U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
LAKE DIVERSION
ARCHER ATD MYLOR COUf-fTIES
EPA REGION VI
WORKING PAPER No, 642
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
699-440
-------
REPORT
ON
LAIC DIVERSION
ARftER AND BAYLOR COUNTIES
EPA REGION VI
WORKING PAPER No, 642
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD
AND THE
TEXAS NATIONAL GUARD
FEBRUARY, 1977
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreward ii
List of Texas Study Reservoirs iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map vi
Sections
I. Conclusions 1
II. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics 3
III. Lake Water Quality Summary 4
IV. Nutrient Loadings *8
V. Literature Reviewed 12
VI. Appendices 13
-------
FOREWORD
The National Eutrophication Survey was initiated in 1972 in
response to an Administration commitment to investigate the nation-
wide threat of accelerated eutrophication to freshwater lakes and
reservoirs.
OBJECTIVES
The Survey was designed to develop, in conjunction with state
environmental agencies, information on nutrient sources, concentrations,
and impact on selected freshwater lakes as a basis for formulating
comprehensive and coordinated national, regional, and state management
practices relating to point-source discharge reduction and non-point
source pollution abatement in lake watersheds.
ANALYTIC APPROACH
The mathematical and statistical procedures selected for the
Survey's eutrophication analysis are based on related concepts that:
a. A generalized representation or model relating
sources, concentrations, and impacts can be constructed.
b. By applying measurements of relevant parameters
associated with lake degradation, the generalized model
can be transformed into an operational representation of
a lake, its drainage basin, and related nutrients.
c. With such a transformation, an assessment of the
potential for eutrophication control can be made.
LAKE ANALYSIS
In this report, the first stage of evaluation of lake and water-
shed data collected from the study lake and its drainage basin is
documented. The report is formatted to provide state environmental
agencies with specific information for basin planning [§303(e)J, water
quality criteria/standards review [§303(c)], clean lakes [§314(a,b)],
and water quality monitoring [§106 and §305(b)] activities mandated
by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
-------
m
Beyond the single lake analysis, broader based correlations
between nutrient concentrations (and loading) and trophic condi-
tion are being made to advance the rationale and data base for
refinement of nutrient water quality criteria for the Nation's
fresh water lakes. Likewise, multivariate evaluations for the
relationships between land use, nutrient export, and trophic
condition, by lake class or use, are being developed to assist
in the formulation of planning guidelines and policies by EPA
and to augment plans implementation by the states.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The staff of the National Eutrophication Survey (Office of
Research & Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency)
expresses sincere appreciation to the Texas Water Quality Board
for professional involvement, to the Texas National Guard for
conducting the tributary sampling phase of the Survey, and to
those Texas wastewater treatment plant operators who voluntarily
provided effluent samples.
Hugh C. Yantis, Jr., Executive Director of the Texas Water
Quality Board, and John B. Latchford, Jr., Director, and the staff
of the Field Operations Division provided invaluable lake documen-
tation and counsel during the Survey, reviewed the preliminary
reports, and provided critiques most useful in the preparation of
this Working Paper series.
Major General Thomas Bishop, the Adjutant General of Texas,
and Project Officer Colonel William L. Seals, who directed the
volunteer efforts of the Texas National Guardsmen, are also grate-
fully acknowledged for their assistance to the Survey.
-------
iv
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY RESERVOIRS
State of Texas
NAME
Amistad
Bastrop
Bel ton
Braunig
Brownwood
Buchanan
Caddo
•
Calaveras
Canyon
Colorado City
Corpus Christi
Diversion
Eagle Mountain
Fort Phantom Hill
Houston
Kemp
Lake O'The Pines
Lavon
Lewisville (Garza-Little Elm)
Livingston
COUNTY
Val Verde
Bastrop
Bell, Coryell
Bexar
Brown
Burnet, Llano
Harrison, Marion, TX;
Caddo Parish, LA
Bexar
Comal
Mitchell
Jim Wells, Live Oak, San
Patricio
Archer, Baylor
Tarrant, Wise
Jones
Harris
Baylor
Camp, Marion, Morris,
Upshur
Coll in
Denton
Polk, San Jacinto, Trinity,
Walker
-------
Lyndon B. Johnson
Medina
Meredith
0. C. Fisher (San Angelo)
Palestine
Possum Kingdom
Sam Rayburn
Somervi lie
E. V. Spence
Stamford
Still house Hollow
Tawakoni
Texoma
Travis
Trinidad
Twin Buttes
White River
Whitney
Wright Patman (Texarkana)
Burnet, Llano
Bandera, Medina
Hutchinson, Moore,
Potter
Tom Green
Anderson, Cherokee,
Henderson, Smith
Palo Pinto, Stephens,
Young
Angelina, Jasper
Nacogdoches, Sabine, San
Augustine
Burleson, Lee, Washington
Coke
Haskell
Bell
Hunt, Rains, Van Zandt
Cooke, Grayson TX; Bryan,
Johnston, Love, Marshall, OK
Burnet, Travis
Henderson
Tom Green
Crosby
Bosque, Hill
Bowie, Cass
-------
\
,
A
Kemp
idam 4®zgggr/fd
^I2A2/16A1
•-T'
'7
-''
v
*D1
•.•**"
>--,
S
^U
fiive/-
V
r
33'50' 1
v/i^
*ta
B1
\ !-
J^
<\ ^TexasV,
^^
N I Vi
Map Location
33*45' 1
-A
LAKE DIVERSION
(g) Tributary Sampling Site
X Lake Sampling Site
\ . ' . ' Km"
o i 2 Mi.
Scale
99*00'
98'55'
-------
LAKE DIVERSION
STORE! NO. 4812
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey data indicate that Lake Diversion is eutrophic:.
i.e., well supplied with nutrients and quite productive.
Whether nutrient enrichment is beneficial or deleterious
depends on the actual or potential effect on the uses of the
lake. In this regard, no nuisance conditions are known to
personnel of the Texas Water Quality Board and there is little
or no impairment of the designated beneficial uses of this
lake.
Lake Diversion ranked thirteenth in overall trophic quality
when the 39 Texas reservoirs sampled in 1974 were compared using
a combination of six water quality parameters*. Twelve of the
reservoirs had less median total phosphorus, 11 had less and six
had the same median dissolved orthophosphorus, six had less and
one had the same median inorganic nitrogen, 27 had less mean
chlorophyll a_, and 26 had greater mean Secchi disc transparency.
Survey limnologists observed submerged and emergent macro-
phytes 1n the shallows near stations 1 and 2 1n August, and
blue-green algae were dominant in the August sample (page 6).
* See Appendix A.
-------
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
The algal assay results indicate that Lake Diversion was phos-
phorus limited at the time the sample was taken (05/13/74). The
lake data indicate phosphorus limitation in May and August but
nitrogen limitation in October.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources—During the sampling year, septic tanks serving
lakeshore residences were the only point sources impacting Lake
Diversion. Total phosphorus loads from these sources were esti-
mated to have amounted to 0.9% of the total to the lake; however,
a shoreline survey would have to be done to determine the actual
phosphorus contributions.
The present loading of 0.33 g/m2/year at normal pool level is
more than that proposed by Vollenweider (Vollenweider and Dillon,
1974) as an oligotrophic loading but less than his proposed eutro-
phic loading; i.e., a mesotrophic loading (see page 11). However,
the actual areal loading during the sampling year was greater than
that because of low water levels and reduced area. The lake could not
be sampled in March because of low water (the Survey limnologists
estimated the lake volume was only 25% of normal capacity); and in
October, the water level again was low because of drawdown to per-
mit work on the dam (Gamble, 1974).
2. Non-point sources—Non-point sources contributed 99.1% of
the total phosphorus load during the sampling year. The Wichita
River contributed 81.8%, and Spring Creek contributed 2.6%. The
ungaged minor tributaries and immediate drainage contributed an
estimated 9.5%.
-------
II. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS1"
A. Lake Morphometry :
1. Surface area: 13.84 kilometers2.
2. Mean depth: 3.7 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 10.7 meters.
4. Volume: 51.208 x 106 m3.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 156 days (based on outflow),
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix C for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Name
Wichita River
Spring Creek
Minor tributaries &.
immediate drainage -
Drainage
area (km2)*
5,402.7
35.5
258.9
Totals
2. Outlet -
South Side Canal
Wichita River
Total
C. Precipitation***:
1. Year of sampling: 70.6 centimeters.
2. Mean annual: 69.1 centimeters.
5,697.1
5,710.9**
5,710.9
Mean flow
(mVsec)*
3.710
0.118
0.430
4.258
2.360
1.432
3.792
t Table of metric conversions—Appendix B.
tt Gamble, 1974.
* For limits of accuracy, see Working Paper No. 175, "...Survey Methods,
1973-1976".
** Includes area of lake.
*** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
4
III. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Lake Diversion was sampled three times in 1974 by means of a pontoon-
equipped Huey helicopter. Each time, samples for physical and chemical
parameters were collected from two or more depths at three stations on
the lake (see map, page vi). During each visit, a single depth-integrated
(4.6 m or near bottom to surface) sample was composited from the stations
for phytoplankton identification and enumeration; and during the first
visit, a single 18.9-liter depth-integrated sample was composited for
algal assays. Also each time, a depth-integrated sample was collected
from each of the stations for chlorophyll a_ analysis. The maximum depths
sampled were 2.7 meters at station 1, 6.7 meters at station 2, and 8.2
meters at station 3.
The sampling results are presented in full in Appendix D and are
summarized in the following table.
-------
A. SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND
CHEMICAL CrlA-iACTEKISTICS FOR DIVERSION LAKE
STORET CODE
PARAMETER
TEMP (C)
DISS OXY (MG/L)
CNDCTVY (NCROMO)
PH (STAND UNITS)
TOT ALK (MG/L)
TOT P (MG/L)
OPTHO P (MG/L)
N02»N03 (MG/L)
AMMONIA (MG/L)
OEL N (MG/L)
INORG N (MG/L)
TOTAL N (MG/L)
CMLRPYL A
SECCHI (METERS)
RANGE
22.1 - 23.7
6.6 - 7.6
4167. - 4550.
8.0 - 8.2
90. - 93.
0.020 - 0.056
0.006 - 0.017
0.080 - 0.150
0.040 - 0.100
0.400 - 1.200
0.120 - .0.250
0.480 - 1.350
2.6 - 4.1
0.3 - 1.0
NG < 5/13/74)
TES
MEAN MEDIAN H
23.3
7.1
4455.
8.1
91.
0.030
0.010
0.122
0.077
0.520
0.199
0.642
3.1
0.7
23.4
7.2
4528.
8.1
91.
0.025
0.009
0.130
0.080
0.400
0.210
0.530
2.6
O.U
25.3
6.0
5266.
8.2
70.
0.018
0.002
0.020
0.030
0.400
0.050
0.420
19.8
1.0
2NU SAMPLING ( 8/ 8/74)
3 SITES
ANGt MEAN MEDIAN
- 26.2
7.8
- 5533.
8.9
73.
- 0.047
- 0.007
- 0.020
- 0.060
- 0.700
- 0.080
- 0.720
- 23.5
1.2
25.9
7.0
5462.
8.5
71.
0.024
0.003
0.020
0.044
0.478
0.064
0.507
22.0
1.1
26.0
7.2
5476.
8.5
72.
0.020
0.002
0.020
0.040
0.400
0.060
0.470
22.8
1.0
3RD SAMPLING (10/28/74)
3 SITES
RANGE MEAN MEDIAN
15.7
7.2
1313.
.0....
77.
0.025
0.021
0.020
0.020
0.500
0.040
0.520
13.4
0.0
- 17.3
8.4
- 4082.
-«««0»«»4
83.
- 0.277
- 0.039
- 0.200
- 0.080
- 1.100
- 0.280
- 1.300
- 40.4
0.9
16.8
7.9
3324.
79.
0.069
0.027
0.053
0.038
0.683
0.092
0.737
22.5
0.5
17.2
8.1
4067.
M>OOOOO
78.
0.028
0.026
0.020
0.030
0.600
0.050
0.630
13.6
0.6
-------
B. Biological Characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Date
05/13/74
08/08/74
10/28/74
2. Chlorophyll a_ -
Sampling
Date
05/13/74
08/08/74
10/28/74
Dominant
Genera
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Scenedesmus sp.
Merismopedia sp.
Osclllatoria sp.
Oocystis sp.
Chroomonas sp.
Other genera
Total
Aphanizomenon sp.
Oscillatoria sp.
Lyngbya sp.
Merismopedia sp.
Chroomonas sp.
Other genera
Total
Nitzschia sp.
Oscillatoria sp.
Oocystis sp.
Diploneis sp.
Chroomonas sp.
Other genera
Total
Station
Number
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Algal Units
per ml
4,734
4,607
3,694
1,470
1,191
357
1,470
12,789
1,444
903
650
289
72
218
3,576
Chlorophyll a
(ug/1)
4.1
2.6
2.6
19.8
22.8
23.5
13.4
13.6
40.4
-------
0.010
0.060
0.060
0.010
0.140
0.140
1.140
1.140
0.1
2.6
14.7
0.1
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked -
Ortho P Inorganic N Maximum yield
Spi ke (mg/1) Cone, (mg/1) Cone, (mg/1) (mg/1-dry wt.)
Control
0.050 P
0.050 P + 1.0 N
1.0 N
2. Discussion -
The control yield of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum, indicates that the potential primary productivity
of Lake Diversion was low at the time the sample was collected
(05/13/74). Also, the significant increase in yield with
the addition of phosphorus alone indicates the lake was phos-
phorus limited at that time. Note that the addition of nitro-
gen alone resulted in a yield no greater than that of the
control.
The lake data indicate phosphorus limitation in May
and August as well; i.e., the mean inorganic nitrogen to
orthophosphorus ratios were 16 to 1 or greater at all sam-
pling stations. However, nitrogen limitation is indicated
in October (the mean inorganic nitrogen to orthophosphorus
ratios were 7 to 1 or less at all stations, and nitrogen
limitation would be expected).
-------
IV. NUTRIENT LOADINGS
(See Appendix E for data)
For the determination of nutrient loadings, the Texas National
Guard collected monthly near-surface grab samples from each of the
tributary sites indicated on the map (page vi). Sampling was begun
in September, 1974, and was completed in August, 1975.
Through an interagency agreement, stream flow estimates for the
year of sampling and a "normalized" or average year were provided by
the Texas District Office of the U.S. Geological Survey for the
tributary sites nearest the lake.
In this report, nutrient loads for sampled tributaries were
calculated using mean annual concentrations and mean annual flows.
Nutrient loads for Spring Creek and the unsampled "minor tribu-
taries and immediate drainage" ("II" of U.S.G.S.) were estimated
using the mean concentrations in the Wichita River at station A-2
and the mean Spring Creek and II flows.
No known point sources impacted Lake Diversion during the sampling
year.
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known municipal - None
2. Known industrial - None
-------
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
kg P/ % of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Wichita River 3,745 81.8
Spring Creek 120 2.6
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 435 9.5
c. Known municipal STP's - None
d. Septic tanks* - 40 0.9
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation** - 240 5.2
Total 4,580 100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet - South Side Canal 2,085
Wichita River 1,490
Total 3,575
3. Net annual P accumulation - 1,005 kg.
* Estimate based on 138 lakeshore dwellings; see Working Paper No. 175.
** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
10
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
kg N/ % of
Source y_r total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Wichita River 88,920 75.1
Spring Creek 2,830 2.4
b.. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 10,305 8.7
c. Known municipal STP's - None
d. Septic tanks* - 1,470 1.2
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation** - 14,940 12.6
Total 118,465 100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet - South Side Canal 49,270
Wichita River 41,820
Total 91,090
3. Net annual N accumulation - 27,375 kg.
D. Non-point Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
Tributary kg P/km2/yr kg N/km2/yr
Wichita River <1 16
* Estimate based on 138 lakeshore dwellings; see Working Paper No. 175.
** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
11
E. Yearly Loads:
In the following table, the existing phosphorus loadings
are compared to those proposed by Vollenweider (Vollenweider
and Dillon, 1974). Essentially, his "dangerous" loading is
one at which the receiving water would become eutrophic or
remain eutrophic; his "permissible" loading is that which
would result in the receiving water remaining oligotrophic
or becoming oligotrophic if morphometry permitted. A meso-
trophic loading would be considered one between "dangerous"
and "permissible".
Note that Vollenweider's model may not be applicable to
water bodies with short hydraulic retention times.
Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen
Total Accumulated Total Accumulated
grams/mVyr 0.33 0.07 8.6 2.0
Vollenweider phosphorus loadings
(g/m2/yr) based on mean depth and mean
hydraulic retention time of Lake Diversion at normal pool level
"Dangerous" (eutrophic loading) 0.56
"Permissible" (oligotrophic loading) 0.28
-------
12
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Gamble, Robert B., 1974. Fishery management recommendations. Fed.
Aid Proj. F-4-R-21, TX Parks & Wildlife Dept., Austin.
Vollenweider, R. A., and P. J. Dillon, 1974. The application of
the phosphorus loading concept to eutrophication research.
Natl. Res. Council of Canada Pub!. No. 13690, Canada Centre
for Inland Waters, Burlington, Ontario.
-------
VI. APPENDICES
13
APPENDIX A
LAKE RANKINGS
-------
LAKE DATA TO BE USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
4801 AMISTAD LAKE
4802 BASTROP LAKE
4803 BELTON RESERVOIR
4804 BRAUNIG LAKE
4805 BROWNWOOD LAKE
4806 LAKE BUCHANAN
4807 CADOO LAKE
4808 CALAVERAS LAKE
4809 CANYON RESERVOIR
4810 LAKE COLORADO CITY
4811 CORPUS CRISTI LAKE
4812 DIVERSION LAKE .
4813 EAGLE MOUNTAIN LAKE
4814 FT PHANTOM HILL LAKE
4815 GARZA LITTLE ELM RESEHVO
4816 KEMP LAKE
4817 HOUSTON LAKE
4818 LAKE OF THE PINES
4819 LAVON RESERVOIR
4830 LIVINGSTON LAKE
4831 LYNDON B JOHNSON LAKE
4833 MEDINA LAKE
4833 LAKE MEREDITH
4834 PALESTINE LAKE
4835 POSSUM KINGDOM RESERVOIR
4836 SAN ANGELO RESERVOIR
4837 SAM RAYBURN RESERVOIR
4838 E V SPENCE RESERVOIR
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
0.013
0.02?
0.016
0.134
0.037
0.036
0.055
0.038
0.010
0.043
0.113
0.025
0.034
0.060
0.045
0.033
0.097
0.031
0.063
0.196
0.043
0.010
0.031
0.031
0.023
0.098
0.039
0.036
MEDIAN
INOSG N
0.500
0.090
0.185
0.150
0.100
0.250
0.070
0.060
0.450
0.090
0.130
0.080
0.070
0.105
0.380
0.110
0.260
0.090
0.180
0.555
0.420
0.600
0.070
0.180
0.070
0.140
0.150
0.080
500-
MEAN SEC
371.474
419.917
378.312
461.625
470.375
437.625
463.333
461.667
384.813
473.635
475.187
470.111
469.625
474.909
475.783
455.000
486.187
440.000
485.333
465.469
.456.500
403.562
439.312
442.625
419.045
481.000
439.458
462.583
MEAN
CHLORA
2.7'»2
12.392
8.025
22.762
4.887
8.606
14.808
23.500
3.500
12.675
19.756
15.867
5.662
6.317
. 14.156
10.217
16.650
12.919
5.400
16.112
8.100
12.944
3.037
10.619
9.495
24.675
6.267
11.775
15-
.MIN 00
14.900
15.000
15.000
14.800
14.400
15.000
11.400
13.000
14.800
10.200
14.000
9.000
11.000
9.800
14.600
10.400
12.400
15.000
8.800
15.000
14.900
15.000
14.900
14.800
15.000
10.200
15.000
15.000
MEDIAN
DISS OWTHO P
0.009
0.007
0.007
0.062
0.007
0.012
O.OU
0.007
0.006
0.012
0.050
0.009
0.008
0.022
0.018
0.007
0.036
0.011
0.018
0.128
0.013
0.004
0.009
0.010
0.009
0.011
0.009
0.008
-------
LAKE DATA TO BE USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
4829 SOMERVILLE LAKE
i*830 STAMFORD LAKE
4831 STILLHOUSE HOLLO* RESEKV
4832 TAWAKONI LAKE
4833 TEXARKANA .LAKE
4834 TEXOHA LAKE
4835 TRAVIS LAKE
4836 TRINIDAD
4837 TWIN BUTTES RESERVOIR
4838 WHITE RIVER RESERVOIR
4839 WHITNEY LAKE
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
0.053
0.073
0.018
0.046
0.106
0.042
0.018
0.389
0.029
0.020
0.028
MEDIAN
1NORG N
0.115
0.060
0.160
0.100
0.120
0.160
0.250
0.110
0.250
0.110
0.120
500-
MEAN SEC
473.833
482.714
406.250
466.417
470.500
451.321
389.913
479.500
454.917
434.500
430.500
MEAN
CHLOftA
24.^91
18.457
3.917
18.246
19.119
12.493
5.595
24.300
8.708
4.333
6.912
15-
MIN DO
13.000
10.600
15.000
13.200
12.400
15.000
15.000
10.000
14.800
15.000
15.000
MEDIAN
OISS OrtTnO
0.013
0.012
0.010
0.013
0.030
0.018
0.007
0.240
0.009
0.009
0.008
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES HITH HIGHER VALUES (NUMBER or LAKES WITH HIGHEK VALUES)
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
4801 AMISTAO LAKE
4B02 BASTROP LAKE
4803 8ELTON RESERVOIR
4804 BRAUNIG LAKE
4805 BROrtNWOOO LAKE
4806 LAKE BUCHANAN
4807 CAOOO LAKE
4808 CALAVERAS LAKE
4809 CANYON RESERVOIR
4810 LAKE COLORADO CITY
4811 CORPUS CRISTI LAKE
4813 DIVERSION LAKE
4813 EAGLE MOUNTAIN LAKE
4814 FT PHANTOM HILL LAKE
4815 GARZA LITTLE ELM RESERVO
4816 KEMP LAKE
4817 HOUSTON LAKE
4818 LAKE OF THE PINES
4819 LAVON RESERVOIR
4820 LIVINGSTON LAKE
4821 LYNDON B JOHNSON LAKE
4822 MEDINA LAKE
4823 LAKE MEREDITH
4824 PALESTINE LAKE
4825 POSSUM KINGDOM RESERVOIR
4826 SAN ANOELO RESERVOIR
4827 SAM RAYBURN RESERVOIR
4828 E V SPENCE RESERVOIR
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
95
79
92
5
66
47
26
45
99
39
8
68
71
24
34
76
16
54
21
3
39
99
82
54
74
13
59
50
( 36)
( 30)
( 35)
( 2)
( 25)
< 18)
( 10)
( 17)
( 37)
( 14)
( 3)
( 26)
( 27)
( 9)
( 13)
( 29)
( 6)
( 20)
( 8>
< 1)
( 14)
( 37)
< 3D
( 20)
( 28)
( 5)
( 22)
< 19)
MEDIAN
INOSG N
5 (
76 (
26 (
42 (
70 (
21 I
91 (
100 1
8 1
76 1
47 1
83 1
91 1
66 <
13 1
61 I
16 I
76 l
29 i
3 1
11 <
0 i
91 (
32
91 .
45 i
39 '
83 i
; 2)
28)
10)
16)
26)
I 7)
: 33)
: 38)
: 3)
: 28)
; ia>
: 3D
1 33)
[ 25)
1 5)
I 22>
! 6)
t 28)
1 11)
I 1)
I 4)
1 0)
1 33)
( 12)
( 33)
t 17)
( 15)
( 31)
500-
MEAN SEC
100 1
82 1
97 1
50 (
29 1
74 1
42 1
47 1
95 1
26 1
18 1
32 1
34 <
21 <
16 1
55 l
0 i
66 l
3 i
39 i
53 i
89 i
71 i
63
84 .
8
68
45 '
1 38)
: 3D
[ 37)
: 19)
: 11)
[ 28)
: 16)
! 18)
1 36)
: io>
[ 7)
! 12)
1 13)
I 3)
; 6)
I 21)
I 0)
I 25)
I 1)
I 15)
I 20)
I 34)
1 27)
t 24)
( 32)
( 3)
( 26)
( 17)
MEAN
CHLOHA
100 I
47 1
68 1
a (
87 1
63 1
32 1
11 1
97 I
42 1
13 1
29 1
79 1
74 I
34 I
55 i
24 i
39 i
84 '
26 i
66 i
37
95
53
S3
0
76
50
1 38)
1 18)
I 26)
! 3)
I 33)
[ 24)
: 12)
I 4)
1 37)
I 16)
I 5)
I 11)
I 30)
I 28)
I 13)
I 21)
I 9)
I 15)
1 32)
1 10)
( 25)
t 14)
( 36)
( 20)
< 22)
( 0)
( 29)
( 19)
15-
MlN UO
39 i
17 i
17 l
49 1
58 <
17 1
76 1
67 1
49 1
88 I
61 1
97 1
79 l
95 i
55 (
84 i
72
17
100
17
39
17
39
49
17
88
17
17
I 14)
1 0)
I 0)
I 17)
1 22)
I 0)
1 29)
I 25)
1 17)
! 33)
1 23)
I 37)
I 30)
1 36)
1 21)
( 32)
( 27)
1 0)
I 38)
( 0)
( 14)
( 0)
< 14)
( 17)
( 0)
( 33)
( 0)
( 0)
MEDIAN
DISS GwTHO P
63
92
84
5
84
39
30
92
97
39
8
63
76
16
21
92
11
46
21
3
30
100
63
51
63
46
63
76
( 21)
( 34)
f 31)
( 2)
( 31)
( 14)
( 10)
( 34)
( 37)
( 14)
( 3)
< 21)
( 28)
( 6)
( 7)
'( 34)
( 4)
( 17)
( 7)
< 1)
( 10)
( 38)
( 21)
( 19)
( 21)
( 17)
( 21)
( 28)
INDEX
NO
402
3^3
384
159
394
261
297
362
445
310
155
372
430
296
173
423
139
298
258
'91
238
342
441
- 302
387
200
322
321
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES (NUMBER OF LAKES *ITH HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
4829 SOMERVILLE LAKE
4830 STAMFORD LAKE
4831 STILLHOUSE HOLLOW RESEKV
4832 TAWAKONl LAKE
4833 TE*ARKANA LAKE
4834 TEXOMA LAKE
4835 TRAVIS LAKE
4836 TRINIDAD
4837 TWIN BUTTES RESERVOIR
4838 WHITE RIVER RESERVOIR
4839 WHITNEY LAKE
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
29 (
18 (
88 (
32 <
11 <
39 (
88 (
0 (
59 (
84 (
63 (
11)
7)
33)
12)
4)
14)
33)
0)
22)
32)
24)
MEDIAN
INORG N
55
97
37
70
51
34
21
61
21
61
51
( 21)
I 37)
( 14)
( 26)
( 19)
< 13)
( 7)
( 22)
( 7)
( 22)
( 19)
500-
MEAN SEC
24 (
5 (
87 (
37 (
13 <
61 (
92 (
11 (
58 (
76 (
79 (
9)
2)
33)
14)
5)
23)
35)
4)
22)
29)
30)
MEAN
CHI.ORA
3
18
92
21
16
45
82
5
61
89
71
( 1)
( 7)
( 35)
( 8)
( 6)
( 17)
( 3D
I 2)
( 23)
( 34)
( 27)
15-
MIN 00
67
82
17
63
72
17
17
92
49
17
17
( 25)
( 3D
( 0)
( 24)
( 27)
( 0)
( 0)
< 35)
( 17)
( 0)
( 0)
MEDIAN
DISS UrtTHO H
30 (
39 (
51 (
30 (
13 <
21 (
84 (
0 (
63 <
63 (
76 (
10)
14)
19)
10)
5)
7)
3D
0)
21)
21)
28)
INOE*
NO
20S
259
372
2S3
176
217
384
169
311
390
357
-------
LAKES RANKED BY INDEX N05.
RANK LAKE CODE LAKE NAME
INDEX NO
i 4809 CANYON RESERVOIR 445
? 4833 LAKE MEREDITH 441
3 4813 EAGLE MOUNTAIN LAKE 430
4 4816 KEMP LAKE 423
5 4801 AMISTAO LAKE 402
6 4805 BRONNWOOD LAKE 394
7 4802 BASTROP LAKE 393
8 4838 WHITE RIVER RESERVOIR 390
9 4825 POSSUM KINGDOM RESERVOIR 387
10 4835 TRAVIS LAKE 384
11 4803 BEL TON RESERVOIR 384
12 4831 STILLHOUSE HOLLOW RESERV 372
13 4812 DIVERSION LAKE 372
14 4808 CALAVERAS LAKE 362
15 4839 WHITNEY LAKE 357
16 4822 MEDINA LAKE 342
17 4827 SAM RAYBURN RESERVOIR 322
18 4828 E V SPENCE RESERVOIR 321
19 4837 TWIN 8UTTES RESERVOIR 311
20 4810 LAKE COLORADO CITY 310
21 4824 PALESTINE LAKE 302
22 4818 LAKE OF THE PINES 298
23 4807 CADDO LAKE 297
24 4814 FT PHANTOM HILL LAKE 296
25 4806 LAKE BUCHANAN 261
26 4830 STAMFORD LAKE 259
27 4819 LAVON RESERVOIR 258
28 4832 TAWAKONI LAKE 253
-------
LAKES RANKED BY INDEX NOS.
RANK LAKE CODE LAKE NAME INDEX NO
39 4821 LYNDON B JOHNSON LAKE 238
30 4834 TEXOMA LAKE 217
31 4829 SOMERVILLE LAKE 208
32 4826 SAN ANGELO RESERVOIR 200
33 4833 TEXARKANA LAKE 176
34 4815 GARZA LITTLE ELM RESERvO 173
35 4836 TRINIDAD 169
36 4804 BRAUNIG LAKE 159
37 4811 CORPUS CRIST1 LAKE 155
38 4817 HOUSTON LAKE 139
39 4820 LIVINGSTON LAKE 91
-------
APPENDIX B
CONVERSION FACTORS
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS
Hectares x 2.471 = acres
Kilometers x 0.6214 = miles
Meters x 3.281 = feet
-4
Cubic meters x 8.107 x 10 = acre/feet
Square kilometers x 0.3861 = square miles
Cubic meters/sec x 35.315 = cubic feet/sec
Centimeters x 0.3937 = inches
«
Kilograms x 2.205 = pounds
Kilograms/square kilometer x 5.711 = Ibs/square mile
-------
APPENDIX C
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA
-------
TRIBUTARY FLOW INFORMATION FOR TEXAS
LAKE CODE 4812 DIVERSION
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKEfSQ KM) 5710.9
06/10/76
SUB-DRAINAGE
TRIBUTARY AREAISQ KM)
JAN
FEfl
MAR
APR
MAY
NORMALIZED FLOWS(CMS)
JUN JUL AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
MtAN
4812A1
4812A2
481281
481201
4812ZZ
5710.9
5402.7
0.0
35.5
271.9
0.0
4.13
0.62
0.040
0.14
0.0
1.22
0.71
0.034
0.14
0.0
2.04
0.76
0.048
0.17
0.0
6.03
2.21
0.144
0.37
1.303
2.27
2.27
0.340
1.42.
0.425
3.28
4.13
0.207
0.93
0.736
7.59
7.28
0.164
0.82
0.368
4.64
5.10
0.130
0.17
0.0
2.15
2.80
0.108
0.31
9.684
3.14
1.44
. 0.093
0.28
4.502
7.39
0.42
0.040
0.14
0.0
0.51
0.40
0.062
0.23
1.432
3.71
2.36
0.118
0.43
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE
SUM OF SUB-DRAINAGE AREAS
NOTE **» NO DRAINAGE AREA FOR 481281
MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS AND DAILY FLOWS(CMS)
TRIBUTARY MONTH YEAR MEAN FLO* DAY
4812A1
4812A2
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
74
74
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
74
74
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.566
0.566
0.0
0.0
0.048
0.023
0.255
0.014
12.374
0.014
1.756
2.180
1.529
0.025
6.513
4.248
8
12
2
12
5
2
2
6
3
7
13
17
7
31
16
12
5
2
2
13
3
12
22
5710.9
5710.2
FLOW DAY
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.020
0.068
1.841
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.929
0.0
6.570
3.596
20
24
26
20
SUMMARY
TOTAL FLOW IN = 79.08
TOTAL FLOW OUT » 17.02
FLOW DAY
FLOW
0.0
2.265
0.0
0.963
-------
TRIBUTARY FLOW INFORMATION FOR TEXAS
06/10/76
LAKE CODE 4612
DIVERSION
MEAN MONTHLY FLOrfS AND DAILY FLOWS(CMS)
TRIbUTARY MONTH YEAR MEAN FLOW DAY
481281
4812Q1
4812ZZ
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
74
74
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
74
74
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
74
74
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
3.879
0.765
0.076
0.040
0.708
1.472
0.283
1.416
0.595
1.331
5.380
4.248
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.006
0.003
0.057
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.003
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.161
0.538
0.0
0.0
8
12
2
12
5
2
2
6
3
7
13
22
8
12
3
IS
5
5
2
6
3
7
13
17
FLOW DAY
FLOW DAY
FLOW
4.474
0.878
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.869
0.0
0.0
2.039
0.0
5.607
4.191
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20
24
20
24
0.708
0.0
0.0
0.0
-------
APPENDIX D
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/02/11
481201
33 46 35.0 098 59 49.0
DIVERSION LAKE
43023 reXAS
DATE
FROM
TO
74/05/13
74/08/08
74/10/28
DATE
FROM
TO
74/05/13
74/08/08
74/10/28
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
10 00 0000
10 00 0005
10 40 0000
10 40 0009
11 30 0000
11 30 0004
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
10 00 0000
10 00 0005
10 40 0000
10 40 0009
11 30 0000
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
23.7
23.7
26.2
25.3
15.7
16.1
00665
PHOS-TOI
MG/L P
0.056
0.04S
0.02<+
0.020
0.277
00300
DO •
MG/L
6.6
7.8
7.2
7.2
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
4.1
19.8
13.4
11EPALES 2111202
' 3 0009 FEET
00077 00094 00400 00410 00610 00<
TRANSP CNOUCTVY PH T ALK MH3-N TOT 1-
SECCHI FIELD CAC03 TOTAL N
INCHES MICROMHO SU
12
39
1
00031
INCDT LT
REMNING
PERCENT
4169 8.00
4167 8.00
5447 8.50
5266 8.90
1313
1600
MG/L MG/L MG/
90 0.100 1.
90 0.070 0.
71 0.060 0.
70 0.040 0.
83 0.080 1,
DEPTH
00030
1.200
0.500
0.600
0.400
100
N-TOFAL
MG/L
0.150
0.120
0.020
0.020
0.200
00671
HHOS-DIS
ORfHO
MG/L P
0.017
0.011
0.002
0.002K
0.039
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/02/11
33 48 10.0 098 56 51.0
OIVEK3W LANE
48023 TtAAS
11EFALES 2111202
DATE
FROM
TO
74/05/13
74/08/09
74/10/28
DATE
FROM
TO
74/05/13
74/08/09
74/10/28
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
10 ?0 0000
10 20 0006
10 20 0015
10 ?0 0022
12 45 0000
12 45 0010
12 45 0016
11 15 0000
11 15 0005
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
10 20 0000
10 20 0005
10 20 0015
10 20 0022
12 45 0000
12 45 0010
12 45 0016
11 15 0000
11 15 0005
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
23.4
23.3
23.3
23.2
26.2
26.0
25.5
17.3
17.3
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.025
0.025
0.026
0.030
0.020
0.019
0.023
0.031
0.032
00300
DO
MG/L
7.4
7.2
7.0
7.6
7.4
6.0
8.2
8.4
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
2.6
22.8
13.6
00077
TRANSP
SECCHI
INCHES
32
39
24
00031
INCDT LT
KEMNING
PERCENT
00094
CNDUCTVY
FIELD
MICROMHO
4532
4528
4528
4524
5533
5476
5458
*062
4067
3
00400
PH
SU
8.15
6.15
, 8.15
8.15
8.50
8. SO
8.35
0027
00410 00610
T ALK NHJ-N
CAC03 TOTAL
MG/L MG/L
90 0.090
91 0.080
92 0.080
93 0.070
71 0.040
72 0.050
77 0.030
77 0.030
FEET
DEPTH
00625
TOT
N
KJEL
MG/L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.600
.400
.400
.400
.500
.400
.400
.800
.500
00630
N02t»N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.120
0.020K
0.020
0.020K
0.020K
00671
PhOS-UlS
ORTrtO
MG/L P
0.010
0.011
0.009
0.010
0.002K
0.002
0.024
0.028
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/02/11
481203
33 4« 51.0 098 56 07.0
DIVERSION '.AKE
48009 TEXAS
DATE
FROM
TO
74/05/13
74/08/08
74/10/28
DATE
FROM
TO
74/05/13
74/08/08
74/10/28
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
10 45 0000
10 45 0005
10 45 0015
10 45 0025
13 10 0000
13 10 0007
13 10 0020
13 10 0027
10 45 0000
10 45 0005
10 45 0016
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
10 45 0000
10 45 0005
10 45 0015
10 45 0025
13 10 0000
13 10 0007
13 10 0020
13 10 0027
10 45 0000
10 45 0005
10 45 0016
00010
MATER
TEMP
CENT
23.5
23.5
23.4
22.1
26.2
26.0
25.9
25.5
17.2
17.2
17.2
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.021
0.020
0.023
0.030
0.047
0.018
0.020
0.022
0.026
0.025
0.026
00300
DO
MG/L
7.6
7.4
6.8
7.0
7.2
7.0
6.2
7.6
8.0
8.2
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
2.6
23.5
40.4
00077
TRANSP
SECCHI
INCHES
38
48
36
00031
INCDT LT
HEMNING
PERCENT
00094
CNDUCTVY
FIELD
MICP.OMHO
4550
4545
4542
4465
5522
5506
5497
5452
4077
4082
4067
11EP4LES
3
00400
PH
su
8.20
8.20
8.20
8.15
8.50
8.50
8.30
8.20
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
92
91
90
91
72
73
70
72
83
79
77
2111202
OOJO
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.080
0.070
0.040
0.090
0.050
0.040
0.040
0.030
0.040
0.030
0.020
FEET DEPTH
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.500
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.700
0.500
0.400
0.400
0.700
0.500
0.500
00630
N02&N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.130
0.100
0.080
0.130
0.020
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.040
0.020K
0.020K
00671
PHOS-UIS
OHTHO
MG/L P
0.009
0.006
0.007
0.009
0.007
0*002
0.002K
0.002K
0.027
0.021
0.025
K VALUE KNOWN TO 8E
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
APPENDIX E
TRIBUTARY DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/03/10
DATE TIME DEPTH N02&N03
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/10/12 10 05
74/11/02 12 00
75/65/24 10 15
4312A1
33 48 50.0 098 55 55.0 4
WICHITA RI"ER
482^7 7.5 UK DIVERSION
0/LAKE DIVERSION
BANK SAMP JUST 8ELO POOL BASE N SPILLWAY
11EPALES 211120*
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
0630
&N03
OTAL
iG/L
0.040
0.008
0.030
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
1.100
1.200
0.400
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.030
0.050
0.005
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.005
0.010
0.005
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.030
0.050
0.020
-------
STORET KETRIEVAL OATE 76/03/10
DATE TIME DEPTH
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/09/07 14 30
74/10/31 09 00
74/11/16 09 50
75/04/13 08 30
75/05/20 16 30
75/07/12 14 00
75/08/22 09 05
4812A2
33 45 37.0 099 08 30.0 4
WICHITA hIVEH
<*3 f.S NE LK ivtMP
T/LA*E DIVERSION
HrfY 183/293 BKOG BELO LAKE KEMP 0AM
11EPALES 2111204 .
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS uO
0630
&M03
OTAL
G/L
0.044
0.448
0.048
0.080
0.020
0.025
0.005
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.700
1.200
0.600
0.600
0.600
0.550
0.400
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.040
0.020
0.075
0.045
0.025
0.020
0.025
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.005
0.020
0.010
0.005
0.005K
0.005K
0.010
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.030
0.030
0.020
0.040
0.030
0.040
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
5TORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/03/10
DATE TIME DEPTH N026.N03
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/09/OH 09 30
74/10/12 09 50
75/02/02 10 00
75/04/20 09 50
75/05/03 10 25
75/07/13 09 10
75/08/22 11 45
481261
33 46 55.0 098 55 40.0 4
SOUTrl SIT-. CANAL
48 7.5 LK DIVERSION
0/LAKE DIVERSION
2NOKY HO -3ROG 0.3 MI FROM S SPILLWAY
11EPALES 2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
0630
6.N03
OTAL
iG/L
o.ooa
0.032
0.096
0.010
0.020
0.010
0.005
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
6.800
0.900
0.400
0.550
0.700
0.650
0.450
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.040
0.030
0.016
0.040
0.140
0.025
0.015
00671
PhOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.010
0.005
0.008K
0.005K
0.010
0.010
0.010
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.025
0.020
0.010K
0.030
0.030
0.040
0.040
K VALUE KNOWN TO HE
LESS THAN INDICATED
------- |