U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
SOMERVILLE LAKE
BURLESQN, LEE AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES
TEXAS
EPA REGION VI
WORKING PAPER No, 659
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
699-440
-------
REPORT
ON
SOMERVILLE LAKE
BURLESON, LE AND '.WASHINGTON COUNTIES
TEXAS
EPA REGION VI
WORKING PAPER No, 659
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD
AND THE
TEXAS NATIONAL GUARD
, 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 4
III. Lake Water Quality Summary 5
IV. Nutrient Loadings 11
V. Literature Reviewed ' 17
VI. Appendices 18
-------
11
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.
-------
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
Braum'g
Brownwood
Buchanan
Caddo
t
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
Somerville
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
-------
SOMERVILLE LAKE
f 53', c-: "r33"«ilt "U.lt
TriSutJry £a-.?'1ri9 Sites
X Lake Sailing Site
Drainage Area Boundary
Land Subject To Inundation
5Wo,,-U
97-15
-------
SOMERVILLE LAKE
STORE! NO. 4829
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey data indicate that Somerville Lake 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.
Somerville Lake ranked thirty-first when the 39 Texas reser-
voirs sampled in 1974 were compared using a combination of six
parameters*. Twenty-seven of the reservoirs had less median total
phosphorus, 25 had less and three had the same median dissolved
orthophosphorus, 17 had less median inorganic nitrogen, 37 had
less mean chlorophyll a^, and 29 had greater mean Secchi disc
transparency. Depression of dissolved oxygen with depth occurred
at station 2 in May and at station 1 in August.
Survey limnologists observed submerged aquatic plants at sta-
tions 1 and 2 in May, and blue-green algae were dominant in the
August phytoplankton sample.
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
The results of the algal assay indicate that Somerville Lake
was phosphorus limited in March but nitrogen limited in November.
* See Appendix A.
-------
The lake data indicate phosphorus limitation in March and
May and nitrogen limitation in November.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources—The point-source phosphorus contributions
amounted to 15.1% of the total load reaching Somerville Lake
during the sampling year. Lexington contributed 1.8% of the
total; Giddings, 6.4%; Rocky Creek Park, 4.3%, and Big Creek
Park added 2.6% of the total. In addition, the City of Rockdale
is in the Lake Sommerville drainage (Wyatt, 1976). However, this
source is well beyond the 40-kilometer Survey limit*, and phosphorus
contributions from this source probably are not significant as indi-
cated by the relatively low export rate of East Yegua Creek (see
discussion below).
The present phosphorus loading of 0.54 g/m2/yr is only a little
more than that proposed by Vollenweider (Vollenweider and Dillon,
1974) as a eutrophic loading (see page 16). However, the data
indicate that Somerville Lake is eutrophic, and it is possible
that the point-source phosphorus contributions directly to the lake
were underestimated. Further study is needed to quantify the point-
source phosphorus contribution to Somerville Lake.
2. Non-point sources—Non-point sources contributed 84.9%
of the total phosphorus load during the sampling year. Middle
and East Yegua Creek contributed 30.9% and 12.5% of the load,
respectively.
* See Working Paper No. 175, "...Survey Methods, 1973-1976".
-------
The phosphorus export rates of Middle Yegua Creek, East
Yegua Creek, Nails Creek, and Cedar Creek were 7, 4, 14, and 10
kg/km2/yr, respectively. The rates of Middle and East Yegua
Creek are quite comparable to the rates of tributaries of other
reservoirs in the vicinity, but the export rates of Nails Creek
and Cedar Creek are significantly higher. These higher rates
may be due to unidentified point sources rather than to non-
point source inputs.
-------
II. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS1"
A. Lake Morphometry :
1. Surface area: 46.38 kilometers2.
2. Mean depth: 4.3 meters.
3. Maximum depth: >7.9 meters.
4. Volume: 197.496 x 106 m3.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 0.6 years (based on 1972-1976
mean outflow).
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix C for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Name
Middle Yegua Creek
East Yegua Creek
Nails Creek
Cedar Creek
Minor tributaries &
immediate drainage -
Drainage
area (km2)*
1,131.8
714.8
181.6
123.3
360.5
Mean flow
(m3/sec)*
2.815
1.500
0.990
0.705
1.810
Totals
2. Outlet -
Brenham aqueduct
Yegua Creek
2,512.0
0.0
2,610.7
Totals 2,610.7***
C. Precipitation****:
1. Year of sampling: 119.0 centimeters.
2. Mean annual: 101.4 centimeters.
7.820
0.060**
6.530
6.590***
t Table of metric conversions—Appendix B.
tt Barrows, 1977.
* For limits of accuracy, see Working Paper No. 175.
** Howard, 1976.
*** Includes area of lake; lesser outflow due to evaporation.
**** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
III. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Somerville Lake was sampled four times in 1974 by means of a pontoon-
equippped 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 and
last visits, a single 18.9-liter depth-integrated sample was composited
for algal assays. Also each time, a depth-integrated sample was composited
from each of the stations for chlorophyll a_ analysis. The maximum depths
sampled were 7.9 meters at station 1, 3.4 meters at station 2, and 1.5
meters at station 3.
The sampling results are presented in full in Appendix D and are sum-
marized in the following table (the August nutrient samples were not
preserved properly and were not analyzed).
-------
PARAMETER
TEMP (C)
OISS OXY (MG/L)
CNOCTVY (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)
INORG N (MG/L)
TOTAL N (MG/L)
CHLRPYL A (UG/D
SECCHI (METERS)
A. SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND
1ST SAMPLING ( 3/14/74)
3 SITES
RANGE
19.4 - 20.2
7.6 - 8.4
285. - 570.
7.7 -
45. -
7.8
64.
MEAN MEDIAN
19.9 20.0
8.0
293.
7.8
7.9
354.
7.8
50.
46.
0.049 - 0.104 0.064 0.055
0.013 - 0.029 0.021 0.021
0.040 - 0.360 0.265 0.330
0.040 - 0.070 0.056 0.055
0.400 - 1.000 0.625 0.550
0.080 - 0.430 "0.321 0.390
0.750 - 1.050 0.890 0.855
6.9 - 30.9 20.5 23.6
0.3 - 0.5 0.4 0.4
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR SOMERVILLE LAKE
STORET CODE 4839
2ND SAMPLING ( 5/23/74)
3 SITES
KANGE
26.5 - 27.9
3.8 - 8.0
390. - 647.
7.0 - 7.9
51. - 54.
0.024 - 0.137
0.003 - 0.015
0.050 - 0.090
0.040 - 0.160
0.500 - 1.200
0.090 - 0.250
0.570 - 1.270
5.9 - 13.2
0.0 - 1.2
3RD SAMPLING ( 8/16/74)
3 SITES
MEAN
27.2
6.0
461.
7.4
52.
0.053
0.006
0.063
0.089
0.689
0.152
0.752
8.6
0.8
MEDIAN
27.3
6.0
407.
7.5
52.
0.039
0.005
0.060
0.070
0.600
U.140
0.660
6.8
1.1
27.5
2.0
434.
7.6
......
......
......
......
......
».«.«»
......
......
31.8
0.3
RANGE
- 30.4
- 10.8
- 479.
9.4
.........
MEAN
29.0
7.1
452.
8.5
.«....«<
MEDIAN
28.9
7.4
443.
8.4
»««»««.
—.««.«. .««.«. ....«««.«»
..................a....
.........
.«»««««<
.......<
>«.»«»»
>.«»..»
.........a.............
- 53.7
1.0
...... *M
«.«»«««<
41.9
0.7
>......
»«.««««
40.1
0.9
-------
A. SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR SOMERVILLE LAKE
STO«ET COOE 4d29
4TH SAMPLING 111/ 6/74)
PARAMETER
TEMP (C)
D1SS 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)
INORG N (MG/L)
TOTAL N (MG/L)
CHLRPYL A (UG/D
SECCHI (METERS)
3 SITES
RANGE MEAN
17.8
6.0
255.
6.7
35.
0.046
0.009
0.020
0.040
0.600
0.060
0.620
23.1
0.5
- 20.7
8.4
- 276.
7.4
44.
- 0.126
- 0.039
- 0.040
- 0.100
- 1.000
- 0.130
- 1.030
- 33.4
0.9
20.0
7.6
262.
7.?
39.
0.068
0.016
0.024
0.062
0.711
0.087
0.736
28.2
0.8
MEDIAN
20.6
7.6
25B.
7.4
38.
O.OSci
0.013
0.020
0.060
0.700
0.090
0.720
26.2
0.9
-------
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Date
03/14/74
05/23/74
08/16/74
11/06/74
Dominant
- Genera
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Nitzschia sj>.
Melosira sp.
Chroomas sp.
Merismopedia sp.
Microcystis sp.
Other genera
Total
Carteria sp.
Nitzschia sp.
Oscillatoria sp.
Merismopedia sp.
Melosira sp.
Other genera
Total
Oscillatoria sp.
Nitzschia sp.
Merismopedia sp.
Anabaendpsis sp.
Lynbya sp.
Other genera
Total
Oscillatoria sp.
Dactylocdccdpsis sp,
Merismopedia sp.
Lyngbya sp.
Stephanocnscus sp.
Other genera
Algal Units
per ml
2,688
1,613
1,559
1,236
753
13,277
7,682
906
584
409
380
2,015
11,976
35,327
5,815
4,615
3,098
2,445
15,441
66,741
1
Total
3,796
-------
2. Chlorophyll a -
Sampling
Date
03/14/74
05/23/74
08/16/74
11/06/74
Station
Number
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Chlorophyll a
(yg/1)
30.9
6.9
23.6
6.8
13.2
5.9
31.8
53.7
40.1
23.1
33.4
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked -
a. March sample -
Spike (mg/1)
Control
0.050 P
0.050 P + 1.0 N
1.0 N
b. November sample -
Ortho P
Cone, (mg/1)
Inorganic N
Q ric. (mg/1)
Spike (mg/1)
Control
0.050 P
0.050 P + 1.0 N
1.0 N
Ortho P
Cone, (mg/1)
0.021
0.071
0.071
0.021
Inorganic N
Cone, (mg/1)
0.117
0.117
1.117
1.117
Maximum yield
(mg/1-dry wt.)
0.020
0.070
0.070
0.020
0.359
0.359
1.359
1.359
3.7
8.3
15.9
4.1
Maximum yield
(mg/1-dry wt.)
2.1
1.6
17.4
3.5
-------
10
2. Discussion -
The control yields of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum, indicate that the potential primary productivity
of Somerville Lake was high when the samples were collected
(03/14/74 and 11/06/74). In the March sample, the increased
yield resulting from the addition of orthophosphorus indicates
phosphorus limitation at that time. However, in the November
sample, the relatively small but significant increase in yield
when nitrogen was added and lack of growth response when* only
orthophosphorus was added indicate nitrogen limitation.
The lake data support the assay findings. The mean inor-
ganic nitrogen to orthophosphorus ratios were 15 to 1 in March,
25 to 1 in May, and 5 to 1 in November.
-------
11
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 the month
of April 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.
In this report, nutrient loads for sampled tributaries were
calculated using mean annual concentrations and mean annual flows.
Nutrient loads shown are those measured minus point-source loads,
if any.
Nutrient loads for unsampled "minor tributaries and immediate
drainage" ("ZZ" of U.S.G.S.) were estimated using the mean concen-
trations in Middle Yegua Creek at station B-l and the mean annual
ZZ flow. Nutrient loads for the Brenham aqueduct were calculated
using the mean flow provided by the District office of the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Howard, 1976) and the mean nutrient concen-
trations measured in Yegua Creek at station A-l.
The operators of the Lexington, Giddings, Rocky Creek State Park,
and Big Creek State Park treatment plants did not participate; nutrient
loads from these sources were estimated at 1.134 kg P and 3.401 kg
N/capita/year, and flows were estimated at 0.3785 m3/capita/day.
-------
12
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known municipal -
Name
Pop.
Served
400
Lexington*
(North plant)
Giddings* 1,400
Big Creek State 564
Park**
Rocky Creek 946
State Park**
Treatment
stab, pond
stab, pond
stab, pond
stab, pond
2. Known industrial - None
Mean Flow
(mVd)
151.4
529.9
213.5
358.1
Receiving
Water
Draw to Big
Creek
Nails Creek
Somerville Lake
Somerville Lake
* Anonymous, 1971.
** Rennie, 1976.
-------
13
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
kg P/ % of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Middle Yegua Creek 7,725 30.9
East Yegua Creek 3,120 12.5
Nails Creek 2,530 10.1
Cedar Creek 1,180 4.7
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 4,965 19.8
c. Known municipal STP's -
Lexington 455 1.8
Giddings 1,590 6.4
Rocky Creek State Park 1,075 4.3
Big Creek State Park 640 2.6
d. Septic tanks* - 5 <0.1
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation** - 1,730 6.9
Total 25,015 100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet - Brenham aqueduct 155
Yegua Creek 16,680
Total 16,835
•
3. Net annual P accumulation - 8,180 kg.
* Estimate based on three campgrounds (Rennie, 1976); see Working Paper No. 175.
** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
14
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
kg N/ % of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Middle Yegua Creek 113,895 26.0
East Yegua Creek 63,200 14.4
Nail Creek 41,730 9.5
Cedar Creek 28,015 6.4
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 73,235 16.7
c. Known municipal STP's -
Lexington 1,360 0.3
• Giddings 4,760 1.1
Rocky Creek State Park 3,215 0.7
Big Creek State Park 1,920 0.5
d. Septic tanks* - 210 <0.1
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation** - 106,600 24.4
Total 438,140 100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet - Brenham aqueduct 2,515
Yegua Creek 273,885
Total 276,400
3. Net annual N accumulation - 161,740 kg.
* Estimate based on three campgrounds (Rennie, 1976); see Working Paper No. 175.
** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
15
D. Non-point Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
Tributary kg P/km2/yr kg N/km2/yr
Middle Yegua Creek 7 101
East Yegua Creek 4 88
Nails Creek 14 230
Cedar Creek 10 227
E. Mean Nutrient Concentrations in Ungaged Stream:
Mean Total P Mean Total N
Tributary Cone, (mg/1) Cone, (mg/1)
Fourmile Creek 0.031 1.016
-------
16
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 morphemetry 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 0.54 0.18 9.4 3.5
Vollenweider phosphorus loadings
(g/m2/yr) based on mean depth and mean
hydraulic retention time of Somerville Lake:
"Dangerous" (eutrophic loading) 0.52
"Permissible" (oligotrophic loading) 0.26
-------
17
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Anonymous, 1971. Inventory of municipal waste facilities. EPA Publ.
No. OWP-1, vol. 6, Wash., DC.
Barrows, David, 1977. Personal communication (reservoir morphometry
and hydraulic retention time). Canyon Proj. Off., Fort Worth
Distr., Corps of Engrs., New Braunfels, TX.
Howard, William, 1976. Personal communication (hydrologic budget of
Somerville Lake). Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth.
Rennie, Louis, 1976. Personal communication (number of visitors using
campgrounds and parks at Somerville Lake). Corps of Engineers,
Fort Worth.
«
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.
Wyatt, Linda B., 1976. Personal communication (review of preliminary
report). TX Water Qual. Bd., Austin.
-------
18
VI. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
LAKE RANKINGS
-------
LAKE DATA TO BE USED !N SAN!>:i*GS
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
4801 AMISTAD LAKE
4802 BASTROP LAKE
4803 BELTON RESERVOIR
4804 BRAUNIG LAKE
4805 8ROWNWOOD 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 RAY8URN RESERVOIR
4828 E V SPENCE RESERVOIR
MEDIAN
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
0.098
0.029
0.036
MEDIAN
INO^G N
0.500
0.090
0.165
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
384.812
473.625
475.187
470.111
469.625
474.909
475.782
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
2.1 .2
12.392
8.025
22.762
4,887
8.606
14.808
22.500
2.500
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.^00
14.800
15.000
10.200
15.000
15.000
MEDIAN
DISS ORTHO P
0.009
0.007
0.007
0.062
0.007
0.012
0.013
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
4830 STAMFORD LAKE
4831 STILLHOUSE HOLLOW RESEKV
4832 TAWAKONI LAKE
4833 TEXARKANA LAKE
4834 ' TEXOMA LAKE
4835 TRAVIS LAKE
4836 TRINIDAD
4837 TWIN BUTTES RESERVOIR
4838 WHITE RIVER RESERVOIR
4839 WHITNEY LAKE
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
0.053
0.073
O.Olb
0.04&
0.106
0.042
0.018
0.389
0.029
0.020
0.028
MEDIAN
1NOHG 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
M_AN
CHLORA
24.i*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
DISS UrtTrlO
0.01 3
0.012
0.010
0.013
0.030
0.018
0.007
0.240
0.009
0.009
0.008
-------
PE^CtNT OF LAKES «ITh HlGHtS VALUES (NUMBER Of LAKES rtll.i
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
4801 AMISTAO LAKE
4802 BASTROP LAKE
4803 8ELTON RESERVOIR
4804 8RAUNIG LAKE
4805 BROrfNWOOD LAKE
4806 LAKE BUCHANAN
4807 CAODO LAKE
4808 CALAVERAS LAKE
4809 cANroN 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 RESERVO
4816 KEMP LAKE
4817 HOUSTON LAKE
4818 LAKE OF THE PINES
4819 LAVON RESERVOIR
4820 LIVINGSTON LAKE
4821 LYNDON 8 JOHNSON LAKE
4822 MEDINA LAKE
4823 LAKE MEREDITH
4824 PALESTINE LAKE
4825 POSSUM KINGDOM RESERVOIR
4826 SAN ANOELO RESEKVOIR
4827 SAM RAYBURN RESERVOIR
4828 E V SPENCE RESERVOIR
VALUES)
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
IN09G N
5
76
26
42
70
21
91
100
8
76
47
83
91
66
13
61
16
76
29
3
11
0
91
32
91
45
39
83
( 2)
( 28)
( 10)
( 16)
( 26)
( 7)
( 33)
< 38)
( 3)
( 28~)
( 18)
( 31)
( 33)
( 25)
( 5)
( 22)
( 6)
( 28)
( 11)
( 1)
( 4)
( 0)
( 33)
( 12)
< 33)
( 17)
< 15)
( 31)
500-
MEAN SEC
100
82
97
50
29
74
42
47
95
26
18
32
34
21
16
55
0
66
3
39
53
89
71
63
84-
8
68
45
( 38)
( 3D
( 37)
( 19)
( ID
( 28)
( 16)
< 18)
( 36)
( 10)
( 7)
< 12)
( 13)
( 3)
( 6)
( 21)
( 0)
( 25)
( 1)
( 15)
( 20)
( 34)
( 27)
< 24)
( 32)
( 3)
( 26)
( 17)
MEAN
CHLOKA
100
47
68
8
87
63
32
11
97
42
13
29
79
74
34
55
24
39
84
26
66
37
95
53
58
0
76
50
( 36)
( 18)
( 26)
( 3)
( 33)
( 24)
( 12)
( 4)
< 37)
( 16)
( 5)
( ID
( 30)
( 28)
( 13)
( 21)
( 9)
( 15)
( 32)
( 10)
( 25)
( 14)
( 36)
t 20)
( 22)
( 0)
( 29)
( 19)
15-
MIN DO
39
17
17
49
58
17
76
67
49
88
61
97
79
95
55
84
72
17
100
17
39
17
39
49
17
88
17
17
( 14)
( 0)
( 0)
( 17)
( 22)
( 0)
( 29)
( 25)
< 17)
< 33)
( 23)
( 37)
( 30)
( 36)
( 21)
( 32)
( 27)
( 0)
( 38)
( 0)
( 14)
( 0)
( 14)
( 17)
( 0)
( 33)
( 0)
( 0)
MEDIAN
OISS LMTHO 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)
( 3D
( 2)
( 3D
( 14)
( 10)
( 34)
( 37)
( 14)
( 3)
( 21)
( 28)
( 6)
( 7)
( 34)
( 4)
( 17)
< 7)
( 1)
( 10)
( 36)
( 21)
( 19)
< 21)
( 17)
( 21)
( 28)
INOtX
NO
40<:
393
3B4
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 or LAKES .WITH HIGHER VALUES (NUMBER OF LAKES «*ITH HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
4829 SOMERVILLE LAKE
4830 STAMFORD LAKE
4831 STILLHOUSE HOLLOW
4832 TAWAKONI LAKE
4833 TEAARKANA LAKE
4834 TEXOMA LAKE
4835 TRAVIS LAKE
4836 TRINIDAD
4837 TWIN bUTTES RESEKVOIR
4838 WHITE RIVER RESERVOIR
4839 WHITNEY LAKE
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
29 (
18 (
88 (
32 (
11 I
39 (
88 (
0 (
59 (
84 (
63 (
11)
7)
33)
12)
4)
14)
33)
0)
22)
32)
24)
MEDIAN
INOPG N
55
97
37
70
51
34
21
61
21
61
51
( 21)
'. 37)
( 14)
( 26)
( 19)
( 13)
( 7)
( 22)
( 7)
( 22)
( 19)
500-
MEAN SEC
24 (
5 (
67 (
37 (
13 (
61 (
92 (
11 (
58 (
76 (
79 (
9)
2)
33)
14)
5)
23)
35)
4)
22)
29)
30)
MEAN
CHLORA
3
18
92
21
16
45
82
5
61
89
71
( 1)
( 7)
( 35)
( 8)
( 6)
( 17)
( 3D
( 2)
( 23)
( 34)
( 27)
15-
MIN 00
67
82
17
63
72
17
17
92
49
17
17
( 25)
( 31)
( 0)
( 24)
( 27)
( 0)
( 0)
( 35)
< 17)
( 0)
( 0)
MEDIAN
DISS OntTHO P
30 (
39 (
51 (
30 (
13 (
21 (
84 (
0 (
63 (
63 <
76 (
10)
14)
19)
10)
5)
7)
31)
0) •
21)
21)
28)
INUEX
NO
20«
259
372
2*3
176
217
384
169
311
390
357
-------
LA^ES RANKED TY INDEX NOS =
RANK LAKE CODE LAKE NAME
INDEX NO
i 4909 CANYON RESERVOIR 445
2 4823 LAKE MEREDITH 441
3 4813 EAGLE MOUNTAIN LAKE 430
4 4816 KEMP LAKE 433
5 4801 AMISTAO LAKE 402
6 4805 SROnNWOOD LAKE 394
7 4802 BASTROP LAKE 393
8 4838 WHITE RIVEW RESERVOIR 390
9 4825 POSSUM KINGDOM RESERVOIR 387
10 4835 TRAVIS LAKE 384
11 4803 BELTON 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 482B E V SPENCE RESERVOIR 321
19 4837 TWIN 6UTTES 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 INOEX NO
29 4821 LYNDON 8 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 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
Cubic meters x 8.107 x 10"4 = 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
-------
T.-?iHijTiKY FLO* INFORMATION FOR
03/16/1
LAKE CODE 46?9
SOMERVILLt: LAKE
TOTAL DRAINAGE AKEA OK LAKE(SO KM)
SUB-DRAINAGE
TRIBUTARY A«EA(SQ KM)
2610.7
4829«1
4829B1
4829C1
482901
4829F1
4829Z2
2610.7
1131.8
714.8
181.6
123.3
458.4
NORMALIZED Fi_0*S(CMS)
JAN
2.49
2.888
1.557
1.42
1.076
2.44
FEB
7.36
4.191
2.973
1.44
1.076
2.80 .
MAR
10.31
3.823
2.095
0..91
0.651
1.90
APR
12.09
3.625
2.492
1.73
1.218
2.*7
MAY
14.36
12.374
3.653
2.44
1.699
4.96
JUN
10.19
1.586
2.010
0.76
0.453
1.39
JUL
9.20
0.170
0.680
0.48
0.311
0.74
AUG S£P
2.38 2.32
0.014 0.651
0.028 0.396
0.15 0.37
0.099 0.263
0.19 0.59
ocr
3.1*
0.263
0.181
0.74
0.538
1.02
NOy/
0.18
0.991
0.793
0.68
0.510
1.13
DEC
4.33
3.171
1.274
0.65
0.595
l.bl
MEAN
6.53
2.815
1.500
0.99
0.705
1.81
SUMMARY
TOTAL
SUM OF
DRAINAGE
AREA OF
LAKE =
SUB-DRAINAGE AREAS =
2610.7
2609.9
TOTAL FLOW IN =
TOTAL KLOw OUT =
94.
78.
09
36
MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS AND DAILY FLOWS(CMS)
TRIBUTARY MONTH YEAK MEAN FLOW DAY
4829A1
FLOW DAY
FLOW DAY
FLOw
482981
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1.1
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
22.370
39.077
32.281
40.776
8.665
19.425
15.631
2.549
13.620
44.174
33.697
10.506
19.284
0.283
21.521
5.239
2.973
16.877
0.850
0.651
23.475
8.269
3.625
0.425
8
7
4
9
12
2
27
28
13
28
15
30
8
10
9
8
11
9
9
9
19
20
19.935
74.473
0.096
63.996
14.527
0.142
0.040
0.198
0.133
21.238
26.986
0.023
0.623
0.051
16.339
2.039
1.784
13.932
0.934
0.991
2.832
0.040
ie
27.751
26
0.566
-------
TRIBUTARY FLO* iNrORwAfJON t-'0
TRIBUTARY MONTH YEA* MEAN FLOW DAY
4829C1
4829!.) 1
4829F1
4829ZZ
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
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
it
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
74
74
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
74
74
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
75
7S
75
FLO* DAY
FLOW
FLOW
16.339
0.368
11.497
3.823
1.982
10.22?
0.595
0.708
21.181
4.219
1.841
0.538
5.777
0.102
6.456
0.850
0.481
2.747
0.136
0.108
3.794
1.331
0.595
0.063
3.851
0.057
4.304
0.566
0.311
1.812
0.091
0.071
2.549
0.906
0.396
0.045
29.761
10.675
13.366
6.400
3.398
2.549
0.510
1.926
5.182
5.720
2.917
0.453
8
10
9
8
11
9
9
9
19
7
20
8
7
4
9
12
2
27
13
18
28
15
30
8
7
4
9
12
2
27
13
18
28
15
30
0.224
0.116
28.600
1.189
1.246
2.435
0.708
1.076
0.510
1.076
0.040
0.102
O.OOB
2.662
0.283
0.481
3.313
0.110
0.093
1.133
6.145
0.906
0.093
0.0
0.006
1.756
0.193
0.340
2.209
0.074
0.062
0.765
4.106
0.595
0.062
28
0.595
28
0.093
28
0.062
-------
APPENDIX D
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
5TORET RETRIEVAL DATE V&/02'il
482901
30 16 45.0 096 37 30.0
SOMEmlLLE LAKE
48 TEXAS
11EPALES 2111202
4 0027 FEET DEPTH
DATE
FROM
TO
74/03/14
74/05/23
74/08/16
74/11/06
TIME
OF
DAY
09
09
09
09
11
11
11
11
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
50
50
50
50
30
30
30
"30
10
10
10
10
35
35
35
35
DEPTH
FEET
0000
0006
0015
0023
0000
0005
0015
0023
0000
0005
0015
0023
0000
00105
0015
0026
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
I
20.0
20.0
20.0
19.9
26.9
26.8
26.7
26.5
30.4
30.0
27.8
27.5
20.6
20.7
20.6
20.5
00665
DATE
FROM
TO
74/03/14
74/05/23
74/08/16
74/11/06
TIME
OF
DAY
09
09
09
09
11
11
11
11
11
15
14
14
14
14
14
50
50
50
50
30
30
30
30
30
10
35
35
35
35
35
DEPTH
FEET
0000
OOOb
0015
0023
0000
0005
0007
0015
0023
0000
0000
0004
0005
0015
0026
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
.057
.049
.050
.057
.02*.
.030
.039
.033
00300 00077 00094
DO TRANSP CNDUCTVY
SECCHI FIELO
MG/L INCHES MICrtOMHO
18
7.6
8.0
7.6
48
6.4
6.0
6.0
38
10.
10.
2.
8.
7.
7.
7.
32217
0
8
0
4 36
6
8
6
00031
285
285
285
285
396
394
395
390
456
452
436
434
258
258
257
255
00400 00410 00610 00625 00630 00671
PH T ALK NH3-N TOT KJEL N02t>N03 PHOS-OIS
CAC03 TOTAL N N-TOTAL ORTHO
SU MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L P
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
9
9
8
7
7
7
7
7
.80
.80
.75
.70
.60
.10
.00
.00
.40
.20
.20
.60
.34
.38
.35
.38
46 0.070 0.500 0.350 0.025
45 0.060 0.400 0.350 0.028
45 0.070 0.500 0.360 0.019
46 0.070 0.600 0.340 0.029
52 0.080 0.500 0.070 0.003
51 0.160 0.600 0.090 0.007
52 0.160 0.600 0.060 0.005
54 0.140 0.600 0.060 0.004
41 0.050 0.600 0.040 0.013
38 0.050 0.600 0.020 0.009
37 0.040 0.700 0.020* 0.014
37 0.040 0.700 0.020 0.015
CHLRPHYL INCDT LT
A
UG/L
30.
6.
REMNING
PERCENT
9
6
1.0
31.8
0
0
0
0
.046
.046
.047
.055
23.
i
1.0
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STOKET HETRievAL UATE 7&/02/11
482V02
30 16 45.0 096 37 30.0
SOME^VILLE LAKE
43 TEXAS
DATE
FROM
TO
74/03/14
74/05/23
74/08/16
74/11/06
DATE
FROM
TO
74/03/14
74/05/23
74/08/16
74/11/06
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
10 40 0000
10 40 0008
11 15 0000
11 15 0005
11 15 0010
14 40 0000
14 40 0004
14 40 0008
15 15 0000
15 15 0005
15 15 0011
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
10 40 0000
10 40 0008
11 15 0000
11 15 0005
11 15 0006
11 15 0010
14 40 0000
14 40 0005
15 15 0000
15 15 0003
IS 15 0005
15 15 0011
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
20.2
20.2
27.9
27.7
28.9
28.7
28.6
20.6
20.6
20.6
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.054
0.053
0.037
0.044
0.040
0.061
o.ose
0.058
00300
DO
MG/L
8.4
8.0
8.0
3.8
7.4
7.4
6.4
8.2
7.6
7.8
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
6.9
13.2
53.7
33.4
00077
TRANSP
SECCHI
INCHES
16
44
36
36
00031
INCDT LT
REMNING
PERCENT
1.0
1.0
1.0
00094
CNDUCTVY
FIELD
MICROMHO
300
300
420
418
443
443
443
262
260
257
11EPALES
4
00400
PH
SU
7.80
7.70
7.80
7.90
7.50
8.80
8.70
8.40
7.39
7.38
7.39
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
47
46
54
51
51
39
41
44
211
0012
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.040
0.040
0.070
0.070
0.060
1202
FEET DEPTH
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.700
0.500
0.600
0.600
0.600
0.700
0.700
0.600
00630
N02^N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.320
0.310
0.060
0.050
0.050
0.020
0.020
0.020
00671
PHOS-DIS
OHTHO
MG/L P
0.014
0.020
0.005
0.006
0.004
0.013
0.012
0.009
-------
bTORET RETRIEVAL OAfE ?fc/02/Ji
482903
30 17 49.0 096 39 41.0
SOMEHVILLE LAKE
48287 TEXAS
DATE
FROM
TO
74/03/14
74/05/23
74/08/16
74/11/06
DATE
FROM
TO
74/03/14
74/05/23
74/08/16
74/11/06
TIME DE°TH
OF
DAY
11
11
11
11
14
14
15
15
15
15
00
00
40
40
35
35
TIME
OF
DAY
11
11
11
11
11
14
14
15
15
15
15
00
00
00
40
40
35
35
FEET
0000
0004
0000
0004
0000
0003
0000
0005
DEPTH
FEET
0000
0004
0000
0003
0004
0000
0002
0000
0005
00010
WATER
' TEMP
CENT
19.5
19.4
27.7
27.7
29.4
29.3
17.8
17.9
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.088
0.104
0.091
0.137
0.126
0.113
00300
DO
MG/L
6.
7.
5.
7.
5.
7.
6.
32217
4
6
6
6
0
2
0
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
23.
5.
40.
6
9
1
00077
TRANSP
SECCHI
INCHES
11
1
12
18
00031
INCDT LT
REMNING
PERCENT
1.0
1.0
00094
CNDUCTVY
FIELD
MICROMHO
525
570
631
647
478
479
273
276
11EPALES 2111202
3 0008 FEET DEPTH
00400 00410 00610 00625 00630 00671
PH T ALK NH3-N TOT KJEL N02fcN03 PHOS-DIS
. SU
7
7
7
7
8
8
6
6
CAC03 TOTAL N
MG/L MG/L MG/L
.30 62 0.040 1.000
.70 64 0.040 0.800
.60 53 0.070 1.200
.10 53 0.060 0.900
.00
.10
.74 35 0.080 1.000
.78 36 0.100 0.800
N-TOTAL OHTHO
MG/L MG/L P
0.050 0.013
0.040 0.022
0.070 0.008
0.060 0.015
0.030 0.039
0.030 0.022
-------
APPENDIX E
TRIBUTARY DATA
-------
TOrfs.1
DATE TIME DEPTH N02^N03
FWOM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/09/08
74/10/07
74/11/04
74/12/09
75/01/12
75/02/02
75/03/27
75/04/13
75/04/28
75/05/18
75/06/28
75/07/15
75/08/30
13 50
15 10
15 20
13 50
14 30
12 00
15 15
09 40
09 00
10 45
10 45
^' 15.0 096 30 25.C 4
A CREEK
. 480*1 BUKLESON Co MaP
U/53MEHVILLE LAKE
H*r 36 elkUG 0.5 MI St OF SuME-vILLE
ilEPALES 2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
(0630 00625
?>.N03 TOT KJEL
UTAL N
-------
STORET Kt'TnltvAL CATC 76/03/10
DATE TIME DEPTH N02J.N03
FrtOM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/09/08
74/10/10
74/11/09
74/12/08
75/01/11
75/02/09
75/03/09
75/04/09
75/08/20
09 35
10 45
15 15
16 00
15 00
09 30
13 15
14 45
15 40
30 19 15.•" 096 47 10.0 4
MIDDLE Y£t.u4 ot£*
48 7.8 01 ME doA
T/SOM£r!VlLLE LAKE
riwv 141 dhcDG 2.0 Ml N JCT w HwY 1697
11EPALES 2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
0630
I8.N03
OTAL
G/L
0.096
o.oao
0.072
0.072
U.056
0.032
0.030
0.180
0.080
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
1.600
0.300
1.900
1.400
1.200
l.?00
0.850
1.500
0.900
00610 .
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.270
0.055
0.373
0.176
0.056
O.C40
0.020
0.125
0.050
00671
PHOS-UIS
ORTHU
MG/L P
0.030
0.035
0.045
0.008
0.008
0.024
0.010
0.015
0.010
00665
PhOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.100
0.1S2
0.155
0.040
0.030
0.110
0.020
0.120
0.060
-------
5TO«cf RETRIEVAL DAI'E 7WC3/iO
74/09/08
74/10/10
74/11/09
74/12/Od
75/01/11
75/02/09
75/03/09
75/04/09
75/06/07
75/OB/20
4H29C1
30 20 39.0 096 45 40
EAST rEGUA CRhE*.
48 7 ^ DIME *QA
T/SOMERVILLE LAKE
2NORV RO bRDG 1.1 MI SW
11EPALE5
0000 FEET DEPTH
0 4
2111204
CLASS 00
DATE
FROM OF
TO DAY
TIME DEPTH
FEET
10 00
11 00
15 40
16 00
15 ?0
09 50
09 45
14 30
11 20
16 05
00630
N02&N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.124
0.072
0.024
0.080
0.096
0.040
0.010
0.150
0.180
0.080
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
1.500
o.eoo
- 1.900
1.200
1.300
1.200
1.500
1.150
0.950
1.000
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.195
0.035
0.195
0.088
0.048
0.048
0.095
0.080
0.130
0.150
00671
PHOS-DIS
OPTHO
MG/L P
0.025
0.010
0.060
0.032
0.005
0.024
0.01S
0.015
0.015
0.015
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.105
0.040
0.100
0.032
0.040
0.080
0.050
0.080
0.060
0.070
-------
STORE!
UATK /b/OJ/iO
DATE TIME DE°Trt N02&N03
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/09/08
74/10/07
74/11/04
74/12/09
75/01/12
75/02/02
75/03/27
75/04/13
75/04/28
75/05/18
75/06/28
75/07/15
75/08/30
15 40
14 00
16 30
14 30
14 00
11 30
10 15
10 40
10 00
11 45
11 45
4829D1
30 le 13.0 096 43 33.0 4
NAJLS C^EEK
48 7.5 FLAG PUND
T/SOMEkVlLLE LAKE
S FK ri*Y 1697 8ROG 2 MI SE JCT HWY
11EPALES 2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
1697
0630
&.N03
OTAL
G/L
0.084
0.032
0.064
0.104
0.080
0.040
U.005
0.005
0.040
0.055
0.060
0.015
0.0?5
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.900
0.600
3.000
1.650
1.700
0.800
1.700
1.150
1.100
2.500
1.250
1.150
l.PSO
0061U
NHJ-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.135
0.025
0.165
0.080
0.036
0.040
0.035
0.035
0.105
0.080
O.OSO
0.035
0.055
00671
PHOS-DIS
URTHO
MG/L f
0.055
0.035
0.230
0.080
0.040
0.024
0.01S
0.015
0.025
0.025*
0.055
0.040
0.040
006&5
PHOb-TOT
MG/L P
0.130
0.080
0.440
0.150
0.150
0.080
0.080
0.090
0.020
0.100
0.150
0.130
0.120
-------
STOMtT rtEfK.IEVAL DAVE 7&/C3/10
DATE TIME DEPTH N02«>N03
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/10/07 13 30
74/11/04 16 00
75/01/12 13 30
75/02/02 11 10
75/03/27 16 10
75/04/13 11 15
75/04/28
75/05/18
75/06/28 10 30
75/0//15 11 30
75/08/30 11 30
4829E1
30 15 20.0 396 39 00.0 4
FO'jH MILE CREEK
48 7.5 FL4G POND
T/SOMtK'VILl E LiKE
HrfY 1697 3KDG 0.7 Ml SE JCT W HWY 1697
11EPALES 2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
0630
!«>N03
OTAL
IG/L
0.02*
O.OOd
0.072
0.024
0.005
0.01S
0.015
0.010
0.020
0.015
0.015
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.400
1.500
1.100
0.700
1.600
0.950
0.100
1.900
0.850
0.850
1.000
C0610
Nrlj-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.040
0.100
0.016
0.040
0.025
0.040
0.040
0.025
0.030
0.040
0.115
00671
PHOS-OIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.020
0.030
0.016
0.008
0.005K
0 . 0 1 b
0.015
0.020
0.015
0.020
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.020
0.04Q
0.080
0.010
0.010K
0.030
0.010
0.020
0.050
0.030
0.040
K VALUE KNOWN TO SE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
RETRIEVAL DAIE 70/03/10
30 14 48.f 096 42 05.0 4
CEOiK CREEK
48 7.5 CAHMINt
E LAKE
1697 BKUG 1.4 Ml SE POST OAK SCHOOL
11EPALES 2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
DATE
FROM
TO
74/10/07
74/11/04
74/12/09
75/01/12
75/02/02
75/03/27
75/04/13
75/04/28
75/05/18
75/06/28
75/07/15
75/08/30
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
13 40
16 15
14 20
13 *5
11 15
16 30
11 00
10 00
11 00
12 00
12 10
00630
N025.N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.040
0.040
0.032
0.032
0.016
0.010
0.085
0.240
0.250
0.025
0.005
0.015
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.800
1.800
1.000
1.100
0.400
2.500
1.350
2.400
0.850
0.600
0.850
0.675
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.085
0.135
0.020
0.064
0.016
0.035
0.095
0.155
0.125
0.065
0.025
0.030
00671
PHOS-OIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.015
0.050
0.024
0.016
0.008
0.010
0.010
0.030
0.025
0.035
0,035
0.040
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.020
0.110
0.040
0.090
0.030
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.040
0.090
0.060
0.070
------- |