U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
LAKE FORT PH/WTOM HILL
JONES COUNTY
TEXAS
EPA REGION VI
WORKING PAPER No,
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
•&G.P.O. 699-440
-------
REPORT
ON
LAKE FORT PHANTOM HILL
JONES COUNTY
TEXAS
EPA REGION VI
WORKING PAPER No,
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD
AND THE
TEXAS NATIONAL GUARD
MARCH, 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 10
V. Literature Reviewed 15
VI. Appendices 16
-------
n
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)], 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.
-------
Ill
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
Bel 1, Coryel1
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
Somervil le
E. V. Spence
Stamford
Stillhouse 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
-------
Map Location
LAKE FORT PHANTOM HILL
9 Tributary Sampling Site
x Lake Sampling Site
is Km.
5 Mi.
Scale
-------
LAKE FORT PHANTOM HILL
STORET 4814
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey data indicate that Lake Fort Phantom Hill 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 water body.
Lake Fort Phantom Hill ranked twenty-fourth in overall trophic
quality when the 39 Texas reservoirs sampled in 1974 were compared
using a combination of six water quality parameters*. Twenty-
nine of the reservoirs had less median total phosphorus, 32 had
less median dissolved orthophosphorus, 13 had less median inorganic
nitrogen, ten had less mean chlorophyll a_, and 30 had greater mean
Secchi disc transparency.
No significant depression of dissolved oxygen occurred at any
of the sampling stations and times. However, the lake is aerated
from March to October to prevent stratification (Weems, 1976).
Survey limnologists did not observe macrophytes or surface
algal concentrations during the sampling visits. However, it was
noted that the lake at times was very turbid, and the low mean
* See Appendix A.
-------
Secchi disc transparencies (range of 0.02 to 0.9 meters) indi-
cate that at times primary productivity may be light-limited.
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
The algal assay results indicate that nitrogen was the
limiting nutrient in October. The lake data indicate nitrogen
at all sampling times.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point-sources—No known wastewater treatment plants
impacted Lake Fort Phantom Hill during the sampling year.
Septic tanks serving lakeshore dwellings were estimated to
have contributed about 3% of the total phosphorus load, but
a shoreline survey would be necessary to determine the actual
significance of these sources.
The present phosphorus loading of 0.37 g/m2/year is slightly
more than that proposed by Vollenweider (Vollenweider and Dillon,
1974) as a eutrophic loading (see page 14). However, the hydrau-
lic retention time of the lake is estimated and may be in error
due to variability of inflows (see page 10).
2. Non-point sources—Non-point sources accounted for about
97% of the total phosphorus load reaching Lake Fort Phantom Hill.
More than 49% of the total was contributed by the gaged tribu-
taries, and an estimated 43% was contributed by the ungaged
tributaries and immediate drainage.
-------
LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS*
A. Morphometry :
1. Surface area: 10.93 kilometers2.
2. Mean depth: 5.6 meters.
3. Maximum depth: ? meters.
4. Volume: 61.208 x 106 m3.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 2.2 years (based on outflows).
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix C for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Drainage Mean flow
Name area (kV)ttt (m3/sec)ttt
Elm Creek 644.9 0.203
Cedar Creek 414.4 0.128,,
Clear Fork Brazes River diversion - 0.237
Minor tributaries &
immediate drainage - 167.8 0.630
Totals 1,227.1 1.198*
2. Outlet -
Abilene Aqueduct - 0.660^
Elm Creek 1,238.0** 0.208
Totals 1,238.0 0.868
C. Precipitation***:
1. Year of sampling: 85.0 centimeters.
2. Mean annual: 59.9 centimeters.
t Table of metric conversions—Appendix B.
tt Weems, 1976.
tit For limits of accuracy, see Working Paper No. 175, "...Survey Methods,
1973-1976".
* Sum of inflows adjusted to equal sum of outflows plus evaporation; see
page 10.
** Includes area of lake.
*** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
III. WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Lake Fort Phantom Hill was sampled four 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 October 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 15.8
meters at station 1, 10.7 meters at station 2, and 6.1 meters at
station 3.
The sampling results are presented in full in Appendix D and are
summarized in the following table.
-------
PARAMETER
TEMP (C)
DISS OXY (MG/U)
CNDCTVY (MCROMO)
PH (STAND UNITS)
TOT ALK (MG/D
TOT P (MG/U
ORTHO P (MG/U
N02»N03 (MG/L>
AMMONIA (MG/L)
KJEL N (MG/L)
INORG N (MG/L)
TOTAL N (MG/L)
CHLKPYL A (UG/D
SECCHI (METERS)
A. SUMM4RY OF PHYSICAL AND
1ST SAMPLING ( 3/ 6/74)
3 SITES
RANGE MEAN MEDIAN
11.9 - 15.4 13.7 13.4
8.8 - 9.4 9.2 9.3
615. - 660. 635. 630.
8.1 - 8.4 8.3 8.3
167. - 173. 170. 170.
0.034 - 0.057 0.042 0.039
C.018 - 0.028 0.022 0.022
C.030 - 0.090 0.048 0.050
0.030 - 0.080 0.042 0.030
0.400 - 1.200 0.645 0.500
0.060 - 0.170 0.090 0.080
0.440 - 1.240 0.694 0.570
2.9 - 3.1 3.0 3.1
0.6 - 0.8 0.7 0.8
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR FT PHANTOM HILL LAKE
STOrfET CODE «*»H4
2ND SAMPLING ( 5/15/74)
3 SITES
RANOt
23.8 - 24.5
7.0 - 7.8
839. - 858.
8.3 - 8.3
165. - 170.
0.047 - 0.534
0.017 - 0.033
7.4
843.
8.3
168.
MEAN MEDIAN
24.2 24.1
7.4
845.
8.3
167.
0.110 0.061
0.023 0.020
0.040 - 0.080 0.059 0.065
0.030 - 0.060 0.049 0.050
0.200 - 1.100
0.070 - 0.140
0.270 - 1.180
4.9 -
0.2 -
7.8
0.5
0.500 0.450
0.108 0.110
0.559
b.9
0.3
0.505
5.0
0.3
3RD SAMPLING < 8/ 5/74)
3 SITES
rfANGE MEAN MEDIAN
25.5 - 26.4 26.1 26.3
5.2 - 7.0 6.5 6.8
961. - 987. 976. 978.
8.2 - 8.4 8.3 8.3
162. - 167. 164. 164.
0.044 - 0.07<» 0.056 0.056
0.006 - 0.022 0.010 0.008
0.020 - 0.100 0.029 0.020
0.020 - 0.070 0.039 0.035
0.300 - 0.500 0.400 0.400
0.040 - 0.160 0.068 0.055
0.320 - 0.530 0.429 0.420
13.7 - 15.3 14.7 15.0
0.6 - 0.9 0.8 0.9
-------
A. SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERiSTICS FOK FT PHANTOM HILL LAKt.
STOKET CODE 4614
4TH SAMOLING <10/30/74>
PARAMETER
TEMP (O
DISS OXY (MG/L)
CNDCTVY (MCROMO)
PH (STAND UNITS)
TOT ALK (MG/L)
TOT P (MG/L)
ORTHO P (MG/L>
N02»N03 (MG/L)
AMMONIA (MG/L)
KJEL N (MG/L)
1NORG N (MG/L)
TOTAL N (MG/L)
CHLRPYL A
SECCHI (METERS)
3 SITES
RANGE MEAN
18.8
6.4
372.
7.9
112.
0.081
0.062
0.270
0.030
0.300
0.310
0.570
1.3
0.6
- 19.2
7.6
- 410.
8.0
- 120.
- 0.099
- 0.080
- 0.290
- 0.050
- 0.600
- 0.340
- 0.890
1.9
0.6
19.0
7.?
399.
8.0
117.
0.092
0.073
0.278
0.041
0.400
0.319
0.678
1.7
0.6
MEDIAN
18.9
7.2
402.
8.0
118.
0.092
0.073
0«280
0.040
0.400
0.320
0.670
1.8
0.6
-------
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Date
03/06/74
05/15/74
08/05/74
10/30/74
Dominant
Genera
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Chroomonas sp.
Selenastrum sp.
Microcystis sp.
Cryptomonas sp.
Dactylococcopsis sp.
Other genera
Total
Chroomonas sp.
Microcystis sp.
Cryptomonas sp.
Centric diatoms
Euglena sp.
Other genera
Total
Coscinodiscus sp.
Chroomonas sp.
Chlamydomonas sp.
Zoospores
Merismopedia sp.
Other genera
Total
Chroomonas sp.
Oocystis sp.
Chlamydomonas sp.
Centric diatoms
Microcystis sp.
Other genera
Algal Units
per ml
706
445
131
105
78
183
1,648
743
496
212
177
177
744
2,549
3,378
622
445
356
267
1,022
6,090
803
223
178
178
134
402
Total
1,918
-------
8
2. Chlorophyll a_ -
Sampling
Date
03/06/74
05/15/74
08/05/74
10/30/74
Station
Number
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked -
Ortho P
Cone, (mg/1)
Inorganic N
Cone, (mg/1)
Chlorophyll
3.1
2.9
3.1
5.0
4.9
7.8
13.7
15.3
15.0
1.3
1.9
1.8
Maximum yield
(mg/1-dry wt.)
0.031
0.081
0.081
0.031
0.207
0.207
1.207
1.207
6.2
6.3
25.9
15.9
Spike (mg/1)
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 Fort Phantom Hill was high at the time the sample was
collected (10/30/74).
-------
There was a significant increase in yield when only
nitrogen was added, but not when phosphorus alone was
added. Based on these results, nitrogen limitation is
indicated at that time.
The lake data indicate nitrogen limitation at all
sampling times; i.e., the mean inorganic nitrogen to
orthophosphorus ratios were 8 to 1 or less at all sam-
pling stations and times. However, the mean Secchi disc
transparency of 0.6 meters indicates primary productivity
may be light-limited at times rather than nutrient-limited.
-------
10
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), except for April and
May when two samples were collected. 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. Several factors affect the flow
into and out of Lake Fort Phantom Hill. The City of Abilene diverts
about 0.66 m3/sec from the reservoir for municipal use (Anonymous, 1976),
and water is .pumped from the Clear Fork Brazos River into the lake at an
average rate of 0.24 m3/sec (Weems, 1976). Apparently, the variability
of flow is high and is sometimes affected by irregular inflows such as
the diversion of an undetermined amount of flood flow by gravity ditch
from Deadman Creek to the reservoir (Anonymous, 1976).
In this report, nutrient loads for sampled tributaries were
calculated using mean annual concentrations and mean annual flows.
Nutrient loads for unsampled "minor tributaries and immediate drainage"
("ZZ" of U.S.G.S.) were estimated using the mean concentrations in Elm
Creek at station A-2 and the mean annual ZZ flow.
-------
11
No known wastewater treatment plants impacted Lake Fort Phantom
Hill during the sampling year.
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known municipal - None
2. Known industrial - None
-------
12
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
kg P/ % of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Elm Creek 555 13.8
Cedar Creek 455 11.3
Clear Fork Brazos River diversion 970 24.1
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 1,730 43.0
c. Known municipal STP's - None
d. Septic tanks* - 125 3.1
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation** - 190 4.7
Total 4,025 100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet - Abilene Aqueduct 1,080
Elm Creek 470
Total 1,550
3. Net annual P accumulation - 2,475 kg.
* Estimate based on 441 lakeshore dwellings; see Working Paper No. 175.
** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
13
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
kg N/ % of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Elm Creek 10,520 11.5
Cedar Creek 6,470 7.1
Clear Fork Brazos River diver-
sion 25,515 27.8
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 32,645 35.6
c. Known municipal STP's - None
d. Septic tanks* - 4,700 5.1
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation** - 11,800 12.9
Total 91,650 100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet - Abilene Aqueduct 17,860
Elm Creek 7,190
Total 25,050
3. Net annual N accumulation - 66,600 kg.
D. Non-point Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
Tributary kg P/km2/yr kg N/km2/yr
Elm Creek <1 16
Cedar Creek 1 16
* Estimate based on 441 lakeshore dwellings; see Working Paper No. 175.
** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
14
E. Mean Nutrient Concentrations in Ungaged Stream:
Mean Total P Mean Total N
Tributary Cone, (mg/1) Cone, (mg/1)
Buck Creek 0.049 2.202
F. 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/m2/yr 0.37 0.23 8.4 6.1
Vollenweider phosphorus loadings
(g/m2/yr) based on mean depth and mean
hydraulic retention time of Lake Fort Phantom Hill:
"Dangerous" (eutrophic loading) 0.32
"Permissible" (oligotrophic loading) 0.16
-------
15
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Anonymous, 1976. Water resources data for Texas, water year 1975.
Water-Data Rept. TX-75-1, U.S. Geol. Surv., Austin.
Vollenweider, R. A., and P. J. Dillon, 1974. The application of
the phosphorus loading concept to eutrophication research.
Natl. Res. Council of Canada Publ. No. 13690, Canada Centre
for Inland Waters, Burlington, Ontario.
Weems, W. J. (Water Supt.), 1976. Personal communication (diver-
sions from lake for municipal use; lake morphometry; pumping
records for Clear Fork Brazos River). Abilene.
-------
16
VI. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
LAKE RANKINGS
-------
LAKE DATA TO 3E USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
4601 AMISTAD LAKE
•4802 BASTROP LAKE
4803 8ELTON RESERVOIR
4804 BRAUNIG LAKE
4805 BROWNHOOD 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
4820 LIVINGSTON LAKE
4821 LYNDON B JOHNSON LAKE
4822 MEDINA LAKE
4823 LAKE MEREDITH
4824 PALESTINE LAKE
4825 POSSUM KINGDOM RESERVOIR
4826 SAN ANGELO RESERVOIR
4827 SAM RAYBURN RESERVOIR
4828 E V SPENCE RESERVOIR
MED UN
TOTAL P
0.013
0.02?
0.016
0.134
0.027
0.036
0.055
0.038
0.010
0.042
0.113
0.025
0.024
0.060
0.045
0.023
0.097
0.031
0.063
0.196
0.042
0.010
0.021
0.031
0.023
0.093
0.029
0.036
MEDIAN
INO^G N
0.500
0.090
0.1
-------
LAKE DATA TO BE 'USED IN BANKINGS
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
4829 SOMERVILLE LAKE
4830 STAMFORD LAKE
4831 STILLHOUSE HOLLOA RESEKV
4832 TAWAKOM LAKE
4833 TEXARKANA LAKE
4834 TEXOMA LAKE
4835 TSAVIS LAKE
4836 TRINIDAD
4837 TWIN 8UTTES RESERVOIR
4838 WHITE RIVER RESERVOIR
4839 WHITNEY LAKE
MEDIAE
TOTAL P
0.053
0.073
O.Olb
0.046
0.106
0.042
0.018
0.389
0.029
0.020
0.028
MEDIAN
INO^O N
0.115
0.160
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
47B.500
451.321
389.913
479.500
454.917
434.500
430.500
MEAN
OLOftA
24.491
18.457
3.917
18.246
19.119
12.493
5.595
24.300
8.708
4.333
6.912
Ib-
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
DISS UrfTnO
0.013
0.012
0.010
0.013
0.030
0.018
0.007
0.240
0.009
0.009
0.008
-------
OF LAKES »ITH
VALJES
BES OK LAKES *ITI
LA
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES (NUMBER OF L*THO P
30 (
39 (
51 (
30 I
1J <
21 I
84 (
0 (
63 (
63 <
76 (
101
14)
19)
10)
5)
7)
3D
0)
21)
21)
28)
INDEX
NO
20a
259
372
2^3
176
217
J84
169
311
390
357
-------
cS RANKED BY JNDE< NOS.
RANK LAKE CODE LAKE NAME INDEX NO
1 4809 CANYON RESERVOIR 445
2 4823 LAKE MEREDITH 441
3 4813 EAGLE MOUNTAIN LAKE 430
4 4816 KEMP LAKE 423
S 4801 AMISTAO LAKE 402
6 4805 3RO*NWOOD LAKE 394
7 4802 BASTRUP LAKE 393
8 4838 WHITE RIVER RESERVOIR 390
9 4825 POSSUM KINGDOM RESERVOIR 387
10 4835 TRAVIS LAKE 384
11 4803 8ELTON 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 BUTTES RESERVOIR 311
20 4810 LAKE COLORADO CITY 310
21 4824 PALESTINE LAKE 302
22 4818 LAKE OF THE PINES 298
23 4807 CADOO 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
29 4821 LYNDON B JOHNSON LAKE 238
30 4834 TEXOMA LAKE 217
31 4829 SOMERVILLE LAKE 208
32 4826 SAN ANGELO KESERVOIR 200
33 4833 TEXAKKANA LAKE 176
34 4815 GARZA LITTLE ELM RESERvO 173
35 4836 TRINIDAD 169
36 4804 BRAUNIG LAKE 159
37 4811 CORPUS CRISTI 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
-------
04/l<./76
LAKE CODE 4S14
FORT PHANTOM HILL *ts.
TOTAL DRAINAGE ARtA OF LAKE(SO KM)
SUH-CHAINAGE
TRIBUTARY
4814A1
4M14A2
<«814ZZ
JAN
123-.J
•MA*
MAY
JUN
FLOwSICMb)
JUL AoG
OCT
OtC
)?38.0
644.9
41-*.4
178.7
0.000
O.OOo 0.00*5
0.003 O.OC3
0.001 0.001
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE =
SUM UF SUB-DRAINAGE AREAS =
0.000
0.0 3«
0 . 0 C 6
0.002
0.190
0.02S
0.017
o.oos
1.019
0.461
0.311
0. 133
0.184
1.161
0.736
0.317
0.051
0.190
0.122
O.Obn
0.011
0.057
0.023
0.013
0.510
0.065
0.051
0.023
0.481
0.311
0.196
0.086
O.OCrt
0 . 0 1 V
0.011
0.005
0.017
0.0o2
0. J-+6
0.022
0.208
0.203
0. 128
0.056
SUMMARY
1233.0
1233.0
MEAN MONTHLY FLOmS AND DAILY FLOWS(CMS)
TKIBUTARY MONTH YEAR
MEAN FLOW DAY
I-LOW OAY
PLOW
TOTAL FLO* IN
TOTAL FLO* OUT
FLOW
4.63
2.48
4814A1
4814A2
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
IS
13.592
44.741
5.663
1.133
1.416
2.83?
1.416
0.991
0.566
1.133
0.850
0.566
11.327
19.822
4.248
0.850
0.708
4.248
0.566
0.283
0.283
0.566
0.142
0.283
7
5
2
7
4
1
1
5
3
7
5
2
7
5
2
7
4
1
1
5
3
7
5
2
0.003
0.026
8.495
2ls32
1.416
1.416
1.133
0.566
1.133
0.850
1.133
0.057
1.982
4.814
1.133
0.850
2.124
0.708
0.283
0.?63
0.425
0. 142
O.OS7
19
17
19
17
0.850
0.566
0.283
0.283
-------
it FLOW INFORMATION
CODE <-814 FCHT PHANTOM ilLL
MEAN MONTHLY FLOwS AND DAILY FLOwS(CMS)
MONTH YEAN MEAN FLUrt DAY
48142Z
9
10
11
1?
1
2
3
L*. P
* C **O
1.416
0.283
0.142
0.850
0.170
0.142
0.113
0.170
0.057
O.OS7
7
5
2
7
<4
1
1
3
3
7
5
2
FLO* OAY
O.U14
0.510
2.832
0.2*3
0.263
0.708
0.425
0.170 19
0.170 17
0.283
0.085
0.028
OAY
FLO*
0.170
0.170
-------
APPENDIX D
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STOPET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/02/il
4H1401
32 36 5b.O C99 40 05.0
FT PIANTOM -ULL
48253 TEXAS
DATE
FROM
TO
74/03/06
74/05/15
74/08/05
74/10/30
DATE
FROM
TO
74/03/06
74/05/15
74/08/05
74/10/30
TIME OE°TH
OF
DAY FEET
15 35 0000
15 35 0005
15 35 0015
15 35 0030
15 35 0042
16 20 0000
16 ?0 0005
16 20 0015
16 20 0030
16 20 0042
10 ?0 0000
10 20 0005
10 20 0020
10 20 0034
09 25 0000
09 25 0005
09 25 0015
09 25 0032
09 25 0052
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
15 35 0000
15 35 0005
15 35 0015
15 35 0030
15 35 0042
16 20 0000
16 20 0005
16 20 0015
16 20 0030
16 20 0042
10 20 0000
10 20 0005
10 20 0020
10 20 0034
09 25 0000
09 25 0005
09 25 0015
09 25 0032
09 25 0052
00010
HATER
TEMP
CENT
15.4
15.3
15.0
12.1
11. V
24.2
24.4
24.1
24.0
23.8
26.3
26.3
26.3
25.5
19.1
19.2
19.2
19.1
19.0
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.046
0.038
0.034
0.035
0.057
0.062
0.050
0.047
0.052
0.050
0.046
0.044
0.046
0.061
0.093
0.091
0.090
O.OH1
0.0«7
00300 00077
DO T^uN'S^
SECOI
MG/L INCHES
30
9.4
9.4
9.0
8.8
7.8
7.4
7.4
7.6
6.8 35
6.8
6.8
5.2
7.6 24
7.2
7.2
7.4
7.2
32217 00031
CHLRPHYL INCUT LT
A REMNING
UG/L PERCENT
3.1
5.0
13.7
1.3
OOU94
CND'JCTVY
FIELD
MICROMHO
622
622
630
615
622
858
846
844
841
839
979
977
971
966
372
398
396
395
390
1 lEr'AuES
3
00400 00410
Pi-i I ALK
SU
8.40
8.30
8.30
8.20
8.10
8.30
8.30
8.30
8.30
8.30
8.30
8.30
8.30
8.20
8.00
8.00
7.95
8.00
8.00
CACOJ
MG/L
Ib7
168
168
168
170
167
166
165
165
165
164
164
167
165
117
117
116
112
114
2111202
0046 FEET ;E->T
00610 00625
NHJ-N TOT i^JE^
TOTAL
MG./L
U.030
0.030
0.030
0.060
0.080
0.050
0.060
0.040
0.060
0.060
0.030
0.020K
0.030
0.070
0.040
0.050
0.030
0.040
0.040
N
MG/L
0.600
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.600
0.400
0.300
0.300
0.200
0.400
0.400
0.300
0.400
0.600
0.400
0.300
0.300
0.500
00630
•.C-.ie.N03
'.-TOTAL
MG/L
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.070
U.090
0.040
0.070
0.060
0.070
0.070
0.020
0.020K
0.020
0.020
0.290
0.290
0.280
0.290
0.290
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.020
0.020
0.018
0.024
0.025
O.Olo
0.020
0.020
0.017
0.017
0.007
0.007
0.009
0.022
0.080
0.079
0.072
0.066
0.062
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
*ET*IEVAL OrtTE ffc/CL'/H
33 3b 57.0 099
FT pn4NTOM -(ILL
48253
11.0
DATE
FROM
TO
74/03/06
74/05/15
74/08/05
74/10/30
DATE
FROM
TO
74/03/06
74/05/15
74/08/05
74/10/30
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
16 20 0000
16 30 0005
16 20 0020
16 20 0035
09 35 0000
09 ?5 0005
09 25 0009
09 45 0000
09 45 0005
09 45 0010
09 45 0019
09 40 0000
09 40 0005
09 40 0015
09 40 0032
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
16 ?0 0000
16 20 0005
16 20 0020
16 20 0035
09 ?5 0000
09 25 0005
09 25 0009
09 45 0000
09 45 0005
09 45 0010
09 45 0019
09 40 0000
09 40 0005
09 40 0015
09 40 0032
00010
WATER
TtMP
CENT
13. <•
13.4
13.2
12.4
24.0
24.0
24.0
26.4
26.4
26.4
26.3
18.9
18.9
18.8
18. a
00665
PH05-TOT
MG/L P
0.039
0.036
0.034
0.049
0.067
0.061
0.065
0.051
0.057
0.055
0.068
0.093
0.092
0.090
0.090
00300
no
MG/L
9.
9.
9.
7.
7.
6.
6.
7.
6.
7.
7.
7.
7.
32217
OOC77
TrtANSP
SECCHI
INCHES
30
4
<*
2
16
2
2
0 34
6
0
6
2 24
6
2
0
00031
00094
CNDUCTV*
FIELO
MIC30MHG
647
642
637
628
841
841
840
984
987
981
984
400
402
403
402
HtP-LtS
3
00400 0041y
Pn
SU
8.30
8.30
8.25
8.20
8.30
8.30
8.30
8.30
8.35
8.3S
8.35
8.00
8.00
7.95
7.95
T AL«
CACOD
MG/L
170
170
171
169
168
170
168
163
164
163
163
118
118
118
119
2111202
0039 FEET 0£-
00610 00625
N!-3-N
TOTAL
M(j/L
U.030
0.030
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.040
0.030
0.040
0.030
0.040
0.030
0.040
0.030
0.040
0.040
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
1.200
0.500
0.400
0.400
0.700
0.500
0.400
0.500
0.400
0.500
0.300
0.600
0.400
0.300
0.400
00^30
•.•„>>;, NO 3
N- TOTAL
MG/L
0.040
0.050
0.040
0.050
0.070
0.050
0.040
0.030
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.280
0.280
0.270
0.270
OOo/l
HMOS-OIS
ORTrlO
MG/L P
0.021
0.022
0.022
0.022
0.033
0.029
0.021
0.007
0.008
O.OOo
0.006
0.076
0.073
0.071
0.069
CHLRPHYL INCDT LT
A
UG/L
2.
4.
15.
1.
REMNING
PERCENT
9
9
3
9
-------
STUrttT RETRIEVAL DATE 76/02/il
00010
DATE TIME OEPTrt WATER
FROM OF TEMP
TO DAY FEET CENT
74/03/06 16 50 0000 l^.l
16 53 0006 1^.0
74/05/15 09 50 0000 24.5
09 50 0005 24.4
74/08/05 09 05 0000 25.6
09 05 0006 25.6
74/10/30 10 15 0000 18.8
10 15 0005 18.8
10 15 0015 18.9
10 15 0020 18.8
<*81<-03
32 34 16.0 03-?
FT PniMOM r-lLl
4825J Tt**S
ilEPALtS
00300
DO
MG/L
9.2
7.0
6.8
6.8
7.0
6.4
7.2
7.2
00077
TRANSP
SECCHI
INCHES
24
9
24
2^
00094
CNDUCTVY
FIELD
MIC^OMMO
660
660
850
850
961
966
407
410
410
408
3
00400
PM
Su
8.30
8.30
8.35
8.30
8.40
8.40
8.00
7.95
7.95
7.95
OOMO
T AL*
CAC03
MG/L
172
173
169
169
162
163
119
120
119
118
tl 13. C
0010
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.060
0.040
0.040
0.060
0.060
0.040
0.040
0.050
0.040
0.050
1202
FEET UE3
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.800
1.000
0.500
1.100
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.300
0.300
T-
00630
'* ;'2^'-J03
N-TOTAL
Ib/L
0.050
0.050
0.040
0.080
0.100
0.020
0.270
0.270
0.270
0.270
00671
PHOS-3I5
0-iTnC
MG/L ?
0.028
0.023
0.028
0.032
0.017
0.013
0.076
0.077
0.073
0.075
DATE
FROM
TO
74/03/06
74/05/15
74/08/05
74/10/30
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
16 50 0000
16 50 0006
09 50 0000
09 50 0005
09 05 0000
09 05 0006
10 15 0000
10 15 0005
10 15 0015
10 15 0020
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.046
0.045
0.109
0.534
0.074
0.060
0.096
0.095
0.097
0.099
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
3.1
7.8
15.0
1.8
00031
INCDT LT
REMNING
DEKCENT
-------
APPENDIX E
TRIBUTARY DATA
-------
itVAL 04 1'E 70/03/10
32 3? 05.0 099 40 05.0 i
ELM C^EcX
7.5 HAK-HY
FUKT PHANTOM MILL
BANK SAMP FOOT OF 0AM OFF 2ND-4Y 3J
llt.-ALt.S 21112&4
0000 f'ttT DEPTH CLASS 00
DATE TI«t OEPTri NG2c,N03
FRUM OF
TO DAY FEET
7H/09/07
74/lu/OS
74/11/02
74/12/07
75/01/04
7S/02/01
75/03/01
75/04/05
75/04/19
75/05/03
75/05/17
75/06/07
75/07/05
75/OB/02
11 15
12 25
10 20
11 00
14 15
10 55
14 25
15 05
14 55
18 15
11 40
11 15
11 45
09 45
C630
5.N03
OTAL
IG/L
C.Olb
C.2lfc
0.296
a. 320
a. 304
2.380
0.220
0.010
0.075
0.030
0.010
0.040
0.045
0.015
00625
TOT ivJEL
N
MG/L
0.600
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.700
1.100
1.250
0.950
1.950
0.350
0.500
0.600
0.650
00610
iirl j-N
TuTAL
MG/L
0.045
0.030
0.027
0.032
0.040
0.0 60
0.060
0.030
0.260
0.105
0.015
0.060
0.020
0.020
00671
PHGS-DIS
U»THO
MG/L P
0.010
0.060
0.067
0.070
0.055
0.04fi
0.035
0.010
0.020
0.015
0.005
0.010
0.005K
0.020
00665
aHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.040
0.080
0.100
0.080
0.070
0.130
0.040
0.030
0.180
0.010
0.020
0.040
0.120
K VALUE KNOrtN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STOnET -iETPIEVAL OAlt 76.'C 3/10
DATE TIME DEPTH NiO?5>N03
FROM or
TO JAY FEET
74/09/07
74/10/05
74/11/02
74/13/07
75/01/04
75/02/01
75/03/01
75/04/05
75/04/19
75/05/03
75/05/17
75/06/07
75/07/05
75/08/02
09 40
10 ?0
Osi 45
10 00
13 55
09 05
13 20
13 50
12 50
17 00
10 40
10 00
10 OS
08 10
32 31 05.0 099 43 25.0 4
ELM C-EE*
46 ?.S HAM6f
T/LIN FOr*T PHANTOM nit_L
2NO^t ^L) tsrJDG AT MWY 600
llEr-LE5 _ 2111204
OO'.'O FEtT OtPTi CLASS JO
303*.
0630
'5.N03
uTAL
IG/L
0.430
0.576
0.352
0.990
0.920
1.020
1.000
0.770
0.930
0.710
0.670
0.420
0.990
0.920
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.800
0.500
0.900
1.100
0.700
1.300
1.600
0.450
1.100
0.550
0.500
1.550
0.600
0.650
00610
NH3-N
TUML
MG/L
0.025
C.010
0.085
0.024
0.016
0.144
0.035
0.050
0.060
0.025
0.010
0.030
0.020
0.015
00671
PriOS-l'.iS
iv r NO
MG/L P
0.02S
0.010
0.045
0.015
0.010
0.150
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.035
0.005K
0.025
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.106
0.060
0.230
0.020
0.035
0.210
0.020
0.040
0.070
0.080
0.070
0.100
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STORE! KETRIEVAL DATE 76/03/10
DATE TIME DEPTH N02f.N03
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
7*/10/OS 11 00
74/11/02 11 50
7-+/12/07 10 35
75/01/04 14 15
75/02/01 09 55
75/03/01 13 45
75/04/05 14 15
75/04/19 13 35
4614S1
32 30 40.0 099 41 25.0 4
BUCK CREEK
48 7.5 HAMBY
T/LK FORT PHANTOM HILL
2NDRY RD 2833 BRDG 2 HI N OF HWY 351
11EPMLES 2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
0630
'f.N03
OTAL
IG/L
1.440
0.464
0.820
1.060
3.130
0.575
0.125
0.055
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
1.100
1.500
1.600
0.800
1.000
1.500
1.050
1.400
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.030
0.065
0.048
0.040
0.088
0.065
0.070
0.060
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.020
0.030
0.005
0.005
0.063
0.005K
0.015
0.010
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.040
0.100
0.020
0.020
0.120
0.010
0.030
K VALUE KNOrfN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
DATE 7c/03/10
32 J5 <«5.0 099 40 47.0 4
A8Ii_E'Mti A'JUEUUCT
48 7.5 riAMBY
o/Lr- FG*T PIANTOM MILL
AT i^uEOUCT INTAKE PUMPING STA E S I OE t-v
HE^ALtS 21112.)'*
OCOO r'EET DEPTH CL«5S 00
DATE
FROM
TO
7W09/07
74/10/05
74/11/02
74/12/07
75/01/04
75/02/01
75/03/01
75/04/05
75/04/19
75/05/03
75/05/17
75/06/07
75/07/05
75/08/02
THE !
OF
OAY 1
13 30
11 50
11 15
10 50
14 25
10 20
14 00
14 <»5
14 05
18 05
11 20
11 00
11 15
09 20
FEET
00630
N02&N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.012
0.224
0.288
0.336
0.296
0.227
0.200
0.005
3.015
0.005
0.005
0.030
0.015
0.010
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.900
0.600
0.700
0.900
0.500
0.700
1.400
0.600
0.700
1.000
0.450
0.600
0.650
0.650
00610
N-I3-N
TOTAL
Mb/L
C.035
0.040
0.030
0.024
0.024
0.040
0.055
0.010
0.030
0.035
0.005K
0.050
0.025
0.007
00671
PnOS-OIS
URTHU
MG/L P
0.010
0.060
0.065
0.060
0.05C
0.040
0.030
0.010
0.010
0.015
0.005
0.015
0.005
0.020
0066S
°HOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.045
0.090
0.100
0.090
0.070
0.070
0.040
0.010
0.020
0.050
0.040
0.030
0.030
0.050
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STO^ET tfETKlEVAL DATE ?o/OJ/10.
OATL TIME DEPTH N025.N03
FROM OF
Tu DAY FEET
74/09/07
74/10/05
74/1 1/02
74/12/07
75/01/0*
75/02/01
75/03/01
75/04/Ob
75/04/19
75/05/03
75/05/17
75/06/07
75/C7/05
75/06/02
10 40
10 40
10 55
10 20
14 05
09 30
13 35
14 00
13 20
17 30
10 55
10 25
10 35
OB 30
4.6 14U1
32 JO 35.0 099 42 20.0 4
CEJ--! CRciEr-.
*8 7.5 HAMdY
T/Lr. r'U&r P-ifiNTOM HILL
BANK SAMP 2NQPY «0 1
-------
RETRIEVAL OATL ?o/oj/io
32 3b 25.0 099 42 10.0 <+
CLEAK F* 6«620S KIV£«
48 '.5 HAMBr
FORT PHANTOM HILL
r *D 1082 BROG 0.5 MI E OF
600
11EPALES
OOUu HEET
DEPTH
21112J4
CLASS uo
DATE
FROM
TO
74/09/07
74/10/05
74/11/02
74/12/07
75/01/04
75/02/01
75/03/01
75/04/05
75/04/19
75/05/03
75/05/17
75/06/07
75/07/05
75/06/02
00630 00625
TIME OEPTH NU2&N03 TOT KJEL
Of N-TOTAL N
DAY FEET
11
12
10
11
14
11
14
15
15
18
12
11
12
10
25
50
05
30
50
35
40
35
?0
40
15
40
20
20
MG/L
0
2
I
4
4
4
4
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
.960
.240
.520
.400
.640
.090
.300
.050
.400
.720
.600
.250
.100
.000
MG/L
1.
0.
1.
0.
0.
1.
1.
0.
1.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
200
900
300
600
700
200
300
400
500
350
700
700
230
450
Ofi610 00671 00665
NHJ-N PhOS-uIb PnOS-TOT
TOTAL uPTHO
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
035
015
040
032
032
136
045
025
070
055
015
055
025
020
MG/L
0.
0.
U.
0«
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
P
025
020
085
005
030
096
005
005K
007
060
100
045
065
MG/L P
0.105
0.110
0.290
0.010K
0.050
0.19b
0.030
0.040
0.070
0.01CK
0.120
0.440
0.145
0.160
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
------- |