U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
LAKE STAMFORD
HASKELL COUNTY
TEXAS
EPA REGION VI
WORKING PAPER No, 660
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
•&G.P.O. 699-440
-------
REPORT
ON
LAKE STAFFORD
HASKELL COUNTY
TEXAS
EPA REGION VI
WORKING PAPER No, 660
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD
AND THE
TEXAS NATIONAL GUARD
MARCH, 1977
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreward i i
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 10
V. Literature Reviewed 14
VI. Appendices 15
-------
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.
-------
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
Bel1, Coryel1
Bexar
Brown
Burnet, Llano
Harrison, Marion, TX;
Caddo Parish, LA
Bexar
Comal
Mitchell
Jim Wells, Live Oak, San
Patricio
Archer, Baylor
Tarraht, Wise
Jones
Harris
Baylor
Camp, Marion, Morris,
Upshur
Collin
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
-------
10000
W50
•»40
)Tributary Sampling Site
X Lake Sampling Site
f Sewage Treatment Facility
33 Drainage Area Boundary
f . 1 . 1 "•
oi4 Mi.
Scale
-------
LAKE STAMFORD
STORE! NO. 4830
I.. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey data indicate that Lake Stamford 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 Stamford ranked twenty-sixth when the 39 Texas reser-
voirs sampled in 1974 were compared using a combination of six
parameters*. Thirty-one of the reservoirs had less median total
phosphorus, 22 had less and two had the same median dissolved
phosphorus, none had less and one had the same median inorganic
nitrogen, 31 had less mean chlorophyll a_, and 36 had greater
mean Secchi disc transparency.
Survey limnologists observed emergent aquatic plants near
station 3 in October, 1974. Blue-green algae were dominant in
the August phytoplankton sample.
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
The algal assay results are not considered representative of
conditions in the lake because of significant phosphorus losses
in the samples during shipment from the field to the laboratory.
* See Appendix A.
-------
The lake data indicate that nitrogen was limiting all four
sampling times.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources--The phosphorus contribution of known point
sources amounted to 33.6% of the total input to Lake Stamford during
the sampling year. The cities of Stamford and Haskell added 18.4%
and 15.2% of the total load, respectively, and septic tanks serving
lakeshore dwellings and recreation areas contributed an estimated
0.2%.
The present phosphorus loading of 1.44 g/m2/yr is six times that
proposed by Vollenweider (Vollenweider and Dillon, 1974) as a eutro-
phic loading (see page 13). Even complete removal of phosphorus at
the above point sources would still -leave a loading nearly four
times the eutrophic loading, and it does not seem likely that point-
source phosphorus control would result in a significant improvement
in the trophic condition of the lake.
2. Non-point sources—Over 66% of the total phosphorus input to
Lake Stamford came from non-point sources. Paint Creek contributed
58.1%; Buffalo Creek, 0.8%; and the ungaged tributaries contributed
an estimated 6.1% of the total load.
-------
Buffalo Creek had a phosphorus export rate of 5 kg/km2/yr
(see page 12). This rate is comparable to that of one of the
tributaries of nearby Lake Brownwood* (3 kg/km2/yr). The phos-
phorus export rate of Paint Creek was 28 kg/km2/yr, which is
considerably higher than other tributaries in the vicinity. The
higher rate may have results from underestimation of the Stamford
load, unidentified point-sources, or both.
* Working Paper No. 635.
-------
II. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS1"
A. Lake Morphometry :
1. Surface area: 19.00 kilometers2.
2. Mean depth: 3.5 meters.
3. Maximum depth: >10.6 meters.
4. Volume: 66.500 x 106 m3.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 2.5 years (based on outlet flow),
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix C for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Drainage Mean flow
N ame area (km2)* (m3/sec)*
Paint Creek 569.8 0.960
Buffalo Creek 44.5 0.061
Minor tributaries &
immediate drainage - 299.1 0.490
Totals 913.4 1.511
2. Outlet -
Stamford Aqueduct . 0.0 0.850
Paint Creek 932.4 0.001
Totals 932.4** 0.851**
C. Precipitation***:
1. Year of sampling: 54.2 centimeters.
2. Mean annual: 49.0 centimeters.
t Table of metric conversions—Appendix B.
tt Latchford, 1974.
* For limits of accuracy, see Working Paper No. 175, "...Survey Methods,
1973-1976".
** Includes area of lake; lesser outflow due to evaporation (Stearns, 1976).
*** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
III. WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Lake Stamford 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 a number of depths at three or four 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 collected from each
of the stations for chlorophyll a^ analysis. The maximum depths sampled were
10.7 meters at station 1, 4.6 meters at station 2, 4.6 meters at station 3,
and 2.4 meters at station 4.
The sampling results are presented in full in Appendix D and are sum-
marized in the following table.
-------
A. SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND
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)
CHLR^YL A (UG/L)
SECCHI (METERS)
1ST SAMPLING ( 3/
4 SITES
RANGE MEAN
14.2 - 17.1 15.5
7.8 - 9.0 8.6
903. - 980. 940.
8.1 - 8.4 8.4
194. - 220. 201.
0.020 - 0.098 0.048
0.002 - 0.018 0.003
0.030 - 0.080 0.037
0.020 - 0.050 0.032
0.700 - 1.400 0.892
0.050 - 0.110 O.ObSi
0.730 - 1.430 0.928
2.2 - 7.1 3.7
0.3 - 0.6 0.5
7/74)
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR STAMFORD LAKE
STORET CODE 4830
2ND SAMPLING ( 5/15/74)
4 SITES
MEDIAN
15.7
9.0
936.
8.4
203.
0.038
0.007
0.030
0.030
0.850
0.060
0.885
2.6
0.5
RANGE
23.3
5.6
1164.
6.2
179.
0.053
0.005
0.030
0.040
0.600
0.070
0.660
8.4
0.1
- 26.3
8.0
- 1225.
8.6
- 188.
- 0.266
- 0.046
- 0.100
- 0.070
- 1.200
- 0.160
- 1.280
- 17.5
0.5
MEAN
24.8
7.1
1199.
8.4
185.
0.093
0.011
0.065
0.058
0.600
0.124
0.865
12.4
0.3
MEDIAN
24.6
7.3
1204.
8.4
186.
0.070
0.007
0.070
0.060
0.700
0.140
0.760
11.8
0.3
3RO SAMPLING ( 8/ 5/74)
3 SITES
KANGE MEAN MEDIAN
25.1 - 26.4 25.8 26.0
4.4 - 6.6 6.0 6.4
1373. - 1423. 1392. 1393.
8.1 - 6.4 6.3 8.3
158. - 167. 162. 163.
0.065 - 0.104 0.082 0.079 .
0.011 - 0.021 0.01-4 0.012 en
0.020 - 0.020 0.020 0.020
0.030 - 0.050 0.036 0.040
0.600 - 1.100 0.800 0.750
0.050 - 0.070 O.OStJ 0.060
0.620 - 1.120 0.620 0.770
31.5 - 49.3 40.7 41.4
0.5 - 0.7 0.6 O.i
-------
A. SUMMARY or PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR STAMFORD LAKE
STORET COOE 4630
4TH SAMPLING (10/28/7'*)
PARAMETER
TEMP
OISS OXY (MG/L)
CNDCTVY (MCROMO)
PH (STAND UNITS)
TOT ALK (MG/D
TOT P (MG/L)
ORTHO P (MG/L>
N02*N03 (MG/L)
AMMONIA (MG/L)
KJEL N (MG/L)
INORG N (MG/D
TOTAL N (MG/L)
CHLR^YL A (UG/L)
SECCHI (METERS)
3 SITES
RANGE MEAN
17.1
7.6
1083.
»»««*«
147.
0.062
0.010
0.020
0.020
0.800
0.040
0.820
21.5
0.3
- 18.1
9.0
- 1105.
- 152.
- 0.205
- 0.027
- 0.020
- 0.050
- 1.400
- 0.070
- 1.420
- 26.6
0.6
17. H
8.3
1097.
149.
0.068
0.019
0.020
0.033
0.970
0.053
0.990
23.9
O.S
MEDIAN
17. tt
8.4
1100.
oe»eaee«
149.
0.077
0.020
0.020
0.030
0.9UU
0.050
0.920
23.7
0.5
-------
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Date
03/07/74
05/15/74
08/05/74
10/28/74
Dominant
Genera
1. Ankistrodesmus sp.
2. Crucigenia sp.
3. Lunate cells
4. Dactylocdccopsi s sp.
5. Chroomdhas sp.
Other genera
Total
1. Centric diatoms
2. Microcystis sp.
3. Diploneis sp.
4. Chroomohas sp.
5. Ankistr6de~smus sp.
Other genera
Total
1. Oscillatoria sp.
2. Lyngbya sp.
3. Rapriidiopsis sp.
4. Anabaehopsis sp.
5. Cryptomonas sp.
Other genera
Total
1. Pi pi oneis sp.
2. Osbillato'ria SJD.
3. Daclytococcopsis sp.
4. Coscinodi scus sp.
5. Chroomonas sp.
Other genera
Algal Units
per ml
3,682
7,493
2,239
2,183
1,567
1,119
1,007
2,910
11,025
4,888
2,732
1,629
1,534
1,246
1,869
Total
13,898
-------
2. Chlorophyll a_ -
Sampling Station Chlorophyll £
Date Number (yg/1)
03/07/74 1 2.6
2 2.2
3 3.0
4 7.1
05/15/74 1 8.4
2 8.7
3 17.5
4 14.9
08/05/74 1 31.5
2 41.4
3 49.3
10/28/74 1 26.6
2 23.7
3 21.5
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
Due to significant losses of phosphorus in the samples from
the time of collection to the beginning of the algal assays, the
results are not representative of the conditions in the lake at
the times the samples were taken (03/07/74 and 10/28/74).
The lake data indicate that nitrogen was the limiting nutrient
all four sampling times. The mean inorganic nitrogen to
orthophosphorus ratios were 9 to 1 in March, 11 to 1 in May,
4 to 1 in August, and 3 to 1 in October.
-------
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 the high
runoff month of 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.
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 nutrient
concentrations in Buffalo Creek, at station C-l and the mean annual
ZZ flow.
The operator of the Haskell wastewater treatment plant provided
monthly effluent samples and corresponding flow data. The City of
Stamford did not participate; nutrient loads from this source were
estimated at 1.134 kg P and 3.401 kg N/capita/year, and flows were
estimated at 0.3785 m3/capita/day.
-------
11
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known municipal -
Name
Haskell*
Stamford**
Pop.
Served
3,550
4,451
Treatment
stab, pond
tr. filter
Mean Flow
(mVd)
1,165.6
1,684.7
2. Known industrial - None
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
kg P/
Source y_r
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Paint Creek 15,935
Buffalo Creek 210
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 1,670
c. Known municipal STP's -
Haskell
Stamford
d. Septic tanks*** -
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation**** -
Total
2. Outputs -
4,180
5,045
50
335
27,425
Lake outlet - Stamford Aqueduct } 2,310
Paint Creek
3. Net annual P accumulation - 25,115 kg.
Receiving
Water
Rice Springs
Branch
Stink Creek
% of
total
58.1
0.8
6.1
15.2
18.4
0.2
1.2
100.0
*~ Jacob, 1974.
** Anonymous, 1971
*** Estimate based on 160 dwellings and three parks; see Working Paper No. 175.
**** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
12
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
kg N/ % of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Paint Creek 53,525 42.9
Buffalo Creek 2,230 1.8
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 17,910 14.4
c. Known municipal STP's -
Haskell 13,555 10.9
Stamford 15,140 12.1
d. Septic tanks* - 1,810 1.5
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation** - 20,510 16.4
Total 124,680 100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet - Stamford Aqueduct. } 34,515
Paint Creek
3. Net annual N accumulation - 90.,T65 kg.
D. Non-point Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
Tributary kg P/km2/yr kg N/km2/yr
Paint Creek 28 94
Buffalo Creek 5 50
* Estimate based on 160 dwellings and three parks;- see Working Paper No. 175.
** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
13
E. Mean Nutrient Concentrations in Ungaged Stream:
Mean Total P Mean Total N
Tributary Cone, (mg/1) Cone, (mg/1)
Mule Creek* 1.542 7.200
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 1.44 1.32 6.6 4.7
Vollenweider phosphorus loadings
(g/m2/yr) based on mean depth and mean
hydraulic retention time of Lake Stamford:
"Dangerous" (eutrophic loading) 0.24
"Permissible" (oligotrophic loading) 0.12
Sampling station downstream from Haskell STP.
-------
14
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Jacob, Billy, 1974. Treatment plant questionnaire (Haskell STP).
Abilene.
Latchford, John B., Jr., 1974. Personal communication (lake mor-
phometry). TX Water Quality Board, Austin.
Stearns, Gordon, 1976. Personal communication (evaporation loss
and municipal withdrawal from Lake Stamford). U.S. Geological
Survey, 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.
-------
15
VI. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
LAKE RANKINGS
-------
. DATA 70 BE USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
4801 AMISTAD LAKE
4602 BASTROP LAKE
4803 BELTON RESERVOIR
4804 BRAUNIG LAKE
4805 BROWNWOOD LAKE
4806 LAKE BUCHANAN
'•SO? CAOOO 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 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 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
INOHG 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
384.812
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
2.042
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 DO
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. BOO
14.600
10.400
12.400
15.000
8.800
15.000
14.900
15.000
14.400
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
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 BANKINGS
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
4829 SOMERVILLE LAKE
4830 STAMFORD LAKE
4831 STILLHOUSE HOLLOW RESEKV
4832 TAWAKONI LAKE
4833 T.EXARKANA 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
0.046
0.106
0.042
0.018
0.389
0.029
0.020
0.028
MEDIAN
INOrtG N
0.115
O.C60
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
47U.500
451.321
389.913
479.500
454.917
434.500
430.500
MEAN
CHLOKA
24.491
18.457
3.917
18.246
19.119
12.493
5.595
24.300
8.708
4.333
6.912
Ib-
MIN 00
13.000
10.600
15.000
13.200
12.400
15.000
15.000
10.000
14.800
15.000
15.000
MEDIAN
OISS OrfTrlO
0.013
0.012
0.010
0.013
0.030
0.018
0.007
0.240
0.009
0.009
0.008
-------
OF LAKES *!TH HIGHER VALUE5 ('NUMBER OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
4801 AMISTAO LAKE
4802 BASTROP LAKE
4803 8ELTON RESERVOIR
4804 BRAUNIG LAKE
4805 BROKNWOOD LAKE
4806 LAKE BUCHANAN
4807 CAOOO LAKE
4808 CALAYERAS LAKE
4809 CANYON RESERVOIR
4816 LAKE COLORADO CITY
4811 CORPUS CRIST! LAKE
4812 DIVERSION LAKE
4813 EAGLE MOUNTAIN LAKE
4814 FT PHANTOM HILL LAKE
4815 6ARZA LITTLE ELM RESERVO
4816 KEMP LAKE
481t 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 ANQELO RESERVOIR
4827 SAM RAYBURN RESERVOIR
4028 E V SPENCE RESERVOIR
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
95
79
92
5
66
47
26
*5
99
39
8
68
7J
24
34
76
16
54
21
3
39
99
82
54
74
13
59
50
( 36)
•< 30)
( 35)
< 2)
( 25)
( 18)
( 10)
I 17)
( 37)
( 14)
( 3)
( 26)
< 27)
( 9)
( 13)
< 29)
( 6)
( 20)
( 8)
< 1)
( 14)
< 37)
< 3D
( 20)
< 28)
( 5)
( 22)
( 19)
MEDIAN
INORG 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
9.1
45
39
83
( 2)
( 28)
( 10)
( 16)
( 26)
( 7)
( 33)
( 38)
< 3)
( 28)
( 18)
( 31)
( 33)
< 25)
( 5)
( 22)
( 6)
( 28)
< ID
( 1)
( 4)
( 0)
( 33)
( 12)
( 33)
( 17)
( 15)
( 31)
500-
MEAN SEC
100 (
82 <
97 1
50 (
29 <
74 (
*2 (
*7 <
95 <
26 (
18 (
32 (
34 <
21 (
16 <
55 <
0 <
66 (
3 <
39 (
53 <
89 (
71 (
63 (
84 (
8 (
68 (
45 (
38)
31)
37)
19)
11)
28)
16)
18>
36)
10)
7)
12)
13)
8)
6)
21)
0)
25)
1)
15)
20)
34)
27)
24)
32)
3)
26)
17)
MEAN
CHLOriA
100
47
68
a
87
63
32
11
97
42
13
29
79
74
34
55
24
39
84
26
66
37
95
53
sa
0
76
50
( 38)
( 18)
( 26)
< 3)
< 33)
( 24)
< 12)
( *>
( 37)
< 16>
( 5)
( 11)
( 30)
( 28)
( 13)
( 21)
( 9)
( 15)
< 32)
< 10)
( 25)
( 14)
( 36)
( 20)
( 22)
I 0)
< 29)
< 19)
1s-
MIN UO
39 (
17 (
17 (
49 (
58 <
17 (
76 (
67 <
49 <
88 (
61 <
97 (
79 (
95 (
55 <
84 (
72 (
17 <
100 (
17 (
39 (
!7 <
39 (
49 (
17 (
88 (
17 (
17 (
14)
0)
P>
17)
22)
o>
29)
25)
17)
33)
23)
37)
30)
36)
21)
3?)
27)
o)
38)
0)
14)
0)
14)
17)
0)
33)
0>
0>
MEDIAN INDEX
OISS (JHTHO P NO
63
92
84
5
84
39
30
9.2
97
39
8
63
76
16
21
92
11
46
21
3
30
100
63
51
63
46
63
76
( 21)
( 34)'—
( 31)
< ?)
< 31)
( 14)
< 10)
( 34)
( 37)
< 14)
( 3)
( 21)
( 28)
< 6)
( 7)
( 34)
( *)
< 17>
( 7)
( 1)
( 10)
( 38)
< 21)
( 19)
( 21)
( 17)
( 21)
( 28)
40^
- 3*3
384
159
394
261
297
362
445
310
155
372
430
296
173
423
*39
298
258
91
238
342
441
302
387
200
322
321
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES (NUMBER OF LAKES *ITH HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE
coot LAKE NAME
4829 SOMERVILLE LAKE
4830 STAMFORD LAKE
4831 STILLHOUSE HOLLOW RESEKV
4832 TAWAKONI LAKE
4833 TEAARKANA 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)
MLDIAN
INOSG 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
87
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)
( 31)
( 2)
( 23)
( 34)
( 27)
15-
MIN oo
67
82
17
63
72
17
17
92
49
17
17
( 25)
( 3D
( 0)
( 24)
( 27)
( 0)
( 0)
( 35)
< 17)
( 0)
( 0)
MEDIAN
DISS UnfTHO H
30 (
39 (
51 (
30 (
13 <
21 (
84 (
0 (
63 (
63 (
76 (
10)
14)
19)
10)
5)
7)
31)
0)
21)
21)
28)
INDEX
NO
20a
259
372
2i3
176
217
384
169
311
390
357
-------
LAKES RANKED fiY TNOE* NOS«
.RANK LAKE CODE LAKE NAME
INDEX NO
i 4809 CANTON RESERVOIR 445
2 4823 LAKE MEREDITH 441
3 4813 EAGLE MOUNTAIN LAKE 430
4 4816 KEMP LAKE 423
5 4801 AMISTAO LAKE 402
6 4805 BROwNWOOD LAKE 394
7 480? BASTROP LAKE 393
8 4838 WHITE RIVEK RESERVOIR 390
9 4825 POSSUM KINGOOM 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 4828 E V SPENCE RESERVOIR 321
19 4837 TWIN SUTTES 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 N05.
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 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
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
-------
TRIBUTARY FLO* INFORMATION TOR TEXAS
03/15/76
LAKE CODE 4830
STAMFORD
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE
-------
TRIBUTARY FLO*' INFORMATION FO* TEXAS
03/15/76
LAKE CODE 4830 STAMFORD
MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS AND DAILY FLOWS
TRIBUTARY MONTH YEAR
4830C1
4830ZZ
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
7*.
74
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
74
74
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
MEAN FLOW DAY
0.085
0.003
0.001
0.0
0.071
0.283
0.0
0.0
0.311
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.121
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.453
1.982
0.0
0.0
2.237
0.0
1.019
0.0
a
20
23
8
25
15
5
9
21
26
13
FLO* DAY
0.0
0.002
0.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.G
0.0 2?
0.0
0.0
0.0 23
FLO* DAY
FLOW
0.0
0.0
-------
APPENDIX D
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STORE! RETRIEVAL DATE 76/02/11
483001
33 04 27.0 099 33 44.0
STAMFOSD LAKE
48207 TEXAi>
DATE TIME DEPTH
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/03/07 10
10
10
10
74/05/15 15
15
15
15
74/03/05 11
11
11
11
74/10/28 15
15
15
15
30 0000
30 0005
30 0015
30 0035
10 0000
10 0005
10 0015
10 0031
20 0000
20 0005
20 0020
20 0031
50 0000
50 0005
50 0015
50 0031
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
15.7
15.7
15.6
14.4
24.6
24.8
24.7
23.3
26.1
26.1
25.9
25.1
18.1
17.8
17.7
17.1
11EPALES
00300
DO
MG/L
9.0
8.8
7.8
8.0
5.8
5.8
6.0
6.0
4.8
4.4
9.0
8.2
8.4
7.6
00077
TRANSP
SECCHI
INCHES
24
19
27
24
00094
CNDUCTVY
FIELD
MICROMHO
938
938
938
910
1211
1205
1202
1174
1395
1398
1389
1423
1104
1100
1099
1083
3
00400
PH
SU
8.40
8.40
8.35
6.15
8.40
8.40
8.25
8.20
8.35
8.30
8.20
8.15
2111202
0039 FEET DE
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
203
203
203
203
186
187
187
186
163
162
167
166
151
152
150
147
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.050
0.040
0.030
0.040
0.070
0.060
0.060
0.070
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.050
0.040
0.030
0.030
0.050
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
.1.400
0.800
0.700
0.800
1.000
0.600
0.700
1.000
0.800
0.600
0.600
0.600
1.000
0.900
1.000
1.400
00630 00671
N02&N03 PHOS-DIS
N-TOTAL OWTHO
MG/L MG/L P
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.040
0.070
0.080
0.050
0.070
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.011
0.005
0.007
0.012
0.006
0.006
0.009
0.012
0.013
0.011
0.012
0.021
0.011
0.020
0.021
0.027
DATE
FROM
TO
74/03/07
74/05/15
74/08/05
74/10/28
00665 32217 00031
TIME DEPTH PHOS-TOT CHLRPHYL INCDT LT
OF A REMNING
DAY FEET
10 30 0000
10 30 0005
10 30 0015
10 30 0035
15 10 0000
15 10 0005
15 10 0915
15 10 0031
11 ?0 0000
11 ?0 0005
11 ?0 0020
11 20 0031
15 50 0000
15 50 0005
15 50 0015
15 50 0031
MG/L P
0.041
0.038
0.034
0.078
0.053
C.058
0.079
0.140
0.074
0.073
C.080
0.065
U.069
C.072
C.062
0.205
UG/L PERCENT
2.6
8.4
31.5
26.6
K VALUE KNOlrfN TO Bt
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/02/11
463002
33 04 29.0 099 34 53.0
STAI-U ORD LAKE
48207 TEXAS
DATE
FROM
TO
74/03/07
74/05/15
74/08/05
74/10/28
DATE
FROM
TO
74/03/07
74/05/15
74/08/05
74/10/28
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
11 05 0000
11 05 0005
11 05 0012
15 20 0000
15 20 0005
15 20 0011
14 40 0000
14 40 0005
14 40 0012
16 15 0000
16 15 0005
16 15 0015
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
11 05 0000
11 05 0005
11 05 0012
15 20 0000
15 20 0005
15 20 0011
14 40 0000
14 40 0005
14 40 0012
16 15 0000
16 15 0005
16 15 0015
00010
rtATER
TEMP
CENT
17.1
16.7
15.4
25.5
24.7
2^.5
26.4
2b.3
26.3
18.0
18.0
17.8
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.020
0.035
0.046
0.060
0.054
0.057
0.086
0.079
0.088
0.08*
0.073
0.07d
00300 00077
DO TRANSP
MG/L
9.
9.
7.
7.
6.
6.
6.
8.
8.
8.
32217
SECCHI
INCHES
20
0
0
13
4
2
4 19
6
4
2 18
4
4
00031
00094
CNDUCTVY
FIELD
MICKOMHO
970
957
930
1225
1205
1200
1399
1398
1390
1105
1104
1100
11EPALES
3
00400 00410
PH T ALK
CAC03
SU MG/L
a. 40 203
8.30 203
8.40 195
8.40 188
8.30 186
8.30 187
8.10 162
8.20 163
8.30 163
150
148
149
2111202
0016 FEET DEPTH
00610 00o25 00630
NH3-N TOT KJEL N02fcN03
TOTAL
Mo/L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.020K
.030
.030
.070
.060
.040
.040
.030
.030
.040
.030
.020
N
MG/L
0.700
0.800
1.000
0.900
0.600
0.700
0.700
0.600
0.800
1.000
0.900
0.900
M-TOTAL
MG/L
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.070
0.100
0.060
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
00671
PHOS-DIS
URTHO
MG/L P
0.002K
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.006
0.012
0.012
0.014
0.010
0.022
0.013
CHLRPHYL INCDT LT
A
UG/L
2.
8.
41.
23.
REMNING
PERCENT
2
7
4
7
K VALUE KNOnfN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STOKET RETRIEVAL DATE V6/C2/11
483003
33 03 17.0 099 36 <»2.0
STAMFUrtD LAKE
48207 TEXAS
11EPALES
DATE
FROM
TO
74/03/07
74/05/15
74/08/05
74/10/28
DATE
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
11 30 0000
11 30 0005
11 30 0015
15 40 0000
15 40 0005
15 40 0011
15 05 0000
15 05 0005
15 05 0011
16 30 0000
16 30 0005
16 30 0012
TIME DEPTH
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
14.3
14.2
14.2
25.4
25.0
24.1
25.4
25.4
25.4
17.8
17.9
17.8
00665
PHOS-TOT
00300
DO
MG/L
9.0
9.0
7.8
7.0
6.4
6.6
6.6
8.6
8.2
8.5
32217
CHLRPHYL
00077
TRANSP
SECCHI
INCHES
20
11
20
12
00031
INCDT LT
00094
CNDUCTVY
FIELD
MICROMHO
905
903
907
1218
1186
1164
1376
1373
1376
1092
1092
1092
3
00400 .
HH
SU
8.30
8.40
8.35
8.45
8.40
8.40
8.30
8.40
8.40
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
196
196
196
185
185
184
160
159
158
146
149
149
211
0019
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.030
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.050
0.040
0.040
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.030
1202
FEET DEPTH
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.900
1.000
0.700
0.700
0.600
o.aoo
1.100
1.100
1.100
0.900
0.800
0.900
00630
N02NN03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.060
0.050
0.020
0.020
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
00671
PHOS-OIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.007
0.007
0.008
0.005
0.007
0.009
0.012
0.016
0.013
0.020
0.022
0.027
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET MG/L P
UG/L
PERCENT
74/03/07
74/05/15
74/08/05
74/10/28
11
11
11
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
30
30
30
40
40
40
05
05
05
30
30
30
0000
0005
0015
0000
0005
0011
0000
0005
0011
0000
0005
0012
0.032
0.035
0.039
0.070
0.075
0.109
0.104
0.070
0.102
0.076
0.081
0.062
3.0
17.5
49.3
21.5
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STORET RtTMIEvAL DATE 76/02/11
483004
33 01 38.0 099 38 19.0
STAMFORD LAKE
48207 TEAAS
DATE
FROM
TO
74/03/07
74/05/15
DATE
FROM
TO
74/03/07
74/05/15
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
11 55 0000
11 55 0002
11 55 0008
15 SO 0000
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAr FEET
11 55 0000
11 55 0008
15 50 0000
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
15.9
15.9
15.9
26.3
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.098
0.086
0.266
00300
00
MG/L
8.2
8.0
8.0
32217
CHLRPMYL
A
UG/L
7.1
14.9
00077 00094
TRANSP CNDUCTVY
SECCHI FIELD
INCHES MICrtOMHO
12 973
973
980
3
00031
INCOT LT
REMNING
PERCENT
11EPALES
3
00400 00410
PH T ALK
CAC03
SU MG/L
8.40 220
8.40 194
8.60 179
211
0012
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.040
0.030
0.070
1202
FEET DE^>TH
00625 00630
TOT KJEL N02&N03
N N-TOTAL
MG/L MG/L
1.000 0.050
0.900 0.080
1.200 0.080
00671
PnOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.018
0.013
0.048
-------
APPENDIX E
TRIBUTARY AND WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT DATA
-------
STORE! RETRIEVAL DATE 7o/03/10
DATE TIME DEPTH N02«.NOJ
FHOM OF
TO UAY FEET
74/10/20 15 00
74/11/23 14 45
74/12/08 11 45
75/02/25 21 00
75/03/15 10 35
75/07/26
483CA2
33 00 14.0 09^ 41 04.0 4
PAINT CREc*
48 7.5 L STAMKORL) *
T/LAKE STAMFOKL)
BrtDG ON DIKf RO -2.2 Ml S OF JCT
11EPALES 2111204
0000 FEET OEPTh CLASS DO
66
0630
J.NOJ
OTAL
iG/L
1.1 ?0
0.040
0.008
0.352
0.470
0.270
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
1.500
2.000
1.400
1.600
3.200
1.650
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
U.035
0.045
0.128
0.184
0.085
0.072
Ol)671
PHOS-DIS
OPT HO
MG/L P
0.825
0.530
0.432
0.660
0.410
0.255
00665
PhOS-TOT
Mli/L >>
0.860
0.560
0.500
0.750
0.580
O.SilO
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/03/iQ
DATE TIME DEPTH
FHOM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/10/20 12 00
74/11/23 13 00
75/02/25 20 30
75/03/15 12 00
75/04/05
75/06/21
75/07/26
4830B1
33 02 10.0 099 36 46.0 4
MOLE. OEEK
48 1.5 L STAMFORD M
T/LAt\£ STAMFORu
HWY oGO/618 dHDG 0.3 MI N JCT 600 f. 618
11EPALES 2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH CUASS 00
00630
N02«>N03
IN-TOTAL
MG/L
1.120
5.200*
14.000
9.760
5.600
0.010
0.410
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
2.300
1.000
0.600
3.450
1.600
2.250
2.900
OC610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.135
0.025
0.024
0.135
0.106
0.050
0.095
00671
PHOS-OIS
OPTHO
MG/L P
1.050
1.570
i.eoo
1.720
1.200
0.390
0.350
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
1.300
1.600
1.800
2.400
1.480
0.665
1.550
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/03/10
00630
DATE TIME DEPTH N028»N03
FROM OF N-TOTAL
TO DAY FEET MG/L
74/10/20 12 15
7^/11/23 13 15
O.OOB
0.010
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
1.000
1.300
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.090
0.035
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.057
0.045
4830C1
33 0* 33.0 09* 38 44.0 4
BUFFALO CKtEK
<*8 7.5 L STAMfUKO *
T/LAKE STAMFORD
2NQRT KO BRDG 0.2 MI E JCT HWY 618
11EPALES 211120^
0000 FEET DEHTM CLASS 00
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.117
0.100
-------
iTORET
DATE TI«
FROM OF
TO DAT
E -^-~
7../09/03
7W10/20
7«,/H/23
75/02/25
75/03/15
75/04/05
75/05/09
75/05/22
75/06/21
75/07/26
75/08/23
13 C1;
10 2S
10 00
11 30
21 30
09 50
09 30
21 30
21 IS
08 30
15 00
4830U1
33 57 10.0 099 47 45.0 4
AQUEDUCT
48 7.5 STAMFOHD
0/LAi\E STAMFOrtU
INTAKE OK FILTRATION PLANT IN STAMFOWO
11EPALES 2111204
0000 FEET OEPTn CLASS 00
;*3C 00625
^,«OJ TOT KJEL
- Tft. N
O/L. MG'L
.j.a^o 1.100
0.18* 0.900
0 • 06'*
0.02;-
0.0 5C.
0.06^
0.03'
0.0 d''>
C.09C.
.200
.700
.250
.350
.BOO
.200
.100
0.15C 0.900
0.01r. ' 0.800
0.13C. 1.000
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.070
0.020
0.045
0.032
0.048
0.025
0.035
0.067
0.010
0.065
0.020
0.045
00671
PHOS-DIS
OKTHO
MG/L P
0.030
0.030
0.015
0.024
0.010
0.011
0.017
0.030
0.030
0.035
0.015
0.025
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.090
O.U87
0.060
0.080
0.060
0.060
0.100
0.080
0.120
0.120
0.079
0.110
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/03/10
DATE TIME DEPTH N02&N03
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/09/05
74/10/04
74/11/05
74/12/10
75/01/10
CP(T>-
75/01/10
75/02/10
75/03/12
75/04/10
75/05/11
75/06/16
75/07/14
75/08/11
16 00
11 00
15 00
11 30
10 00
14 00
13 30
10 25
4830XA P04830XA
33 05 00.0 099 37 30.0 4
HASKELL
48267 7.5 HASKELL
T/LAKE STAMFORD
RICE SPRING BRANCH
11EPALES 2141204
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
P003550
0630
'&N03
OTAL
IG/L
0.080
O.OUO
0.560
0.160
0.119
0.720
1.040
0.050
0.200
0.075
0.100
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
27.000
27.000
30.000
31.000
30.000
23.000
39.000
40.000
34.000
19.000
30.000
41.000
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
2.100
5.300
12.500
14.000
C.461
16.400
3.400
0.290
14.000
0.160
7.300
4.700
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
2.600
6.500
3.000
6.200
3.150
0.981
4.600
0.640
5.000
2.700
3.700
2.300
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
5.900
8.100
9.800
12.000
12.500
12. BOO
10.000
10.500
11.500
6.600
9.700
5,700
50051
FLOW
RATE
INST MGO
0.275
0.275
0.375
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.300
0.300
50053
CONDUIT
FLOW-MGD
MONTHLY
0.275
0.270
0.275
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.400
0.400
------- |