21 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 pump an additional 21 million gallons per week in excess of 163 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 16J, F.A.C. and authorizes the consumptive use of water. AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: }' /i ,.. CO'SUtMPTIVE USE SECTION: WATER RESOURCES 0DOVISlO. SWt1F40 Applicant hereby certified that applicant is the owner of the property covered by this application, that the information contained in this application is true and accurate and, if applicant is a corporation or a partnership, that the undersigned has the legal authority to execute this application and affidavit on behalf of said corporation or partnership. Signature of Appl icant Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of -- OtAY Pl-UBSLIC - My Carmission Expires: CO-55 Attachment D >) >> > rCL f- F I" r-- -- < t --- t- r- f-- - --0 -- (-- 1- < (r I. ( r-- I. <0 -O 0 --3 rl3 '- r - -CL n. F F- F- F- F- F- F- L FS- F S .- SF F F- F F- F- F F- F- L- F- o-- F- =3 =3333333=3 =3 = = 33 === = 33=3 = = = = = = 3 u3 =3 t3 =3 44.4J44 4 )- ) 4-. t- 4+ F- F-l U F- F- F- 1 F F' F- F- UF- F F- F- F- F- 0 F- F- F- F- F- F F- r F- I F F- S C, C*T O UU uJu U UUU*OUuuuOu *OO U U 0U0U00 U O U U U u u u 0u S 00 C) < I I I I l I I II I1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 l t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I = -Ct" r-4 1. LU-o)Mr-f r-4 M r-4f- 4 -r-4 r-v-4lr-4r-r-4-4 CV P-..QM to lr-4 root r.01 v --.4r.4 r r-4 V-4 -roof im* ,Q C% ,-4 CI C C) 0= I V C WD CD o k00 0- --D ) M" ,--m"V c ---4WOOtNN twqd CD C) 0 C C) w C. w-w C) t(: C) C) CD. CD C: O"OO L OOC O CM O"CO --40 MOMr) O C L O O OOOOO^O COOOOO 00-0 >- F- C) CY) C ) q1- 1 C r *r C %* .- ( -n v-4 w *- c3 %* '-85 r- .- ) (n F- '- F- '- R*- 6q '-- 6- C6q '- '- '- '1 u q -) 't v -lw 2;j M M -% r-4< LO 9 M m* : c< '--- 0 J LU u"- iU "1- J 4r'. 00 CDLA 0'0 -4 0) w-4- 1-4 M -4 C) M- r -4-4 z 00 C%.J a Ci ) M cS. n L r -4 f-4 M C 1-4 CM LO v-4 %C C () r. %v ow *-< CO CY) I- J ,3 . .L .. a .* < .- S*F- **,- 0'*~ 0.) -4 LF IC -- O i-c* 4 L OJ L 0 0 OV* CO l L h6- (&) a t= C C o0c e- < 5 c--cn 0 *0 C C* C *O* O D 0 *3 * LU O 4 L 4-F '- *4 L- 0' LA f SCC O c r0 ]* +J 4* * c2 O< S UO Me o g gCO OQ 0 a(^ CO-5 LU 0 ) S- a LC iT Cn U C r- i 0O F -U Q ^ S- S- (d rO zf lT- c & =) Cn c C) L a LU L 0 < 3 f- CO 0 .0 2 ) 0. .C ) flU F- 0*r ) '0 0O 4- r- c< ) fn au (..Y))or o < u a^ c S L AU=3 > *r -4^T CJ J+ fO S- C + > (0 )C S. CU 0 Q 0 C* S s 0) ( 446 -3 C C S.. O .j C3O C: <1 3 C 3 IC C- ) F- C V =3 a- C0 - O. 3 S > C > 0 0 P (0 S . Cr 0 CO >)0)0aiJL.. CV r Ca L U0LUCUJ-U L A 0 0 (0 <0 0 O <0 0O (Q CO O O 0 rO 0 0O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Son .,, S.. S. S.. S. CL S..- S S.. S.. .. o-. S.-. S.. S. S. S. S..- .. ,.. S. S. S.. S.. ,. S.. S,. S,. o.. S.. S. S.. L.. S.. 0.0' S. S. S. S S S. S- m S. S $- S- S S- S- $- a S. S- S- $- S- S- S- S. S. S- S. $- S- S- S. S- S- S . '.0 tOOOUUUUJUQUOUOUQUUOUUOUQUUUOUUUL6-6-* W *v- *r- *r- *-4 *- r-l- *r v 'r- *r- *- *e V- *- *- *4 *r- *- *r4 *V *W *6 *, *V *- V -4 *4 6* *- *- *V- V- m r- - COI CD lCD CD C) CD CD CD CD CD C) C) CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD aCD) CD CD CD C) CD CD CD lUOIJ0O)0 Ov 0CO0LfO4O'.NO 0O C000O0000 v-I H--- 2-. X I fO C 4C ^.,".. C..) -4 o 0 .-J- '.o r.. LU* E *o J A- a 2 '- a, ra A CA *) ** 0. U LO i0 O > ) C .o&- >c S. >aea)0 V)*S.. *. 0 a- 0 S-S.. 0000o. C0-57 >)*5* C..)0)0r* 0 0f00>00000000000 00.0-00000 00000 o. 43 o0'^r eo o o c i SoM Ooa ^^-o ^ crrttr~M ccc~n^^o^^^ cr^ C C C C O O O O O r-- o-- or- o* 0r 4-) 4) 4-J 4-) +4) (0 ( >0 (>0 __ >) >)* ,4-,.- r-- 4-)- r-4 *-> *- *r- *r- r- -- *r- -- r-- r- *.- *- r- -- r- *r- r- r- r- *r- *- 9-- 4- C: (0 a to to r. CLC c a (0 (0i (0to to 0 30 CL0 0 to (0 to( (0 (0 M 0to 0 CL( 0 ( (0.0. C. m c 4-0 Cn4+4-)4-00000000 0000 4*-r- t-4 00000a004 4 44-4444->V004J0 +4 ++V004- 0 3,- ,- r--- =3 =3 r- r-- ,-- r--.- r--- S.- S--- --,-'f---,--,- r- r--- r- r- r,-- r- "-: S *- r- *r- -- -r r- *- *r- -- *- r *r- *r- r- *r- o- *r *- *r- or *r- *r- *- *r- or- *-r- *r- *- *r- -- *r be S.- S.- S..-z.0 N S. S. .0 S..S..S. S &S...0 -0 S.. &S. S. S.- S. S..S..S... S. S. -0 S. S.. S.L.L...0 S. S0)00 )0 C)(70s ( ) )0 C Cm ) C) CCnmc c.C 0) 0 o m = C omm tm m Cn 7o n c c) t Cn0" 4- 0 I/l -j 0 CO * *0 0 0- 0 I P-- ) LOOCOOOOOO OO 0 '040 Ll0 0 OONJOcO COOOOOO0OOOOO COCOCMO SjtO CkCDr .CO)C COCO)COOClJC7 -4 rO--40C :)a O r %O 'CO""COCmoLc)'.0 C\0 -OO D c00.COO OOCO ,,- ,- '- C ,mt oDR- C-=- CoD -.- c <, < < 0 o o -o- q * ow -I2 .< o J 0- --- 0 L \-"--C 4.C 0 C 00 00 S1 0*000000OO*0o0000000c~.0000 00000000c < S-O (A .) -r- C4)> 0u-* a) +j P4- SC a a - 0 v0S. L)a (.)0 (..) 0 * a- ra). a4.)C *-C-CC C a) C. 4.WS-4- 4- > .0. Co*M 00CC C.0-. a CO S .* 4.)(0V) *C C 0 0 L C > 0. ) a f%000 EOa ***-C a) (0.)? 0 ) LU *0 V 1 4E .)C 0*00C0 4- 3 0 / ACC. a) S. aE IO) 0 S C *C L N a CC1 0. 0 CeO CA?: 1- 0. ** iSE .-- = )) S co E ( 0-o-oCS.tS..aQ O )a0 C- L ** C.0 0>*3L O C O 004*O C a)00CE C* &C <* a) O( E UC0 C9 -20 S- .(3 -< 0 C 3r3f r T 0 3 <3 U < r- 0 0 *< O O O = -: =-O- & *-r r 4-) 0 > , 4- -- F -- F -- )., .. .. S.. S. S. L S.. S..S L L L. S.. S. So. S. S. S. S. 0. L S.. S. C.L S.5 LS. L.L. EM 3 3 4--+444 +J 4J ) 4- 4J 44 44 +J V + 4- +J3 4 4 4 3 41 + 3 3 3 3) )J 4 + 3 F- F F- F- F-F F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F rF- F- rF- rF F- F F rF - V) U U 0 U U U U U U- U U,- U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U(- U U U U U U U 4) --r- -r- 6-- r- -r- r- 6-- F- f I-- r -r r--- 'r r *r -r r- -r- -r- -r- -r- -r- r r or - ot ov *r tr w rm r- o S.. S. S.. 5. S. S.. S. S.. ... S .. . S. 0 S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S..0 S. S.. S. S. : ,-- CTn..n.C-cn0cn. ... cn =53 cn Mn cn ,.-,,, cm).n cn cn cm a) a) 0 0, a)=. a a. ,. ,c m ,"- c.?. '.,,- -K o r/) 2 r-4 0.0" 0 - C\( co-59 LLU O- V) FF- U5' Lo 0 0 0 0. ': U:: . LAI h- S.S - (AS 0 I &. ' .. CD 2 v i O J0 C4 . 00 C CO-5 9CD, I *C QS a=ga5. 2S0S gg LASgg Os O) J 0as 0S S v-S LA J I- ~~AAAAALLLLL 0'.0'.O '.0u r r rQIQQ, 0 -4 V)-I u- v.6- u-I u- 6-6-6I v.64-6-64- v.4 v. u-I u-4 v-I 6- u- v-4 v.6- v-4 u- v.64 6 16- v- v.6I 0000 *r- *9- *f- *r- 4-. .) 4-4.I 4) >) ( a >c>0 >> > >UU >UU9>UU =3=:M:3=3==3=3=:3=3==:3:3=3:3 ER E E E3333 =:: = =33 3 333333===3 3 == ::3 4-)4J 4 4-) 4J 4- 4-) 4-) 4-)+>4-) 4JV 4-) 4-) OH H ',- ',- V',-4- ',V) 4V) 4- 4-)>4J 4-O > V)', 4-) 4- >4J 4J4 4-) ( ,- ", r r- r- r .- r- *r- r 9- r- r- r- U (U ( 3 r- -- *r- r- r- r r- *-- r *"- "* *9- r-- *r- r- LP UULUOOO TUO U U U r- 0 U 0 *Lor- r- U 4 n n C Cn (a 0 to (0 C7on3 03 on oo3 a) on a) on cm a) = on < I hI II I l l I1II II I II lI i 111 C C r-4 v-1 r) r-4 V-4 (nWC 4(elr-. 4 C r*W4 ( V-4 ry.. -4 "-J4 f--l4q.-. m r-( r--4 r-q"-4 D0 4 -4 r-4 r-4 "-.4- I L 0 CD C OC r- C D C OV o % O,-t-M, '- - )- 0N 0 N 4 0 -IJQ lA- CDwDm n <"wo -, ,-, ou : .,-.,- m C C l -s- o O o :D *0-.m D *r. L L *j 2% LO CO )-4 0 0 0 < -* ' In- ., -o co C (/0 -6f U) - 0 2 U () UU (U S c 0- CQ 04-) 0 4-. 4-)4 4-' to0 u- (A (U u 9- (0- 9 *r- *- #3.- *o- 4- 0 >1 *E (A r-. r rS 1-r> -. *n<*m. 0 In(U T9o- 9u-or 0 0 .m(U S...u s..o 0. )40 .' m 4o o - 4 0 0 4- (U,. S, C (U (U 0 .4.) I- S (U U >vr- *) *r* <0 )>< S.* ** 3 =3=0 T SS e =3C 3 on *O CJ)S-S...,.... 0)>( O U( 0 00 0 0 &- COIO C O O OO (OC X Q-000-0 00 *0- (00 *0 U) r- t/NNNN C(U S f =4- C 5NNS -9N- r*3 00 .: 9-4-61- 9-o1- w .: ^ 4'.4,- o. r ~c .:~4 ^^ 1 : ~4.: .1-99-9-4941-4C^j %4 CJ (\ -W* C m- U -i vr-.r im C-mJir- r- r-- S0 0 tO r CL 0 C L m 0 ( 0 to -3 L r* O L .- *L am4- 43 4J 4-) V) 4-) 4J V)j V) -) ) V 4-u 4)4)4) oV 4 3 4-)V)V) r-- -r-- 0 r- *r- r- r- r- rr- -r- *r- r- r V) U 1U UU U U U 1r- r U mr- r. ,.r U U ,)11 1 3 g-r U. U a rm-- S. S.S.t SL. S. S. S. S. S. S. S.L < .0 .0- L. L. 0 Q.0 -0 C= ,..I 0 I LL 00 Co0 C C0 00L 0C C C00 Ol)D C) C) C C C) *- -C m 9-4CnC4c m )D)VC" 0v- 0-419-4 C C- S-4 La I-. J C ) V C r C ) %.J c .- .-.- 00 -) V) -C) "- CV ,- CY) V4% to CD C) C) CD0C0 O00C) C) CD C) C 0) 00 CD C) Li'C CD n cm CD C) C) CV4CV L a "(ino r" or-"or.- '-o a ---4 9,- 0 0 7 0-4 0 0 *--S *J i *J * VV) Ii-- S. 4-) 4J +J) 4J)4J)4-) 4-4 IC of *to w *Gr *w 9-M 9oo o 9> -arm 0 000 00 O a> *000 O0 0 < ,--" C 0 V- C (v- 9 mQ r 9- C *- Go LU= IJL 4) 4 .)0 4-c 0 Ca OWJ Z- W... Cf Ni :> >- *r- *r- *r- *r- *r- rC r- r .C *r- *r- *r- *r- *r- *r- *r- QL; C r0.0..CJL.0 0)C 0r >> v z OCCOO C .=' *^ 0'l-COO O| 8u-meo a Q) ^^ ^? O 9 9) r- CL (0Z W > >- I, 0 Q. C) '9- r- C-) *rC &4. o o s- o o $ s- oc 0s(0 Ca o (V, CL 0T) O T O/) 4t -, O CO-61 c O a t N ao < < } o o >C 0 < o4CJ O S- .J 4 +> r 4 t 3 < S ( Or (0 C L r- *r *r r- r- *r r- *~r flfl Attachment E May 21, 1982 Revised: June 23, 1982 Revised: May 26, 1983 MEMORANDUM TO: DAVID A. WILEY, Hydrologist, Resource Regulation Department JOHN W. HEUER, Hydrologist, Resource Regulation Department ROBERT R. GORDON, Hydrologist, Resource Regulation Department FROM: ROBERT G. PERRY, Hydrologist, Resource Regulation Department RE: Cosme-Odessa/Section 21/South Pasco Water Quality Consumptive Use Permit Nos. 200003, 200004, 203647 In order to determine the effects of pumpage on water quality a time series analysis was performed upon the chloride concentration of six regional monitor wells, TR12-1, E100, E101, E102, 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 as the independent variable and chloride as the dependent variable. The raw data supplied by the USGS was first tested for outliers by application of chauvenets Rejection Test. Data points which were thus tagged as suspect were removed from the data set when the USGS verified that they had been derived by sampling methods inconsistent with the body of the data, i.e. sampling at different depths by use of probes. The results are summarized below. Number Well Regression of Data Coefficient Period TR12-1 Cl = 887 +.01M N = 48 R = +.047 09/77-04/83 TR13/E101 Cl = 11753 +22M N = 69 R = .091 06/73-03/83 E102 Cl = 63.3 -.8M N = 46 R.= -.501* 01/77-03/83 E100 Cl = 2354 -.01M N = 54 R = -.026 04/76-03/83 E21-7 Cl = 27.2 +.02M N = 49 R = +.023 11/73-01/83 E105 C1 = 9093 -48M N = 38 R = -.53* 04/76-02/83 Where: Cl = Chloride concentrations in mg/l 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. All the rest were not statistically signif- icant and therefore we are unable to give any credance to the regression over a simple averaging of the data. We have not addressed seasonality of the data but rather the long-term average trend of the data. It is therefore concluded that in spite of the well field pumpage and seasonal variations the water quality has either stabilized or improved for these wells. RGP:eab:bh CO-62 Attachment F June 9, 1983 June 21, 1983 Revised TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TO: D. A. WILEY, Hydrologist, Municipal Permits, R.R.D. FROM: iP. M. DOORIS, Manager, Environmental, R.D.D. RE: CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT NO. 200004, Effects on Lakes and Streams Below is a brief description of the expected effects of the withdrawals allowed by the referenced permit on surface water bodies. PURPOSE This report was prepared to assist in addressing District Rule criteria relating to conditions for the issuance of permits (Chapter 40D-2.301) and as an aid in answering questions from the public con- cerning potential effects of well field withdrawals on lakes, wetlands, and streams. PUMPAGE HISTORY The operation of Cosme-Odessa began in 1931. During the first 13 years of operation, the pumpage rate at the well field steadily increased, but did not exceed 5.0 MGD (Figure 1). This increase continued through 1960-1961 when the average annual pumpage rate peaked at 19.6 MGD. Since that time, the pumpage rate at Cosme-Odessa generally declined as other well fields became operational. During the 1962-1982 period, the average annual pumpage rate was 10.0 MGD or greater in 11 of the 21 years, with a peak of 18.0 MGD occurring in 1972. Ground water withdrawals and their effects on surface water from Cosme-Odessa should be viewed in light of other municipal ground water withdrawals in Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties. The combined pumpage rate for the four large well fields in the area (Cosme-Odessa, South Pasco, Section 21, and Eldridge-Wilde) has averaged over 50 MGD since the early 1970's (Figure 1). Total area pumpage is important as the water levels of surface water bodies may be affected by regional municipal withdrawals as well as by pumpage from individual well fields. DESCRIPTION OF LAKES, STREAMS, AND WETLANDS GENERAL Approximately 20 named lakes and the reaches of Rocky and Brooker Creeks are located within the area influenced by the predicted 0.5' water table drawdown (Table 1, Figure 2). The area also contains wetlands including cypress ponds and marshes as well as other areas, primarily now used as pastures, which are former wet meadows. These present-day pastures still become saturated during wet climatic conditions and are considered wetlands for the purpose of this report. The total area within the 0.5' predicted drawdown occupied by open water and wetlands is 1,379 acres or 25% of the total area of 5,550 acres. 1 Drawdown predicted as a result of the following pumpage scheme: 30 days at average permitted pumpage, followed by 30 days at maximum permitted pumpage, followed by 60 days at average permitted pumpage. CO-63 Technical Memorandum CUP No. 200004 June 9, 1983 Page 2 Most of the lakes are relatively small, and are surrounded by residential and agricultural land use (Table 1). Of the 20 lakes, 13 have levels officially adopted and established by the Governing Board of the Southwest Florida Water Management District. The wetlands, aside from those mentioned as being used as improved pasture, are cypress ponds and marshes, occurring as isolated features in pasture or citrus groves or as borders of streams and lakes. The major streams in the area, Rocky Creek ana Brooker Creek, alternate between occupying well- defined channels and a condition of essentially unconfined flow through cypress-dominated areas. Along some reaches, artificial channel improvements have been made, and control structures have been emplaced at points in both creeks. LAKE STAGES AND STREAM DISCHARGE Of the lakes located within the predicted 0.5' zone of water table drawdown, nine have data describing previous lake stages (Figures 3 through 11). Stage records for these lakes vary from 20 years or more (Lakes Church and Keystone) to 10 years (Lake Juanita). From the hydrographs for these lakes, the stage behavior of other area surface water features, at least during the recent past, can be discerned. A period of decline in the lake levels began in 1961, following the extremely wet years of 1959-1960. This decline lasted until mid-1964 when lake levels underwent a period of recovery lasting through 1966. Another, longer, decline began in early 1967 and lasted through mid-1974 with a very brief recovery in late 1969/early 1970. Following the heavy rainfall of 1974, lake levels fluctuated through an approximately normal range during 1975 through mid-1979 when exceptionally high rainfall caused a substantial increase in lake stage. From the end of 1979, lake stages fell gradually, reaching near-record low levels in 1980 and early 1982. Since that time, lake levels have risen to high elevations and are now (April, 1983) at elevations above ordinary seasonal low stages. This description represents most natural lakes in the area with the exception of lakes whose stages are controlled by outlet structures, e.g. Lake Keystone and Lake Pretty. These two lakes did not undergo prolonged, serious stage declines during the periods of avail- able record. In fact, they have fluctuated through relatively normal annual ranges and are now (April, 1983) at elevations above expected seasonal low stages. Discharge of Rocky and Brooker Creeks has been variable during the period of available record. The average discharge for Rocky Creek at Sulfur Springs, a station approximately four miles south of the well field area, is 35.0 cfs. In ten years of the 30-year record, the stream has exceeded the record average, and in 20 years of the record, stream discharge has averaged less than 35.0 cfs (Figure 12). Extreme peaks have occurred in 1957, 1959, 1960, 1964, and 1979; while significantly lower-than- normal discharge has been observed in 1955, 1956, 1972, and 1977. The average discharge for the 31-year period of record for Brooker Creek at Tarpon Springs, a station approximately eight miles west of the well field, is 21.1 cfs (Figure 13). In a total of 13 years having record, discharge has averaged higher than the record average, and in 19 years stream discharge has averaged less than the record average. Extreme peaks occurred in 1953, 1957, 1959, 1960, and 1964; while significantly lower-than-normal discharge occurred in 1961, 1967, 1972, 1973, 1977, and 1980. The record for the second station on Brooker Creek, located about three and one-half miles northwest of the well field is quite short (13 years). However, the information is presented for the purpose of completeness (Figure 14). RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SURFACE WATER LEVELS AND GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS In the vicinity of the well field, the relationship between surface water levels and the ground water system is a close one. The surficial system, in particular, can be especially important to the mainte- nance of the water levels of surface water features (Figure 15). For example, in many cases, lakes are hydraulically connected on all sides with the surficial aquifer, and the elevation of water in that aquifer directly influences lake levels. Water levels in marshes and cypress ponds, too, frequently CO-64 Technical Memorandum CU1 -4o. 200004 June 9, 1983 Page 3 represent the water table above land surface (Figure 15) and, like lakes, these wetlands are sensitive to fluctuations in water table elevations. Changes in the water levels of surface water bodies can be expected in response to seasonal and catastrophic rainfall events, evapotranspiration, and the magni- tude of inflows and outflows (including ground water inflows and outflows). These factors act together dynamically to determine water elevations in lakes and wetlands. In the vicinity of the well field, the water table is higher than the potentiometric surface. Therefore, water moves from the surficial aquifer to the Floridan Aquifer as a function of several factors, including the head difference between water table and potentiometric surface, the transmissivity of the Floridan Aquifer, hydraulic conductivity of the surficial aquifer and the leakance characteristics of the upper confining bed. At a given point, the variable factor in determining recharge rate to the Floridan Aquifer is head difference, other factors being fixed. The head difference changes seasonally in response to rainfall and to ground water withdrawal rates. Activities which increase ground water withdrawals encourage the downward movement of water from the surficial aquifer to the Floridan Aquifer, potentially causing a decline in the water table. Elevational changes in the water table will be reflected in elevational changes in lakes because lakes in the area substantially depend on the flow of water from the surficial aquifer. As mentioned, lake levels are highly responsive to the water table. A linear regression analysis of data for Lake Church from the 1981 water year indicates a significant correlation between end-of-month lakes stages and end-of-month water table elevation (r = .84, p. 001, Figures 16 and 17). While it remains significant, the value of r decreases as one relates lake stage to a water table elevation which has been lagged (2, 7, 11, and 14 days), indicating that lake stage reacts rapidly to changing water table. Therefore, insofar as the influence of ground water withdrawal, lakes can be expected to reach a condition of steady state within the time required for the water table to achieve steady state. Lake stage is also dependent upon the prior lake elevation, that is, the stage of Lake Church today is very much affected by what it was yesterday. This is, of course, an expected and intuitively under- stood fact; however, it has implications relating to the perception of the effects of ground water withdrawals on lakes. Lake levels fluctuate annually between high and low levels and, by the end of the dry season, can be expected to be at the lowest elevation in a normal year. Thereafter, following the beginning of the wet season, lake levels start upward from the seasonal low, eventually reaching a normal high elevation by the end of the wet season. A lake subject to stage decline in addition to ordinary dry season-induced decline will essentially be at a lower-than-normal starting elevation when the rainy season begins. Consequently, the chance of a lake reaching the expected wet season high stage is reduced unless above average rainfall is available to fill up the additional storage in the lake created by water table drawdowns. Water levels in cypress ponds change in response to several factors including surface runoff into the pond, evapotranspiration, vertical infiltration, ground water seepage into the ponds, lateral movement of water from the ponds to the water table, direct precipitation, and, where present, surface outflow. The elevation of the water table around a pond significantly influences all of the above factors, partic- ularly those which are directly ground water-related. During high water table conditions, standing water is maintained in a cypress wetland as ground water moves in and through the pond. Also, a high water table reduces infiltration and can increase the rate of surface outflow. As the water table declines, water levels in the cypress pond drop as a result of enhanced infiltration to the surrounding sands. Further, evapotranspiration, an important loss factor throughout the year, becomes even more important as the pond water level drops to ground surface and to slightly below ground surface. Under conditions of seasonal dryness, water table depressions result in the absence of standing water in cypress ponds, and the pond soil may become dry in the upper 3-5". Prolonged water table depressions, caused by unseasonable drought or by nearby ground water withdrawals result in longer periods of dryness in a cypress pond. This, in turn, brings about excessive soil desiccation and a substantial change in the vegetational characteristics of the pond. Should the changes include the eventual toppling and death of the cypress trees themselves, the hydrologic features of the area formerly CO-65 Technical Memorandum CUP No. 200004 June 9, 1983 Page 4 occupied by the pond are altered for an undetermined period of time. Occurring regionally, this pheno- menon could produce detectable changes in the previously established hydrobiologic relationships in the area. Streams in the area of the well field are also closely related to the ground water systems. Streamflow or runoff in this part of Florida is dependent on ground water contributions to a varying extent depending on climatic conditions. Estimates of ground water seepage to area streams range from 10% to nearly 100% under conditions of high and low flows, respectively. Therefore, both the potentio- metric surface and the water table are important indicators of the ability of the ground water system to contribute to streamflow. The relationship of streamflow to the ground water system is illustrated in Figure 16. IMPACT OF MUNICIPAL WITHDRAWALS ON SURFACE WATER LEVELS Because of the intimate relationship between lake levels and the water table, drawdowns induced in the water table will induce declines in lake stage. Analyses done using a modified Prickett-Lonnquist Model (reported elsewhere in this Evidentiary Summary) estimate that, under the conditions specified, a water table drawdown of 0.5' or greater will cover an area of approximately 8.67 mi The levels of lakes within this zone of influence can be expected to decline, potentially up to the actual of the water table drawdown. In other words, in that area, a 0.5' drawdown in the water table could produce a decline in lake levels ranging between approximately 0.25' and 0.5', particularly during the dry season. The same could be said of water levels in the marshes and cypress ponds located within the area of concentrated water table drawdown. Streams located within the major zone of drawdown are dependent upon ground water inflow for a variable percentage of flow. Generally, drawdowns in the water table can be expected to produce declines in streamflow resulting in a greater frequency of zero flow conditions during the dry season. The large annual variability in discharge makes a quantitative estimate of flow reduction due to well field-induced water table decline difficult; however, under dry conditions, such reductions potentially could be significant. Low rainfall combined with pumpage has historically caused greater than normal declines on lakes. However, recovery to normal levels has occurred when exceptionally high rainfall was experienced, but it was extremely short-term and was not sustained. PMD:GSC:bh CO-66 Technical Memorandum CUI- No. 200004 June 9, 1983 Page 5 REFERENCES CHERRY, R. N., J. W. STEWART, AND J. A. MANN. 1970. General hydrology of the Middle Gulf Area, Florida. Fla. Bur. Geol. Tallahassee, Florida. HEIMBURG, K. 1975. Surface Hydrology. In:Cypress Wetlands for Water Management Recycling and Conservation, 2nd Ann. Rpt. U. of Fla. Gainesville, Florida. HUNN, J. D. AND R. C. REICHENBAUGH. 1972. A hydrologic description of Lake Magdalene near Tampa, Florida. U. S. Geol. Surv. Tallahassee, Florida. HUTCHINSON, C. B., D. M. JOHNSON, AND J. M. GERHART. 1981. Hydrogeology of well field areas near Tampa, Florida, Phase I Development and documentation of a two-dimensional finite- difference model for simulation of steady-state groundwater flow. U. S. Geol. Surv. Talla- hassee, Florida. MENKE, C. G., E. W. MEREDITH, AND W. S. WETTERHALL. 1961. Water resources of Hillsborough County, Florida. U. S. Geol. Surv. Tallahassee, Florida. SINCLAIR, W. C. 1977. Experimental study of artificial recharge alternatives in northwest Hillsbor- ough County, Florida. U. S. Geol. Surv. Tallahassee, Florida. STEWART, J. W., AND G. H. HUGHES. 1974. Hydrologic consequences of using groundwater to maintain lake levels affected by water wells near Tampa, Florida. U. S. Geol. Surv. Talla- hassee, Florida. WHARTON, C. H., H. T. ODUM, K. EWEL, M. DUEVER, A. LUGO, R. BOYT, J. BARTHOLOMEW, E. DeBELLEVUE, S. BROWN, M. BROWN, AND L. DUEVER. 1977. Forested wetlands of Florida their management and use. U. of Florida. Gainesville, Florida. CO-67 CUP No. 200004 June 9, 1983 Page 6 TABLE 1. NAMED LAKES AND STREAMS LOCATED WITHIN THE PREDICTED1 0.5' DRAWDOWN CONTOUR SECTION 21 WELL FIELD. Lakes Size (Acres) Board-Adopted Lake Levels 1. Calm 127 + 2. Church 68 + 3. Cypress 17 4. Echo 27 + 5. Fairy 52 + 6. Horse 28 + 7. James 16 8. Josephine 51 + 9. Juanita 24 + 10. Keystone 417 + 11. Little 18 12. Little Moon 13 13. Pretty 80 + 14. Rainbow 47 + 15. Raleigh 24 + 16. Rock 53 + 17. Rogers 93 18. Thorpe 13 19. Velburton 26 + 20. Williams 15 Streams 1. Rocky Creek N/A N/A 2. Brooker Creek N/A N/A 1 Contour is predicated using a modified Prickett-Lonnquist Model based on 30 days of average permitted pumpage, followed by 30 days at maximum permitted pumpage, followed by 60 days at average permitted pumpage. CO-68 r iyurte 1. IaunvaOual average proage ot the tour major well tields (a-d) a "he total average pumpage (e). 20 Cosme-Odessa Total @ MCD 10 90 80 '31 '41 '51 '61 '71 '81 MGD 10 0 a me "6 boutl Pasco SMGD 50" 40 " 0'04 '31 '41 '51 '61 '71 '81 Eldridge-Wilde 30 30 - MCD 20 20 - 10 10 - n00-69 '31 "41 '51 '61 '71 "81 '1 '41 '51 '61 '71 '81 YEA1 R YEAR v I-On South Pasco SPasco Co. _____ Hillsborough Co. Eldridge-Wilde '0 314 2 Section 21 o Cosine-Odessa East Lake Road a SChurch Lake 7 Lake Josephine 13 Lake Crenshaw--------------------- .. .... ....TAM PA 5 Lake R:ogers II Saddleback Lake 16 6 Lake Raleigh 12 Round Lake 17 Starvation Lake Figure 2. Location of selected lakes in the vicinity of Cosme-Odessa Wellfield CO-70 4 C\j .=. I I I II Z 00 '-" OU) a ... co u -- - C- 71 _- C 5 D--- "----- 1 1 ----- ------ --- C Z CDC I's C:D NI .,. J w LLI Iz <, n, = lC- P-- -J LLJ Co w Co L" -, _I 4- ___________ o H r- _j S- C) -C CIf) 00-71 00 *--C ~ __ _ 1 '- H 4) C) I. I .n .. -c _ __ .. ....... < < CC1 L m L o S oo^o ----- '- r2------------ * LLi O a LJCD -- =-*-N r S. O CK) W_ w co < D I - iu> C Sa'- C) - 1 <.. D > Lu H O+- S-> co II CD cu -- <2 a C C) gow a) __- C r I 0 aI I I I I e ----- -- - CO ) CS -N H S- 0 3 t I. I .I - 4...u < -. CO S. I- CO .CO 2 C) O 00-73 W> LLJ D wT CO CO C X O LN CIJUJIO CO-73 I I 1 .. \ J I I I I EJ I C") C - to o < 1-- w -. . t 0 - - _o W L W . 0< z C ^ OQ^ J--------------." i------------ u S.- LL CO Co H CD C *-rv s I ^*.----c------- > z^ W-- 3 j y---------------:_! of n low c co - ry CD t4) 0 Q- < a *-* I -- I- I I I Sr C C) CO - -- r_.- W *_ ._.__ w0 u~g=----------^^Z-------,,,-- I -1 C rD D J LL -j w W - _CJ- L_ .7_______________ CO W._oWr^ -DOD ^r r _WWM c = H ci)~ -I a)~ ~ *1 I C3 D ) U-~ 1~ rz ~-CO-75 LI0 1 c l.- I IP-- - .. .. ^-- I -.. ....- 1 '-^ ------ I -.....- I --.. .-- W- W .. 0") a co - < 0o n 'or ^ ; ---- i -- i -- i --- o a a - tJ ,,< u_. =- ^ 0:3 o - _) ' a ._1 > | -- " < CD -JF *Az CCO D ,, -' L < oWI I I ^-------^--^ | I- ......--- HW _ '7 0 LOW Z LL ; d LL 7 - -J. C-> > 7 0q ,. W .r o ' H CO L - "- CO-76 N M*~.-. .... N co 3 1 ef I T | -JL i W am o io 3 So ..LD SCD. _ ___ S. CD DO 00 coQ m < Cj 0- "" or.,0<---- _'-------------,- I zm - --^ C 2 - D 7 coD u., W r--- t-- I o; D r LLLZ 0 -7 d~N N)~ N) 3 O f O 00 u 0 u COO *f) H WI Q) CO %I -- LJO 4 m CI .CO, N L 0 )- W _ W CO\J O - 4-)) _l IZ : " CO CO< .. .... 1 ..--.-- ,, >- HI ...- J 0 w3 W Co W o -: -- cn W __________.....-..... _____- ,-4 - ______\___ . rW.- >- i __J LZ LJd C0-J CO-78 . i.. .i i -.. " -'J -" 00 - 1 -___ C ooH . < no .._-- .._4 -- 2--" -- - oa 0 -- SC0 4-- .. O" " 0 < _U ) H a, W- C4 C D - <>CD CD L tO W* ^"'-^--------7 UNW W co Y. l l >: =^ WD3C< CD -- - CD H 2: LiW C ~ OH0 ---C J J U)3 U) (/1 -1s n o H CD w W J "l0" SCO -79 t- - =N *co SO C- GO .. ... .. U - 0I >- -----...-----i-----._,---h--------.-- ----------_---- E o H "----- - 0 r S 4J - ..- - -0 a COZ 22 2 - < CD P4c3 0DC IW -z ZIL"m o U > co cf )- 2 OH0 >= C SLL W_ ___ _,,. ... .. I 4-0 co S>J H-OZ: 2: -WLiJH LL< CO-80 000 I I O I 4- G. . IN ----~ m.]> _~ 03---- <-o ,s .--.-- .. - "- ___ ___ ___ _ . _C ____ r H HW ___.__ U < 0) > 0----------i- =------- 7 - S 1 < *C- 0 Jm J H > Ij _ C0- UJ ___CO 0 _ _ _ _ _ __-- S------' --------- 4 CD I) N) (4 CO-81 ...... ..- I -"- -- -4I I --- i 1 I -.. .. .... .. . >- ,--. .o 0--,---I------. ---- I :: .... .'- a ... a ,! C: W 0< l -o -1 )- ( y L rn "" z CO y. < LL co-< t -----------*- I--.-i > <^ ,.r 0 1L1 -, w I z H < w H 0 "I C0-82 cm S>.H u 1 ---- o co I - OU 0 -7- (]'- CO W G iWC o,-K I 0 4* 0 1 q 0L .. >)WC Q< OZ H - - SD. _ CO-8 -. - i-tee - -oo ." *- = W_______ _ W U CCCD CO _-J CU N CD -J.. a, D - - I)I --- W I- F- >z - u CO 0 QC---- < CD 0 0 -, II.. I I I - -J q COu LLJ -CD P S- c0 " Z -- L-- SL.L r: >f k- iLi --- S -J 0 S 0O o N -l) _j CO z - D H I- O- CDO < 0O O' r n~oz co G W OC CD - ..-- < t--- Z L Go Li w o IiCO I. 2 o Li "JLJ S]> I._ - >, < o: L i G o f .. ~. H >-.- ,--4 0O-85 NN CO O. a HC >- n . ---------- s D co [_ ------------:~ a 0 0 - 1 H M W - * I I ' WCo > 0 .CCCOO . I- L LLC Sr- j C - . ..i SL-- - S>- 0 0 5- C o~CO-86 "N ----i--i-- .~" co Y- i " i I I i t I I II I CO I - SCO <- -- CDO CCO 5 a) < ,, 2 .11 1 r o 00) S-ID C 0 .n .. ,--- " C-,- S"i. ... .. .. . .C. WO Il 1 1 11 1 10) H :5 ..i D o 0 I------------------ ----------------C -8 U) 0 l 1 1C& il& ' N)N 0N P a) 0 hCD LD IN) N W LJUJsJL.O O I ~ a4 LLA Ou..)LLL J CO-87 _ 1 i i I i I I I I I i I .. i 1 . I I i I I I I I >-J 00 CC 1 ". ...4I 1 -) t i 1 1 71 1 . e P -- ,'I. I "I - S-J.. .. o" -- t t... " I ..... ,- I . C -- 0? 0 0 -o0 S.-- '- r4 cs o cD CD cD .O -r -o ( qLJ - C- CO 0I QC.D W QLLCO CO-88 wc S.-- C-. CD HI ... I i I I- LO 1 -- L o I J r03 a , a . -NOW C CD (u - 00 I I I I I I , o * -. n c LJ LI- C"- -c O ---- --1-- --1-- --I-- --I-- --I---- 03 5 LO " H o -,, -r- t tO Sa 0 -g ... ...... I I I ,,I ... I, ,l ,, C If) -- 4 -- ~ CO-89 C II U) -- -- i l_ _ __-- ^ i ---- --- 1) >.- 9 I I I I I I-- I .I I I I I S-- H coIH I I I I I I . L II I I I I I ,L SCD C oco CO t/l CD . (/1 -. .. n C ) CD0_ . o - 00-9 SCD H 0 I c- 0 G 0) U) h Co If) V t) r CN '- Lu CO-90 03 SI I I H- co co I I I II I . rC H co r,- o LJm L - S. I I I I I I I I - r'- * I2 '-' *r* -c - 2 . 0-9 CO-910 o '24 41 ^ -< >- co C) D I - 0. 0) =--4 U- 0 r C<5) U. = - iq- 5- 0. 00 -- ( ( j 1 i I I i \ -- H - -- 1 0 - C == r-- =- '- -.4 34- S. C< O ( l i | i i i i i" i I " t -J S30 CQ-92 ........... ,...... X- -.. -----....LAK E LE VEL I II ..........Figure 15. i .......... ...'.'-.-..':.......:...-'..-'..::. ......... '..... . . ..' X v : .. ... ..'. - FOIA AQUIE ~~~i1 t..I~;;5~5''~ I~ ~ ~~~~~~.55~~ .: FfS5igu~:"re' 15~: ~~ ~:::::::~~:~ ~ :~t ~O : ~J~.~f:~::::~S(5C0-93~;;rl z Figure 16 Relationship among month-end elevations of Lake Church, the water table and Brookcr Creek discharge Shallow Well 35 Lake Church 30 S -. S\ \ Deep Well 25 45 S-8 / \ Brooker Creek .116 I1 \ / / 3 / \ I I i o \ \ I - S \ / \ / 1 -l \__ *II I 10 Oct Nou Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 1980 1981 CO-94 Figure 17 Regression line describing relationship betweenstage of Lake Church, Brooker Creek discharge and the water table For January through June 1981 0 Brooker Creek a Lake Church 7 0 36 dry 6 A/A 35 4 // 0 O A / I I I 34 S 36 37 S/ C-95 3435 6 37 Attachment G Regulatory Wells Legend Cumulative Weekly Average Regulatory Level Weekly Average Regulatory Level Se Weekly Average Water Levels SCumulative Weekly Average Water Level for Water Year CO-96 C(SME-ODESSA JAMES II WELL c c fa 1 9a o o o vvs I IU ma Ia'- 0 F' F' ma mf us s C0 " ) I J3w 0 N Ja w ! I I' I I t COSME-ODESSA JAMES II WELL i- Co Na ,-4 . 0' So '-4 r g i ab cm % I I I I 5 0 0 N N 2 N N -2 CO-98 Contact Us | Permissions | Preferences | Technical Aspects | Statistics | Internal | Privacy Policy © 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.All rights reserved. Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs