DOCSLIB.ORG

Soil Survey Lee County, Texas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Soil Survey Lee County, Texas United States In cooperation Department of with Texas Soil Survey of Agriculture Agricultural Experiment Station Lee County, Natural Resources Texas Conservation Service How To Use This Soil Survey General Soil Map The general soil map, which is a color map, shows the survey area divided into groups of associated soils called general soil map units. This map is useful in planning the use and management of large areas. To find information about your area of interest, locate that area on the map, identify the name of the map unit in the area on the color-coded map legend, then refer to the section General Soil Map Units for a general description of the soils in your area. Detailed Soil Maps The detailed soil maps can be useful in planning the use and management of small areas. To find information about your area of interest, locate that area on the Index to Map Sheets. Note the number of the map sheet and go to that sheet. Locate your area of interest on the map sheet. Note the map unit symbols that are in that area. Go to the Contents, which lists the map units by symbol and name and shows the page where each map unit is described. The Contents shows which table has data on a specific land use for each detailed soil map unit. Also see the Contents for sections of this publication that may address your specific needs. i This soil survey is a publication of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Station, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Major fieldwork for this soil survey was completed in 2002. Soil names and descriptions were approved in 2002. Unless otherwise indicated, statements in this publication refer to conditions in the survey area in 2002. This survey was made cooperatively by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. The survey is part of the technical assistance furnished to the Lee County Soil and Water Conservation District. Soil maps in this survey may be copied without permission. Enlargement of these maps, however, could cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping. If enlarged, maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a larger scale. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 795-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Cover: Grain sorghum and peanuts on an area of Rader fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes. Additional information about the Nation’s natural resources is available on the Natural Resources Conservation Service homepage on the World Wide Web. The address is http://www.nrcs.usda.gov ii Contents How to Use This Soil Survey...........................................................................i Foreword .........................................................................................................ix General Nature of the Survey Area .................................................................. 1 Settlement and Population.......................................................................... 1 Agriculture................................................................................................... 3 Natural Resources ...................................................................................... 3 Climate........................................................................................................ 4 How this Survey Was Made ............................................................................. 4 General Soil Map Units .................................................................................. 7 Sandy and Loamy Savannah Soils on Uplands ......................................... 7 1. Padina-Robco-Silstid......................................................................... 7 2. Edge-Crockett-Tabor......................................................................... 9 3. Singleton-Winedale-Burlewash....................................................... 10 4. Kurten-Tabor-Spiller........................................................................ 12 5. Jedd-Gasil ....................................................................................... 13 Loamy and Clayey Prairie Soils on Uplands ............................................ 13 6. Zack-Boonville-Zulch....................................................................... 14 7. Luling-Benchley-Crockett................................................................ 15 8. Benchley-Gasil-Lexton.................................................................... 17 Loamy Soils on Stream Terraces ............................................................. 18 9. Tabor-Lufkin-Mabank...................................................................... 18 10. Davilla-Wilson ............................................................................... 19 Loamy and Clayey Soils on Flood Plains ................................................. 20 11. Uhland-Sandow............................................................................. 21 12. Zilaboy-Sandow-Navasota............................................................ 21 Detailed Soil Map Units................................................................................ 23 ArD—Arenosa fine sand, 1 to 8 percent slopes ....................................... 24 BeB—Benchley clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes..................................... 26 BeC—Benchley clay loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes..................................... 28 BgB—Boonville gravelly fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes ............. 30 BoB—Boonville fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes........................... 32 BuC—Burlewash fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes......................... 34 BwC—Burlewash gravelly fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes .......... 35 BxG—Burlewash-Koether soils, 8 to 45 percent slopes, very stony ........ 37 CgB—Crockett gravelly fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes .............. 39 ChC—Chazos loamy fine sand, 1 to 5 percent slopes ............................. 41 CrC—Crockett fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes............................. 43 CrC2—Crockett fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded ............. 45 DuC—Dutek loamy fine sand, 1 to 5 percent slopes................................ 47 DwB—Davilla-Wilson complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes.............................. 48 EdB—Edge fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes ................................. 51 EdC2—Edge fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded.................. 53 EdD—Edge fine sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes................................. 55 EgD—Edge-Gullied land complex, 3 to 8 percent slopes ........................ 56 FaB—Faula fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes ........................................... 59 GaB—Gasil fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes ................................. 61 iii Soil Survey of Lee County, Texas GaD—Gasil fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes................................. 63 GgC—Gredge gravelly fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes ............... 65 GrC—Gredge fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes.............................. 66 GsB—Gasil loamy fine sand, 1 to 3 percent slopes ................................. 68 GsD—Gasil loamy fine sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes ................................. 70 JeD—Jedd fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes .................................. 72 JeE—Jedd fine sandy loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes, stony...................... 74 JeF—Jedd fine sandy loam, 8 to 20 percent slopes................................. 75 JgD—Jedd soils, graded, 2 to 8 percent slopes ....................................... 77 KgC—Kurten very gravelly fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes ......... 79 KuC—Kurten fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes............................... 81 LeB—Lexton clay, 1 to 3 percent slopes .................................................. 82 LfA—Lufkin fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes ................................. 84 LgB—Luling gravelly clay, 1 to 3 percent slopes...................................... 86 LuB—Luling clay, 1 to 3 percent slopes ................................................... 87 LuC—Luling clay, 3 to 5 percent slopes ................................................... 90 MaA—Mabank fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes ............................ 91 MrB—Margie fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes............................... 93 NoC—Normangee clay loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes ................................ 95 NvA—Navasota clay,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Download The
    -Official- FACILITIES MAPS ACTIVITIES Get the Mobile App: texasstateparks.org/app T:10.75" T:8.375" Toyota Tundra Let your sense of adventure be your guide with the Toyota BUILT HERE. LIVES HERE. ASSEMBLED IN TEXAS WITH U.S. AND GLOBALLY SOURCED PARTS. Official Vehicle of Tundra — built to help you explore all that the great state the Texas Parks & Wildlife Foundation of Texas has to offer. | toyota.com/trucks F:5.375" F:5.375" Approvals GSTP20041_TPW_State_Park_Guide_Trucks_CampOut_10-875x8-375. Internal Print None CD Saved at 3-4-2020 7:30 PM Studio Artist Rachel Mcentee InDesign 2020 15.0.2 AD Job info Specs Images & Inks Job GSTP200041 Live 10.375" x 8" Images Client Gulf States Toyota Trim 10.75" x 8.375" GSTP20041_TPW_State_Park_Guide_Ad_Trucks_CampOut_Spread_10-75x8-375_v4_4C.tif (CMYK; CW Description TPW State Park Guide "Camp Out" Bleed 11.25" x 8.875" 300 ppi; 100%), toyota_logo_vert_us_White_cmyk.eps (7.12%), TPWF Logo_2015_4C.EPS (10.23%), TPWF_WWNBT_Logo_and_Map_White_CMYK.eps (5.3%), GoTexan_Logo_KO.eps (13.94%), Built_Here_ Component Spread Print Ad Gutter 0.25" Lives_Here.eps (6.43%) Pub TPW State Park Guide Job Colors 4CP Inks AE Media Type Print Ad Production Notes Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Black Date Due 3/5/2020 File Type Due PDFx1a PP Retouching N/A Add’l Info TM T:10.75" T:8.375" Toyota Tundra Let your sense of adventure be your guide with the Toyota BUILT HERE. LIVES HERE. ASSEMBLED IN TEXAS WITH U.S. AND GLOBALLY SOURCED PARTS. Official Vehicle of Tundra — built to help you explore all that the great state the Texas Parks & Wildlife Foundation of Texas has to offer.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Water Resources Institute
    Texas Water Resources Institute Spring 1996 Volume 22 No. 1 Surveying Texas' Reservoirs High Tech Programs by TWDB, Texas Universities Produce better Insights Into Sediment Problems at Texas Lakes By Ric Jensen, Information Specialist, TWRI For reservoir owners and water managers, sediment is a dirty word. Imagine that you planned and built a dam in the 1930s to store enough water to meet regional water needs for many years. For example, you may have estimated that the dam and the reservoir it created should store 50,000 acre-feet of water. Now fast-forward to today's conditions. Unfortunately, many parts of the reservoir have probably been filled in by silt and sediment deposited by runoff caused by heavy rains. As a result, your reservoir may now be able to store just 40,000 acre-feet (AF). Maybe, if you are like many water managers, you don't know exactly how much water your reservoir can store today. Sadly, stories like these are fact - - not fiction -- in many instances in Texas and the U.S. Many experts estimate that sedimentation reduces the storage capacity of reservoirs by an average rate of 0.2% annually. If that's the case, Texas could lose enough water to fill 19 reservoirs within the next 50 TWDB professionals take small boats like this one out on Texas lakes to years. Sedimentation is a gather data on lake volumes, storage capacity, and water elevations. difficult problem to investigate, in part because looking at annual rates or current 1 conditions can be misleading. "Much of the sediment that builds up in Texas lakes is deposited by large storms that occur only once in 50 or 100 years," says Texas A&M University Civil Engineer Ralph Wurbs.
    [Show full text]
  • 31295001638625.Pdf (18.19Mb)
    Copyright, 19 8 2 Stephen Chalmus Head A KISTORY OF CONSERVATION IN TEXAS, 1860-1963 by STEPHEN CHALiMUS HEAD, B.A., M.A, A DISSERTATION IN HISTORY Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILCSOPHY Approved Accepted May, 19 82 PREFACE Concern for the quality of the environment has become a paramount issue in American society since World War II. Accordingly, historians' interest in this topic has produced an increasing number of scholarly works. The first investigative studies of consequence commenced as a result of the New Deal policies, and scrutinized irrigation, reclamation, forestry, flood control, and the economic aspects of conservation. The 1950^ witnessed the rise to prominence of the preservationists who focused their attention on the "aesthetic-spiritual" features of conservation. Since the 196Os academicians and laymen have been analyzing a wide variety of topics relating to the environment such as wildlife, water problems, the wilderness, and most recently, ecology. Interest in this broad field has continued unabated because man faces the perpetual dilemma of attempting to maintain a harmoni- cus relationship between himself and his environment. ^ "Gcrdon B, Dodds (ed.), "Conservation & Reclamation in the Trans-Mississippi West: A Critical Bibliography," Arizona and the West, X II (Summer, 1971), 143-171. This excellent article reviews the major published works on conservation in the West. 11 As the thrust of the conservation-preservation movement has shifted with new crises and expanded environ- mental concerns, so have historical interpretations of the movement. Historians have had to view the monumental efforts to conserve natural resources in light of ever- changing social, cultural, and political patterns, environ- mental changes, demographic variations, and advances in science and technology.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality of Somerville Lake South-Central Texas
    WATER QUALITY OF SOMERVILLE LAKE SOUTH-CENTRAL TEXAS By Emma McPherson and H. B. Mendieta U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 82-4124 Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENQINNERS Austin, T«xas 1983 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR JAMES G. WATT, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information For sale by: write to: District Chief Open-File Services Section U.S. Geological Survey Western Distribution Branch 649 Federal Building U.S. Geological Survey 300 E. Eighth Street Box 25425, Federal Center Austin, TX 78701 Lakewood, CO 80225 -11- CONTENTS Page Abstract 1 Introduction- 2 Purpose of this report 2 Description of Somerville Lake and its environment 2 Hydrologic data 6 Streamflow records- 6 Water quality of Somerville Lake 9 Thermal stratification- 9 Dissolved oxygen 12 Dissolved iron and dissolved manganese- 17 Total inorganic nitrogen and total phosphorus 17 Dissolved solids, dissolved chloride, dissolved sulfate, and hardness 29 Water transparency 29 Phytoplankton 32 Summary 32 Selected references 34 -i 11- ILLUSTRATIONS Page Figure 1. Map showing locations of water-quality data-collection sites on Somerville Lake- 3 2. Map showing location of the Somerville Lake watershed and stream-gaging stations- 4 3-20. Graphs showing: 3. Monthly mean water discharges for Middle Yegua Creek near Dime Box, October 1971-September 1980 7 4. Monthly mean water discharges for East Yegua Creek near Dime Box, October 1971-September 1980 8 5. Monthly mean water discharges for Yegua Creek near Somerville, October 1971-September 1980 10 6. Variations in monthly mean air temperatures at Somerville Dam and water temperatures at sites AC and FQ during surveys 13 7.
    [Show full text]
  • TEXAS LAKES Page 64
    TEXAS LAKES Page 64 Martinez Lake 404 Dacus Lake 564 Country Club Lake 516 Matagorda Bay 523 Sweeney Lake E. 476 Anderson Archer Mitchell Lake 405 Danbury Fish Farms 564 Fin Feather Lake 516 Mcmullen Lake 499 Sweeney Lake W. 476 Childress Lake Name Map Grid Lake Name Map Grid Woodlawn Lake 404 Dane Lake 564 Frierson Lake 516 Mission Lake 498 Verdolaga Lake 503 Lake Name Map Grid Diengle Lakes 564 Hail Lake 515 Old Town Lake 523 Big Lake 534 Archer City Lake 359 Baylor Lake 269 Blanco Division Lake 563 Lake Mary 516 Pat Bay 524 Camp Blue Lake 533 Diversion Reservoir 358 Lake Childress 269 Map Grid Dow Barge Canal 565 Lake Placid 516 Piper Lakes 523 Map Grid Calhoun Lake 555 Lake Cooper 360 Lake Name Lake Name Lake Scott 269 Drum Bay 585 Oakland Lake 515 Powderhorn Lake 524 Circle R Lakes 555 Lake Kickapoo 359 Blanco River 402 Ferndale Lake 550 Park Lake 269 Duck Reservoir 584 Prescott Lake 516 Power Lake 525 Coleman 533 Lake Olney 360 Highland Club Lake 570 Eagle Nest Lake 564 Tennesse Lake 516 Pringle Lake 524 Crystal Lake 555 Borden Clay Armstrong East Union Bayou 565 Wickson Lake 515 Redfish Lake 523 Cass Elkhart Lake 555 Lake Name Map Grid Lake Name Map Grid 564 499 533 Evans Lake Redfish Slough Fishermans Lake Lake Name Map Grid 219 Lake Name Map Grid 387 County Tank 565 Briscoe 523 Byers Lake Gator Lake 533 Flag Lake Salt Lake Bagley Lake 211 Indian Head Tank 219 Daniels Pond 588 Henrietta Reservoir 388 Flag Lake 564 Map Grid San Antonio Bay 498 Haverlah Lake 554 Lake Name Johnson Tank 219 Fin and Feather Club Lake 587 Lake Arrowhead 389 Freeport Harbor Channel 565 San Antonio Bay 499 Lake C W M 533 Burson Lake 240 Atascosa Jones Reservoir 218 Foreman Lake 588 Lake Arrowhead 388 Freshwater Lake 565 Schwings Bayou 498 Lake Creek No.
    [Show full text]
  • Volumetric and Sedimentation Survey of SOMERVILLE LAKE April 2012 Survey
    Volumetric and Sedimentation Survey of SOMERVILLE LAKE April 2012 Survey June 2014 Texas Water Development Board Carlos Rubinstein, Chairman | Bech Bruun, Member | Kathleen Jackson, Member Kevin Patteson, Executive Administrator Prepared for: Brazos River Authority With Support Provided by: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District Authorizationfor use or reproduction ofany original material contained in this publication, i.e. not obtained from other sources, isfreely granted. TheBoard would appreciate acknowledgement. This report was prepared by staffofthe Surface Water Resources Division: Ruben S. Solis, Ph.D., P.E. Jason J. Kemp, Team Lead Tony Connell Holly Holmquist Nathan Brock Khan Iqbal Bianca Whitaker Kyle Garmany »i VtT '"• a'." BEN, Published and distributed by the Texas Water ^ Development Board P.O. Box 13231, Austin, TX 78711-3231 Executive summary In October, 2011, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) entered into agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District, and in November, 2011, entered into agreement with the Brazos River Authority to perform a volumetric and sedimentation survey of Somerville Lake. The Brazos River Authority provided 50% of the funding for this survey, while the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District, provided the remaining 50% of the funding through their Texas Water Allocation Assessment Program. Surveying was performed using a multi-frequency (200 kHz, 50 kHz, and 24 kHz), sub-bottom profiling depth sounder. In addition, sediment core samples were collected in select locations and correlated with the multi-frequency depth sounder signal returns to estimate sediment accumulation thicknesses and sedimentation rates. Somerville Dam and Somerville Lake are located on Yegua Creek in Burleson, Lee, and Washington Counties, approximately 15 miles northwest of Brenham, Texas.
    [Show full text]
  • Attached Graphic
    Figure: 30 TAC §307.10(2) Appendix B - Sole-source Surface Drinking Water Supplies This table contains sole-source surface drinking water supplies as provided by the TCEQ Drinking Water Protection Team. This table is current as of February 11, 2016. Where a water body has been identified as a sole-source surface drinking water supply but is not included in this appendix yet, the same level of protection may be applied. If designations of sole-source surface drinking water supplies change, those designations can be changed by laws or regulations that address sole-source surface drinking water supplies. Sole-source protection zones of sole-source surface drinking water supplies are defined in §307.3 of this title (relating to Definitions and Abbreviations). The listed county names provide the general location of these drinking water supplies. The segment numbers listed below are only provided to help in finding the general location of a sole-source water body and are associated with classified segments as listed in Appendices A and C of this section. Segment numbers in parentheses ( ) indicate that the water body is in close proximity to the segment listed, but not a part of the segment. For a current list and the precise location of a sole-source surface drinking water supply, contact the TCEQ Drinking Water Protection Team. Water Body Name County Segment No. Lake Texoma Grayson 0203 Lake Arrowhead Clay 0212 Lake Kickapoo Archer 0213 Greenbelt Lake Donley 0223 Mackenzie Reservoir Briscoe 0228 Wright Patman Lake Cass 0302 Big Creek Lake Delta (0303) Big Cypress Creek Below Lake O' Harrison 0402 the Pines Lake O' the Pines Marion 0403 Lake Cypress Springs Franklin 0405 Lake Bob Sandlin Camp, Titus 0408 Toledo Bend Reservoir Sabine, Shelby 0504 Lake Tawakoni Hunt, Rains, Van Zandt, 0507 Kaufman Lake Murvaul Panola 0509 Lake Fork Reservoir Wood 0512 Big Sandy Creek Upshur 0514 Lower Neches Valley Authority Hardin, Jefferson (0602) Canal Water Body Name County Segment No.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Oklahoma Field Office 7906 E
    U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-NM-040-2015-61-EA October 2015 April 2016 Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale Beaver, Creek, Dewey, Roger Mills, and Major Counties, Oklahoma; Cheyenne, Lane, Logan, and Sherman Counties, Kansas; and Denton, Burleson, Houston, Live Oak, McMullen, Trinity, and Washington Counties, Texas U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Oklahoma Field Office 7906 E. 33rd Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74145 Phone: 918.621.4100 Fax: 918.621.4130 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT OKLAHOMA FIELD OFFICE Project: April 2016 Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale EA Log Number: DOI-BLM-NM-040-2015-061-EA Location: Beaver, Creek, Dewey, Roger Mills, and Major Counties, Oklahoma; Cheyenne, Lane, Logan, and Sherman Counties, Kansas; and Denton, Burleson, Houston, Live Oak, McMullen, Trinity, and Washington Counties, Texas Finding of No Significant Impact Based on the analysis of potential environmental impacts contained in the attached Environmental Assessment (EA), I have determined the Proposed Action Alternative is not expected to have significant impacts on the environment. The impacts of leasing the fluid minerals estate in the areas described within this EA have been previously analyzed in the Oklahoma Resources Management Plan (RMP) (1994), as amended; and the Texas RMP (1996), as amended; and the Kansas RMP (1991) and the lease stipulations that accompany the tracts proposed for leasing would mitigate the impacts of future development on these tracts. Therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not warranted. Prepared by: Jackie Badley, Natural Resource Specialist Date Reviewed by: Stephen G.
    [Show full text]
  • G Recreation Costs Incurred by Those Who Use Recreation Amenities Most Heavily
    EExecutive Summary ver the past half century, the nation’s federal manmade lakes have become a powerful recre- O ation attraction. These lakes, a product of dams built primarily for other purposes, have acquired significant added value in water-related recreation. They have become popular destina- tions for vacations and day trips. By the hundreds of thousands, people flock to their waters, their shores, their adjacent parks, and their tailwaters downstream. Federal lakes are a canvas of boat- ing, camping, swimming, fishing, hiking, and other leisure pursuits. Lake recreation is also an economic force, greatly buoying state tourism and local economies. This very success, however, reveals long neglected and growing problems at fed- eral lakes. Despite good intentions, many of the federal agencies in charge of lakes are unable to provide recreation facilities and lake conditions that meet public demand and present-day expectations; and they are failing to recognize and act on recreation opportunities. So say recreation consumers, industry groups, conservation organizations, and state and local governments. All have become increasingly dissatisfied with recreation at federal lakes. The National Recreation Lakes Study Commission was created by Congress and appointed by President Clinton to examine these concerns. After a year of research, nationwide workshops, and deliberations, the Commission finds that recreation at federal lakes is, in fact, beset by a multitude of difficulties and shortcomings. At many sites, facilities ranging from restrooms to boat docks to roads are inad- equate, aging, and falling apart. Pollution and aquatic plant invasions threaten lake health. Fish habitat is compromised, and with it, species survival and sport fishing.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Calculation of Chlorophyll a to Total Phosphorus Ratio
    Alternative Calculation of Chlorophyll a to TP Ratio Reservoirs with a Low Level of Concern Segment Lake/Reservoir Name TP Mean Chlorophyll a -0.01[ln(mg/L Chl a)]/ No. (mg/L) Mean (mg/L) (mg/L TP) 0208 Lake Crook 0.170 0.00477 0.31 0212 Lake Arrowhead 0.119 0.00539 0.44 0213 Lake Kickapoo 0.067 0.00368 0.84 0219 Lake Wichita 0.164 0.03323 0.21 0229 Lake Tanglewood 1.081 0.01994 0.04 0302 Wright Patman Lake 0.087 0.01251 0.50 0509 Murvaul Lake 0.047 0.01972 0.84 0603 B. A. Steinhagen Lake 0.065 0.00675 0.77 0803 Lake Livingston 0.156 0.01704 0.26 0815 Bardwell Reservoir 0.046 0.01046 0.99 0818 Cedar Creek Reservoir 0.057 0.01639 0.72 0823 Lewisville Lake 0.047 0.01077 0.96 0827 White Rock Lake 0.086 0.02055 0.45 0830 Benbrook Lake 0.055 0.01604 0.75 1002 Lake Houston 0.189 0.00628 0.27 (1208) Millers Creek Reservoir 0.062 0.01034 0.74 1212 Somerville Lake 0.053 0.02073 0.73 1222 Proctor Lake 0.048 0.01800 0.84 1225 Waco Lake 0.064 0.00634 0.79 1228 Lake Pat Cleburne 0.060 0.01049 0.76 1235 Lake Stamford 0.057 0.01043 0.80 (1241) Buffalo Springs Lake 0.122 0.03549 0.27 1422 Lake Nasworthy 0.045 0.01169 0.99 1425 O.C. Fisher Lake 0.051 0.01025 0.90 2103 Lake Corpus Christi 0.151 0.00816 0.32 (2454) Cox Creek Lake 0.265 0.00785 0.18 - 1 - Reservoirs with a Moderate Level of Concern Segment Lake/Reservoir Name TP Mean Chlorophyll a -0.01[ln(mg/L Chl a)]/ No.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (Updated March 18, 2021)
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. 2018 Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (updated March 18, 2021) EPA has not approved the definition of “surface water in the state” in the TX WQS, which includes an area out 10.36 miles into the Gulf of Mexico by reference to §26.001 of the Texas Water Code. Under the CWA, Texas does not have jurisdiction to establish water quality standards more than three nautical miles from the coast, but does not extend past that point. Beyond three miles, EPA retains authority for CWA purposes. EPA’s approval also does not include the application the TX WQS for the portions of the Red River and Lake Texoma that are located within the state of Oklahoma. Finally, EPA is not approving the TX WQS for those waters or portions of waters located in Indian Country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. The following sections in the 2018 Texas WQS have been approved by EPA and are therefore effective for CWA purposes: • §307.1. General Policy Statement • §307.2. Description of Standards • §307.3. Definitions and Abbreviations (see “No Action” section) • §307.4. General Criteria • §307.5. Antidegradation • §307.7. Site-specific Uses and Criteria (see “No Action” section) • §307.8.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Ph Evaluation Project
    Texas pH Evaluation Project Prepared by: Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research Tarleton State University Stephenville, Texas PR0810 November 2008 Texas pH Evaluation Project Prepared for: TMDL Program Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Austin, Texas Prepared by: David Pendergrass Larry Hauck Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research Tarleton State University Stephenville, Texas PR0810 November 2008 Texas pH Evaluation Project Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... iv SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................1-1 1.1 Context................................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Report Purpose and Organization.......................................................................................1-1 SECTION 2 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................2-1 2.1 Water Quality and pH.........................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Environmental Influences on Aquatic pH ..........................................................................2-3 SECTION 3 DEFINITION OF STUDY AREAS AND METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS..............................................................................................................3-1
    [Show full text]