TEXAS WATER CONNISSION

Joe D. Carter, ChairmanO. F. Dent, Commissioner

H. A. Beckwith, Commissioner

BULLETIN 6411

CHEMICAL QUALITY OF SURFACE WATERS IN THE

HUBBARD CREEK WATERSHED, TEXAS

Progress Report, September 196)

By

C. H. Hembree and J. F. Blakey

Prepared by the U. S. Geological Surveyin cooperation with theTexas Water Commission

and theWest Central Texas Municipal Water District

November 1964

Published and distributedby the

Texas Water CommissionPost Office Box 12311Austin, Texas 78711

Authorization for use or reproduction of any originalmaterial contained in this publication, i. e., not obtainedfrom other sources, is freely granted without the necessityof securing permission therefor. The Commission would ap-preciate acknowledgement of the source of original materialso utilized.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

!l\'TRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . 1

The Problem....... ... .........••••.......•.......•.......•••.....• 1

Previous Investigations....... 2

Purpose of the Study.............................................. 4

Sl1l'R-lARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .•• . . . . . . .••. . . . . . .• . . . . . . ..•. . . . . .• 4

DESCRIPTION OF AREA. . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . • • • . . . . . • • • . . . . . . . • • . . . . . 6

Location and Extent.......... . ..••.. . . . ..••.. . . . . . • . . . . . . .••. . . . . . 6

Drainage.......................................................... 6

Hubbard Creek Reservoir.................. .•. . . . . . . .• . . . . . ..••. . . . . 8

Physical Setting.................................................. 8

Physiography. . . . . .. . .••. . . . . . .•. . . . . . .••. . . . . . .•. . . . . . . .•. . . . B

Geology...................................................... 9

Climate...................................................... 9

CH£}UCAL QUALITY OF WATER........ ..•. .••.• 12

Dissolved·Solids Discharge and Concentration.. .. .. . . ..••. .. .. .••. . 12

Hubbard Creek near Breckenridge.............................. 13

Big Sandy Creek near Breckenridge. .........•.........••... .•. 13

Hubbard Creek near Albany. ...••.......•.... ....• 21

Salt Prong Hubbard Creek near Albany. .....•.........•.•...... 21

Coc:Iparison of Yields. ..••..... . n

Deep Creek at Moran and North Fork Hubbard Creeknear Albany................................................ ~l

Relation to Base Flow............................................. 1.9

Relation to Geology............................................... L.9

TABLE OF CO~~ENTS (Cont'd.)

Page

\~ATER QUALITY AND USE 0 00 ......••.......•....... 00 .....•. o. . 36

Domestic 00.·· ••• 0······· ••.••••.•• ·•·····• 0·····..... 36

Industry ............•........ 0 .......•• ···· •.• 0.•.•.•.• 0 00·· 42

Irrigation 0•...•. 0 .......••....... 0······· 00·.· •..• 0" 42

REFERENCES 0 0 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 • • • • • • • • • • • 45

TABLES

1. Weighted average analyses of Hubbard Creek near Breckenridge,Texas, 1955-62................................................... Ilj

2. Water and chloride discharge at chemical-quality samplingsites in the Hubbard Creek watershed............................. 33

3. Analyses of surface water at chemical-quality samplingsites 1.n the Hubbard Creek watershed o· 34

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figures

1. Relation of Chloride Concentration of Hubbard Creek nearBreckenridge to Number of Injection Permits in HubbardCreek Watershed.................................................. 5

2. Geologic Hap of the Hubbard Creek Watershed 0" •• ••• • • 7

3. Honthly Precipitation at U. S. Weather BureauStation, Albany, Texas, May 1955 to September 1962 ,.... 10

4. Annual Water Discharge, Hubbard Creek near Breckenridge,\-later Years 1941-62.............................................. 11

5. Water, Dissolved-Solids, and Chloride Discharges from FourSubdivisions of Hubbard Creek Watershed, in Percentageof Total for Watershed, February 1 to September 30, 1962......... 14

6. Chloride Concentration and Water Discharge of Hubbard Creeknear Breckenridge, 1962 Water Year. 15

7. Chloride Concentration and Water Discharge of HubbardCreek near Breckenridge, October 1, 1962 to April 30, 1963....... 16

8. Monthly Water, Chloride, and Dissolved-Solids Discharges,Hubbard Creek near Breckenridge, October 1961 toSeptember 1962................................................... 17

fABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.)

Page

9. Monthly Water, Chloride, and Dissolved~Solids Discharges,Big Sandy Creek near Breckenridge, February toSeptember 1962.................................................. 19

10. Chloride Concentration and Water Discharge of Big SandyCreek near Breckenridge, February 1, 1962 to April 30, 1963..... 20

11. Honth1y \.,later, Chloride, and Dissolved-Solids Discharges,Hubbard Creek near Albany, February to September 1962... ....•••• 22

12. Chloride Concentration and Water Discharge of HubbardCreek near Albany, February 1, 1962 to A~ril 30, 1963........... 23

13. Monthly Water, Chloride, and Dissolved-Solids Discharges,Salt Prong Hubbard Creek near Albany, February toSeptember 1962.................................................. 24

14. Chloride Concentration and Water Discharge of Salt ProngHubbard Creek near Albany, February 1, 1962 to April 30, 1963... 25

15. Water, Dissolved-Solids, and Chloride Discharges from ThreeSubdivisions of Hubbard Creek Watershed, in Percentageof the Total from the Three Subdivisions, February 1,1962 to April 30, 1963.......................................... 26

16. Chloride Concentration and Water Discharge of Deep Creeknear Moran, October 31, 1962 to April 30, 1963.................. 27

17. Chloride Concentration and Water Discharge of North ForkHubbard Creek near Albany, November 1, 1962 to April 30, 1963... 28

18. water, Dissolved-Solids, and Chloride Discharges from AreasAbove Station on Salt Prong Hubbard Creek, in Percentageof Total from Sub-Basin, November 1, 1962 to April 30, 1963..... J()

19. Map of Hubbard Creek Watershed Showing Chloride Concentrationof Surface Water at Chemical-Quality Sampling Sites. 31

20. Base Flow, Chloride Concentration, and Chloride Dischargeat Selected Sites in the Hubbard Creek Watershed,January 25·26, 1962............................................. 37

21. Map of Hubbard Creek Watershed ShOWing Natural ChlorideConcentration of Surface-Warer Runoff........................... 39

22. Relation of Sodium-Chloride Ratio to Chloride Concentrationfor a Stream Affected by Natural Contamination and forHubbard Creek near Breckenridge.. .. .. . 41

23. Classification of Water from Hubbard Creek Watershed forIrrigation Use.................................................. 43

C HEM I CAL QUA LIT Y a F SUR F ACE WATE R S

Rep 0 r tPro g res s

I N THE HUB BAR D C R E E K WATE R SHE D

S e pte m b e r

T E X A S

196 3

INTRODUCTION

The Problem

The West Central Texas Municipal Water District) Abilene, Texas) has con-structed a reservoir on Hubbard Creek near Breckenridge, Texas (impoundmentbegan September 1962). The impounded water will be used as a public-watersupply for several cities in west-central Texas. Cities now within the waterdistrict are Abilene, Albany, Anson, and Breckenridge.

Oil production in the Hubbard Creek watershed began in 1920. In April1961 there were 5)400 producing oil and gas wells) 782 depleted wells) and5)193 dry holes upstream from Hubbard Creek Dam (written communiciation)West Central Texas Municipal Water District) 1961). A large number of dryholes and abandoned wells were not properly plugged and shallow ground-wateraquifers in many parts of the watershed have been contaminated by salt water(written communiciation) J. H. Samuell) 1937). Also) the water quality ofHubbard Creek and most of its tributaries is affected by oil-field brines thatreach the streams as surface runoff or as effluent ground water. Concentra-tions of dissolved constituents) especially chloride) in the base flow of thestreams are above the recommended maximum limits for domestic use.

Chemical-quality records collected on Hubbard Creek near Breckenridgesince April 1955 show that the water at this station is not of acceptablequality for domestic use except during high flows. Records for this stationfor water years 1955-57 indicated that the annual weighted-average concentra-tion of chloride would be about 45 to 50 ppm (parts per million). This concen-tration is well within the acceptable chloride limits for most uses, and onthis basis the construction of the dam was started. ThereaZter) a largeincrease in chloride concentration occurred. In 1958 the weighted-ave~ageconcentration of chloride was almost three times that of previous years) andby 1962 had increased to almost 200 ppm. However) a weighted-average chlorideconcentration of 200 ppm would be of acceptable quality for domestic use if theyearly runoff were mixed in a reservoir and if evaporation effects are notconsidered. Obviously) the concentrating effect of evaporation on the dissolvedsolids in the reservoir cannot be ignored.

Because of a high area-depth ratio and the local climate) yearly evapora-tion from Hubbard Creek Reservoir will be high--so high) indeed) that abouthalf the time the amount of water evaporated from the reservoir after fillingwill be greater than the inflow (written communication, Freese) Nichols) and

Endress, 1962). During some years, and especially during drought periods, thechloride concentration of the water in the reservoir probably will exceed therecommended maximum limit for domestic use of 250 parts per million (U. S.Public Health Service, 1962). That is, if the quality of the inflow is notimproved.

Previous Investigations

A salt-water reconnaissance survey of the Hubbard Greek watershed was madeby the Texas State Department of Health in May 1961. The survey indicated thatseveral areas are potential sources of chloride contamination (written communi-cation, J. D. Goff and J. R. Morgan, 1961). The survey by the Texas StateDepartment of Health disclosed:

I' ••• that Hubbard Greek contained chloride concentrations ofapproximately 1,000 ppm near Hubbard Greek Reservoir Dam.This chloride increased progressing upstream and approach-ing oil fields. When no flow was visible, there was evi-dence of previous brine flows because of salt deposits onthe banks and stream beds.

Many pits were found being utilized for attempted disposalof brines that are produced in oil recovery operations inthis area."

The report by the Texas State Department of Health concluded that:

"Generally the brines from the oil fields in the HubbardCreek Keservoir watershed do not enter watercourses bysurface routes. However, sub-surface migration of thesebrines along the beds of the streams draining the area isconsidered to be taking place according to laboratoryanalysis of the samples collected. Discharge of the brinesinto the watercourses in this manner is difficult to detectby a visual investigation.

The high chloride concentrations found in oil-field brineproduced from the counties involved and the volume reportedare such that the entry of it into the watercourses andthe continued discharge to the environs by the use of pitsis likely to seriously impair the quality of the water inthe Hubbard Creek Reservoir."

The firm of Conselman, Jenke, and Tice, Abilene, Texas, contracted withthe West Central Texas Municipal Water District in December 1961 to prepare areport on "Salt-Water Contamination in the Hubbard Creek Reservoir Watershed ofShackelford, Stephens, Callahan, and Eastland Counties, Texas." Among otherimportant findings, their report concludes in part that:

"1. The Hubbard Creek Reservoir Watershed is naturallyclean, and its geologic setting is stratigraphically quitefavorable, particularly as compared to areas north andwest .•..

- 2 -

2. Streams entering Hubbard Creek Reservoir are now carryingexcessive concentrations of dissolved chlorides and othersalts as compared to the normal content to be expected fromleaching of the outcrops traversed.

3. The chief source of these abnormal chlorides is indus-trial brine produced in connection with oil and gas opera-tions, which have been and continue to be intensive in thearea.

4. Industrial brines have reached the watershed from(1) surface leakage of salt-water pits, producing wells,water injection wells, lease lines, tanks, heaters, trea-ters, and abandoned dry holes; (2) leaching of salt-impregnated areas by runoff; (3) seepage of salt-waterpits into the shallow subsurface; (4) subsurface seepagefrom salt water disposal wells pumping brine into theannulus, with pressures and volumes in excess of thecapacity of subsurface reservoirs; (5) waterflood injectionwells which unintentionally inject brine into reservoirsother than those to be repressured; (6) abandoned shot-holes and core-holes which receive lateral salt watermigration from other sources; and (7) occasional deliberatedisposal of brine by dumping into surface watercourses. ll

Freese, Nichols, and Endress, Consulting Engineers, Fort Worth, Texas,completed a report on chloride routing studies of Hubbard Creek Reservoir inJune 1962. Their conclusions are as follows:

" .•.with the degree of chloride contamination now beingobserved on Hubbard Creek, the resulting concentrations inHubbard Creek Reservoir can be expected to rise above thelimit recommended by the U. S. Public Health Service (25Uparts per million) during drouth periods. The onlyapparent means to prevent this occurrence is to reduce theman-made pollution on the watershed and bring the mineralcontent of the runoff back down to the levels measuredprior to 1958. Specifically, the overall average chlorideconcentration in the stream flow must be reduced to 50 ppmor less if the lake water is to meet Public Health Servicestandards on a continuous and dependable basis.

Unless there is same further increase in pollution onHubbard Creek, the reservoir will not become unduly saltyfor a few years after impoundment begins. Judging from thechloride routing analyses included in this study, some fiveto ten years will elapse between closure of the dam and theincrease of chlorides in the lake to more than 250 ppm,with the quality of the runoff as it exists at present.

Early quality measurements of the u.S. Geological Surveyon Hubbard Creek, from 1955 to 1957, encourage the beliefthat the chloride content can be held below 50 ppm if pro-per attention is given to the handling of oil-field brinesand other similar wastes within the watershed boundaries."

- 3 -

The West Central Texas Municipal Water District has studied the cause ofthe progressive increase of chloride as measured at the station on HubbardCreek near Breckenridge. They believe that there is a correlation uetween thenumber of injection permits and the increase in e~loride (Austin P. Hancock,written communication, 1963). Figure 1 was prepared from data furnished byMr. Hancock on the number of permits. The relation of chloride concentrationto the number of permits is too pronounced to be fortuitous.

Purpose of the Study

In December 1961 the U. S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the WestCentral Texas Municipal Water District and the Texas Water Commission, began astudy of the surface-water resources of the Hubbard Creek watershed. The pur-pose of the study is to determine the chemical quality of surface waters; todetermine the source areas and extent of rapidly increasing dissolved solids,especially chloride; to show the effect of remedial measures in reducing theamount of dissolved solids reaching the Hubbard Creek Reservoir; to determinestratification patterns in Hubbard Creek Reservoir; to record and analyze theeffects of withdrawals from the bottom of the reservoir on stratificationpatterns; and to determine the optimum rate at which saline water can bereleased from the bottom of the reservoir without withdrawal of the betterwater in the upper layers.

For this study, the daily streamflow and chemical-quality station onHubbard Creek near Breckenridge that was established in April 1955 will becontinued. In February 1962 daily streamflow and chemical-quality stationswere established on Big Sandy Creek near Breckenridge, Hubbard Creek nearAlbany, and Salt Prong Hubbard Creek near Albany; all three stations are abovethe area to be inundated by Hubbard Creek Reservoir. In October 1962 dailystations were established on Deep Creek at Moran and North Fork Hubbard Creeknear Albany. Two additional daily stations, Hubbard Creek near Sedwick andSnailum Creek near Albany, and a continuous specific conductance recorder atthe reservoir outlet will be established in the spring of 1964. In addition,streamflow measurements will be made and samples collected for chemicalanalyses about 4 times a year at each of 13 sites on tributaries. Other instru-mentation and stations will be added as needed.

This is a progress report summarizing the data collected through April1963 and indicates the present quality of the inflow to the reservoir and someof the source areas of chlorides. Another progress report will be prepared atthe end of the 1964 water year.

SilllMARY

The surface waters of Hubbard Creek watershed were by nature originallylow in chloride content. However, at present the chloride content of many ofthe streams is high. Chemical-quality records indicate a progressive increasein chloride since about 1955, and this increase in chloride coincides with anincrease in water-flood projects in the oil fields.

Salt springs near the "Old Albany Salt Works" on a tributary of Salt ProngHubbard Creek are the only known source of natural contamination. The flowfrom these springs is small and enters Lake McCarty, which is about 6 miles

- 4 -

•

I IEXPLANATION

-1'"204 cis Mean wOler discharge, in• cubic feet per second 196219S8 Waler yearDolo on number of Injection permits

granted by 'he Texas Railroad Com- VmiSSion furnished b, Wesl CentrolTelos Municipal Waler District.MO' b. large number of wells for

/each permit. 23,752 bo r rels 01 sol tWOI er pO' day being injected as of 2~4 cfs1-1-62/J958 47.9 cts 83.0 cfs Leis1959 1960-"'"

1/ 1961

/2~ cls /1956 ;1.633 cfs248 cf~

1957Apr -Sept 1955

z0->-..'">-zWvzz00v-~

~-W:>0

-

W'",,".. o.'"~ I WZ>-..,0W>-~

"-W"

230

210

190

170

150

130

110

90

70

50

3050 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210

CUMULATIVE INJECTION PERMITS

Relation

to

of Chloride

Number of

Figure

Concentration ofInjection Permits

Hubbord Creek near Breckenridge

In Hubbard Creek Watershed

".

US GeoloQlcol Survey In coop8roll00 WI 111 Il'Ie Tues worer Commissionlind Ihe Wes! Cenlrol Tues MUniCipal Worer District

southwest or Albany. Lake McCarty is the water supply for Albany.have no appreciable effect on the quality of water in Hubbard Creek

The springsReservoir.

Saline flows, dead vegetation, and salt encrustations along waterways nearoil fields occur throughout the watershed. A major source area of chloridecontamination is above the station on Salt Prong Hubbard Creek near Albany.If the runoff from the area above this station during February to September1962 had been diverted out of the watershed, 4S percent less chloride wouldhave passed the outflow station on Hubbard Creek near Breckenridge. The sourceof the high chloride can be isolated even more closely. North Fork HubbardCreek, a tributary of Salt Prong Hubbard Creek that drains an intensivelydeveloped oil field west of Albany, contributed 81 percent of the chloride loadthat passed the station on Salt Prong during the period November 1962 to April1963. The drainage area above the station on North Fork is only one-third ofthe drainage area above the station on Salt Prong.

The drainage area above the station on Big Sandy Creek near Breckenridgecontributes less chloride per unit area than the drainage area above the sta-tion on Hubbard Creek near Albany. Most of the abnormally high chloride water(one sample of low flow contained 10,500 ppm chloride) in Big Sandy sub-basinis in Battle Creek and its tributaries that drain oil-field areas. Source areasof saline water above the station on Hubbard Creek near Albany are mostly abovethe station on Deep Creek near Moran and on Hubbard Creek above the mouth atDeep Creek. One sample of low flow from a tributary of Deep Creek west ofMoran contained 13,600 ppm of chloride.

Lake Cisco, the water supply of CiSCO, stores runoff from the upperreaches of Big Sandy Creek. Chemical analyses of water from Lake Cisco indi-cate that the water is usually less than 15 ppm chloride. Other chemicalanalyses of water from ponds and lakes throughout the watershed indicate thatif contamination is substantially reduced or eliminated, the water of HubbardCreek Reservoir would be of excellent quality cost of the time, and would beof acceptable quality even during those years when evaporation from the reser-voir exceeds the inflow.

DESCRIPTION OF AREA

Location and Extent

The area drained by Hubbard Creek extends from northern Callahan Countyand northwestern Eastland County across eastern Shackelford County and westernStephens County to the Clear Fork Brazos River 10 miles north of Breckenridge,Texas (Figure 2). The drainage area above U. S. Highway IB3, northwest ofBreckenridge, and 8 miles above the mouth is 1,111 square miles.

Drainage

Deep Creek, which has a larger drainage area than Hubbard Creek abovetheir junction, starts in Callahan County southwest of Putnam and flows north-east and then north to join Hubbard Creek south of State Farm Road 601. MexiaCreek is the largest tributary of Deep Creek (Figure 19).

- 6 -

,.... -.EXPLANATION

".-!! ( .......~~~·~·l;l""..t_. _._ 5ot t,'"II, ov,

~.

I II 0 J/

I -"\.,..~...I

Salt Prong Hubbard Creek and its principal tributary, North Fork HubbardCreek, drain areas entirely within Shackelford County. Salt Prong starts inthe south-central part of the county and flows into Hubbard Creek about 4 milesabove U. S. Highway 180. North Fork Hubbard Creek begin3 west of A!oany nearthe center of the county and enters Salt Prong about 3 miles southeast ofAlbany.

Big Sandy Creek, which has the largest drainage area of the three principaltributaries of Hubbard Creek, starts in Eastland County near Cisco and flowsgenerally north across Stephens County to about 8 miles southwest of Brecken-ridge where it flows into Hubbard Creek Reservoir. The principal tributary ofBig Sandy Creek is Battle Creek, which rises in northeastern Callahan County,flows across southeastern Shackelford County and southwestern Stephens County,and flows into Big Sandy Creek a short distance above State Farm Road 576, and8.2 miles southwest of Breckenridge (Figure 19).

Hubbard Creek Reservoir

Hubbard Creek Reservoirarea is 1,107 square miles.

impoundment began in September 1962.Pertinent data for the reservoir are

Drainageas follows:

ElevationFeature (feet above Capaci ty Area

mean sea level) (acre-feet) (acres)

Top of dam 1,208.0 -- --Top of earth fuse plug 1,197.0 584,000 22,000Crest of emergency

spi llway 1,194.0 521,000 20,500Top of gates of outlet

structure (servicespi llway) 1,183.0 320,000 15,250

Crest of outletstructure 1,176.5 225,000 12,300

Invert of 48-inchvalve 1,134.0 4,000 700

Shoreline: 100 miles at elevation 1,183.0 feet above mean sea level

Physical Setting

Physiography

Physiographically, the Hubbard Creek watershed is in the Osage Plainssection of the Central Lowlands province. The Callahan Divide on the southand southwest separates the watershed from the Colorado River Basin. Thealtitude of the watershed ranges from about 1,200 feet above msl (mean sealevel) in the north to about 2,000 feet above msl on the south and west bound-aries. Except for moderately rough topography along the divide, the topographyis rolling to hilly and the numerous small streams flow generally northeast ornorthwest into the principal streams. Most of the principal streams haveeroded their valleys in outcrop of shale, or in some places shale alternatingwith thin beds of limestone. Separating the valleys are low ridges of gently

- 8 -

northwestward-dipping limestone. Sandstone forms the ridges and underlies thevalleys in the eastern part of the area, particularly in Big Sandy Creek sub-basin.

Geology

The following description of the geology of the Hubbard Creek watershed isfrom a discussion of the geology of the area by Frank B. ConseLman (writtencommunication, 1962).

Hubbard Creek watershed is near the eastern margin of the Permian Basin,which is a large structurally downwarped and filled basin underlying northwestTexas and adjoining states. Most of the rocks that crop out in the HubbardCreek watershed are limestone and thick beds of relatively softer shale, whichseparate the limestone. The shale between the limestone has been partiallyeroded leaving a series of ridges or cuestas. The ridges are steep on the eastand slope gently to the west about 40 feet per mile, which is the dip of theunderlying rocks. These westward-dipping beds of limestone and shale ofPermian age were once overlain by nearly horizontal rocks of Early Cretaceousage that have been removed by erosion except along the southern divide.

The oldest rocks crop out in the southeast part of the watershed nearCisco. These rocks are of Pennsylvanian age and are mostly limestones, sand-stones, and siltstones.

Outcrops of Permian rocks, which in some areas are notorious as producersof bad water, cover about 95 percent of the watershed. (See Figure 2.) How-ever, these Permian rocks are geochemically unlike the Permian rocks that cropout to the southwest in the Colorado River Basin and in the drainage basins ofother streams to the west and northwest. The Lower Permian rocks in theHubbard Creek watershed are predominately marine and contain negligible quan-tities of salt and gypsum as compared to the younger gypsum and salt-bearingPermian rocks to the west.

Another important aspect of the rocks and their relation to the qualityof surface water is the westward dip of the rock strata. This westward dipcoupled with the northeastward trend of the streams minimizes the area of out-crop of each formation crossed by the streams. The watershed is an area ofground-water recharge to the few aquifers present and little or no ground wateris effluent to the streams except from alluvium along the streams.

Climate

The climate of the four-county area is typical of much of the Wesc TexasPlains. The mean temperature for July is about 84°F, and the maximum tempera-ture recorded is 112°F. The mean temperature for January is about 44°F, butmaximums in the eighties and minimums near OGF have been recorded. The averagegrowing season is 226 days, extending from late March to early November (Te:{asAlmanac, 1961-1962, p. 636). The average annual precipitation is 25 to 26inches with no well-defined wet season (Figure 3). Much of the precipitationfor the region occurs during storms and thunderstorms with 10 to 20 percent ofthe annual precipitation occurring in a few days. Irregularities in the annualprecipitation pattern are further exemplified by Figure 4 which shows annualwater discharge for Hubbard Creek near Breckenridge for the water years 1941-62.

- 9 -

12

----'1958

-L-1957

JFMAMJJASONOJfMAMJJASA SON 0___ MON1THS

1956WATER YEARS

1955

ON 0 J F M A M J J A 5 aND J F M A M J J A SON 0 J F MA M J J A S ON 0 J F M A M J J A 5MONTHS

ONDJFMAMJJASONOJ FMAMJJ

,

,,

;

I

-~f- HA n n n n ft H n- -H n II nI-

n IIn n n II n

I

;

1-- -,f- - - - -

, n HAn H- -H nn n II n n nil

4

4

o

•

o

•

,

•

•

,

'0

'0

'"'":ruzz-z

"I-«I-o.;:;

~ I '"0 '"o.

1959 1960WATER YEARS

1961l I

1962

Figure :3

Monthly Precipitation at U.5. Weather Bureau Stotion,

Albany, Texas, May 1955 to September 1962

".u S GeoloQltol Sur ••y ,n coop,rotion ."rn In, r"OI wor.. Comminlon

Gnd lilt Will Cenltol ruos Munltloal Wall' O,unel

, . J

700

600

'"oz< 400

'""o:r....z.300

w

"''"..:ru

'"0 200'"w......,.

100

o

Delober 1940 to April 1955 estimated b,Freese, Nichols, and Endress, Consulting -Engineers (written communication, June 1962),

- Record for 1962 waler yeor adjusted f 0'

- reservoir conlents; storage in HubbardCreek Reservoir began September 1962. -

-

~l-

I-l-

I-

I- -

r-l-I-

l-I--

I- -I- - -

f-e-- -- -

I-~ I--

- ~ n I--I--Nr"J~IO\D1'10 10 10 10 10 10O'l CTl en O'l a'l en

Annual Waler Discharge,

Waler

WATER YEAR

Figure 4

Hubbard Creek near Breckenridge,

Years 1941-62

,"

u.s, Geoloqicol Survey in cooperation with the TIKas Waler Commissionand the WISt Centrol Te_os Municipal Woler District

- 11 -

Probably the most important climatic factor aifecting the qua!i~y of waterin Hubbard Creek Reservoir is evaporation from the surface of the reservoir.The concentrating effect of evaporation will increase the chloride concentrationand concentration of other constituents of the reservoir water. Lowry (1960,p. £-9) tabulated monthly reservoir evaporation rates for Texas for the IS-yearperiod from 1940 to 1957. Based on the evaporation rates given by Lowry thenet evaporation from Hubbard Creek Reservoir, if the reservoir had been in placeduring this period, would have been 4.57 feet annually. The maximum net evap-oration would have been 6.16 feet for the drought year of 1956 and the cinimumwould have been 2.61 feet for the abnormally wet year of 1957.

CHEl-UCAL QUALITY OF WATER

Dissolved-Solids Discharge and Concentration

The dissolved-solids concentration at any point on Hubbard C~eek or itstributaries may be greater, equal, or less, than at any upstream or downstreampoint. The effect of inflow on the concentration downstream depends on theamount of inflow as well as the concentration of the inflow. Assuming no wateris lost between the upstream and downstream points the relation between waterdischarges and dissolved-solids concentrations would be as follows:

CQ-K:Q=CQaa bb cc

Where C : concentration of water at upstream pointa

Q : water discharge at upstream pointa

C : concentration of inflowb

Qb

: quantity of inflow

C : concentration of water at downstream pointc

Q : water discharge at downstream pointc

Records for the period February to September 1962 show that the dissolved-solids concentration of Hubbard Creek was increased by inflow from Salt ProngHubbard Creek and was decreased by inflow from Big Sandy Creek and severalsmall tributaries below the mouth of Salt Prong. Similar changes in concen-tration are known to occur in other reaches of Hubbard Creek and its tribu-taries.

Natural base or sustained flow of streams in Hubbard Creek watershed isalmost nonexistent except in the lower reaches of Hubbard Creek. Duringperiods of no flow or meager flows, evaporation of ponded pools leaves saltdeposits on the banks and streambeds, especially in contaminated reaches of the

- 12 -

streams. These deposits are dissolved rapidly by the next runoff event andcarried downstream or into Hubbard Creek Reservoir. Because of the irregularprecipitation pattern and contamination, salt encrustations are common alongthe stream channels, and the initial flow of a runoff-event may be highlysaline.

The three upstream stations, Big Sandy Creek near Breckenridge, HubbardCreek near Albany, and Salt Prong Hubbard Creek near Albany record runoff from80 percent of the 1,111 square miles above the station on Hubbard Creek nearBreckenridge. During the period February to September 1962, the three upstreamstations recorded three-fourths of the flow recorded at the station on HubbardCreek near Breckenridge. Percentage relationships of the stations upstreamfrom the primary station for this period are shown in Figure 5.

Hubbard Creek near Breckenridge

The maximum dissolved-solids concentration at the station on Hubbard Creeknear Breckenridge was observed in July 1960. Mean discharge for the first 5days of the month was less than 0.05 cfs (cubic feet per second), and thedissolved-solids content was 5,350 ppm. In June 1961, over half of the totalflow for the water year (October 1960 to September 1961) was recorded and theminimum dissolved-solids content was 112 ppm.

The concentration of any particular dissolved constituent in Hubbard Creeknear Breckenridge varies with the discharge rate. Bicarbonate, for example,varies only slightly with changes in water discharge, but sodium and chloride,which are the major constituents during low flow, decrease drastically as thewater discharge increases. Calcium and magnesium vary with water dischargesomewhat like sodium, but the relation of calcium and magnesium to water dis-charge is not as consistent. The sulfate content of Hubbard Creek apparentlydepends on from which part of the watershed the flow comes. Saline waterpassing the station on Hubbard Creek near Breckenridge mayor may not be highin sulfate.

Figures 6 and 7 show the daily water discharge and concentration ofchloride. Monthly values for water, chloride, and dissolved-solids dischargefor the 1962 water year are shown in Figure 8. Weighted averages and extremesfor the period of record (1955-62) are given in Table 1.

Big Sandy Creek near Breckenridge

The station on Big Sandy Creek near Breckenridge records the runoff from298 square miles. Although flow was recorded less than half the time, the run-off measured at the Big Sandy Creek station was almost one-third of the totalrunoff from Hubbard Creek watershed for the 8-month period February to Septem-ber 1962 (Figure 5). Chemical quality versus streamflow at this station issimilar to that at the station on Hubbard Creek near Breckenridge, but thewater is of better quality. As at Hubbard Creek near Breckenridge, the bicar-bonate content of Big Sandy Creek shows little relation to flow. Other prin-cipal ions vary inversely with the discharge, and sodium and chloride are themajor constituents at low flow. The monthly discharges of water, chloride,and dissolved solids from February to September 1962 for the Big Sandy stationare shown in Figure 9, and the daily water discharge and chloride concentra-tions for the period February 1962 to April 1963 are given in Figure 10.

- 13 -

_x

~,"O

" ,! ~"" "T "l" ,!L---,----- ---- --~

"'" I,·•

· -.• •~:; ~

• •

~

o

"c-o~-c"'-'cou

o'"i•

···•,-

··,•

·;,•J<

._~........,_,;l~ •

____..,.-_. :I'

I, "

,

_'"-~";.-_.J-:~~ _':>._--.-.-

".---_..'-

----------

--...",..";;=:-

1 J ---------.- . -_.~.-.---- -,.------

•

'"",

r!•

L-.,.

··•

•• <

j --.t•I,< ,I

,I

l. I

•

z

o

.,

00

o

October November Oecember JanUQry February Mo rt h A P ri I

0, I 202.5 , "

, , 2 , , , " , !i 1015 Z " "FilII "'" II II , II II , II II , , , , , , :'~ =l- vY'

-f- -f- r -E

'-Chloridei= conterlll'OllOnl-f- -I- -

,~, =~----""""

~.." ~I-

...._.. . ~"._, ,l-

"

~. :#..•. .,, " •, ". ,1==

,.....•.,..."~•

~WaleI' disC:horQe-'

f- ":'"l-I- -

I.

F '. :'~

, =---

If- .. -. , •l-

. • L __ , - -" •, , , ,l- . ,

1\1

• -'. • r' jr.1 1 :\~

, '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '" I I ,i "'" "'" 0'10152025 51015202$ 510152025 :I 101520 25 5101520 510152025 510152025Oclober November Olcember Januory Februory March April

10

1.0

100zo~~

~

zw~

~

~

0:: 100~

z

woz'3ru

z2~z~

zwuzou

Figure 7

Chloride Concentration and Water Discharge of Hubbard Creek

neor Breckenridge, October I, 1962 to April 3D, 1963

...US GeolOQ,col Sut..., in coo",,"ohon .WI "" TlOos Warer Comm'",on

and Ihl West C

,,,,,8...~•Ci ..

o

.~ §e~•o-x xx ," ,•'u::,.o

"'~,§ ~• xx

]

'"'""0

-'"Do-uo

-o'"c

'"'"m-'"DE'"-0-'""'

'"m

"0Co

o

,,;

'"'"~o.cu~

Ci

'""0~

o.cU

•-,.2'~

;•

,,,,G. "' 'l?U"JS'O i""O$-OlA10n,,,

,NO. HI ']?~""J'iO lQ'MO'MJ

IlH-}MJ' ""l?W."Ji'C wl' ••

,

[

=~~~i~~ii!~~~~~~~~~~!~~~~~~~~~~!'1.z~I,•

·,~

• ·• · ;" . ·•~ · ,• ,• !

",

• · •x ·" ; , •~ [ill 0

~oo

17

•

~,·,

,,·,o

·i

,~·,·!1.,·]J

,·,,

·,·,,,

,.,--.,",,,, .. .,

00

~" ... .; ..... ~~"' ...

...;;.! ~

.In.-

; - ... P~J'.. ,I'• !

..Jf-----l-+-------.j,

.-.

;

!

,j

,.·.,j ~..::..::.i

,

";i!·.

,•<

~·,,,·

..

1

·!

!,,!··,···,

,--·

,!,··;l

18

".

IO.OOO" ."• U 0• ••o

"1=-------[

1962

Figure 9

Monthly Water, Chloride, and Dissolved- Solids Discharges,

Big Sandy Creek near Breckenridge,

February to September 1962

u_ 5 GeoloQ,col Survey in cooperolion with Ihe lues Woter Comm'SSlonand the Wut Centrol Te~os Municipal WOler Oisl"Cl

- 19 -

•!••,

••w,w••,,•·,•

'00 •ww·

,-

--i:l'o

! 1 I I..".

., "'"(

......i H--Ti

I l- .J ..",

r•••••• ,

iii riJO"'"I. 0)-..-10'-I-I I t

II........ ,

,..-,

100"110 •T! I IT

......... '• .. '!.fl'

0"60"

'10""......M"

illi>'

(.

..,."H~1"r

c".c.,..... ......f ••" ••.-t..-

~

~

~

E

I~ J ::~i' :1 .,~ " : I ;, I' , •,I: , ,I :' "...' - ., t'

I ',: " " 'I ", , 'I .1 : ,i

I: : I, :i :I:: I

I ; 1 l :::1 :\:: ,I:, , , I '. •I ,1 1 I,.: ' I " I I I~ ."" ,."..

Hubbard Creek near Albany

The station on Hubbard Creek near Albany has the largest drainage ar2a(461 square miles) of any ot the three inflow stati()n~ above the reservoir.The relation of dissolved-solids load to water discharge at this station issimilar to that for Hubbard Creek near Breckenridge. During the first 8 monthsof record, the area above the Albany station contributed approximately one-third of the total dissolved-solids load and one-third of the water dischargefrom the watershed (Figure 5). The variation of individual ions with stream-flow was similar to the ion-water relationship at Big Sandy Creek near Brecken-ridge for the 8 months of record, but the dissolved-solids load was double thatmeasured at the Big Sandy Creek station. Data collected at the Albany stationare given in Figures 11 and 12.

Salt Prong Hubbard Creek near Albany

Compared to the two other streams above the reservoir previously a~scussed, Salt Prong Hubbard Creek near Albany (drainage area 116 square miles)is the smallest and the saltiest. During the first 8 months of record, thearea above the station on Salt Prong contributed 16 percent of the Dischargeand 36 percent of the dissolved-solids load from the watershed (Figure 5).Chemical quality versus streamflow was characteristic of a contaminated streamwith the first waters of high flows being saline. The bicarbonate ion, as atthe other stations, does not change appreciably with changes in flow. Thesodium and chloride ions are the major constituents and vary inversely withflow. The calcium and magnesium content increases with the sodium ions butnot consistently, and the sulfate ions show little relation to dissolved-solidsconcentrations or to streamflow. Data for the period of record are given inFigures 13 and 14.

Comparison of Yields

Comparative yields from three subdivisions above the reservoir for the 15months of record (February 1962 to April 1963) are shown in Figure 15.

Deep Creek at Moran andNorth Fork Hubbard Creek near Albany

In November 1962, stations were established on Deep Creek at Moran andNorth Fork Hubbard Creek near Albany. Almost all the runoff for the first 6months of station operation occurred during the last week of April. Based onthis short period the chemical quality versus streamflow at the two stationsseems to conform with the remainder of the watershed.

With little or no flow for most of the period, the chloride concentrationat the station Deep Creek at Moran reached 2,200 ppm. The daily water dis-charge and chloride concentrations are shown on Figure 16.

The station on North Fork Hubbard Creek near Albany had a sustained 110101(0.3 to 0.5 cfs) of highly saline water for the 6-month period. The weightedaverage chloride for the period was 2,520 ppm and concentrations greater than3,000 ppm chloride were common. Data for the period (November 1962 to April1963) are shown on Figure 17.

- 21 -

10,000'r:::- ---,

'''"'1:-:::-------------1

J.ly..,Aphl......

(XPLANATION

~ '011.'" .'O• • "• u 0•••

Monthly Water, Chloride,

Hubbard

February

Figure II

and Dissolved-Solids

Creek near Albany,

to September 1962

Discharges,

u S Geolo'ilicol Survey In cooperotion WiTh lhe Tuos WOTe. CommISSIonond The Wesl Cenrrel Tues Mun,Clpol WeTe. OISlrll;1

'"

- 22 -

!

•§•

l,••····

••,,

,••,,•

"

-

-!1~

,.

---=11000-

.",11

,•,

~'D

......r .······f

-+-+--~-

N.....' .. I D.......,

1"TTr

b-"b t 1_,,_1 I ~-

oc....,

""1"'..--

--1-1-

-.,...TTTTr

.-.."..,..

,."J,••

--

' ..

I.

...... I "'"

t.?"lG.. It..

I'~'

I '

v-"t', , (

,---K~ ~I. ~ l.J ""Ito _ •• 1'••

£' :, Ii'" II 1~I\ ~l :, I

I Ii ' ,\ -j," I "• ':: \ :: I ,• ~I' I II ,': J,~ , I I '" .~,I' '1', I I 'I',I I,' I I. • I' I I,I Iii: I I, 1\ "-5""'" .." ••,.. I I 'I:\ ~l: \ \' : \ 1\ I -t-':' :::', 1: I \ : l -,, \ l ' ~ \ ' ,. I I I I"\1' " \ : \ : \ I j,\ , \ ' " ' ,, ' '\1, ' 1 ,I \ " I,,\ l'~ , , • I, • I

,;, I, : ' "" • \ ' \ '" I .; I ' "I' " I 1 \

p ~ ~ 1------11 -t- -+---:' I" " Ir. 1;: l: " : : :..: : 1 ,\ '1'I '1: ' ': I I n:, : \ ., \

.1 'l,.t :I, I I ,'I' I" I \",:,\::J "I: ~ : ::': ,\: : ;'I

~ ," " , ' ,'" 'I" ' ", I I ,I I ,nI, ~ "I ' , I", '., I \ I '"I _

L" l,iJu-l~ iu..LL.!JU-' , , \1 , : , : ~ : ., :..Ll.-l1 Ill: ,\ : ,I. , ., : o.......' ...... • .., ... .... J.I h.II S I.....' 0...... No......' Doc..,.. ' l...... _..... ' "",_ "'"

It_:r-!1:31/', (I:;,. I. I,

I J :, ~:.. :, ~

•

•,•

~;Tii~I,

·•I

·,a oOOt_,,,··1!

,NW

Fie,lUre 12

Chloride Concentration and Water Discharge of

near Albany, February I, 1962 to April

Hubbard

30, 1963

Creek

,,.U s. Geolo9'CDt SUfYI, in Cooo"Ollon Wllh lrl' ruol Walt. C_million

and lilt WIll cenl.ol rUOI Munic,pol 'Nat" DIIl.lcl

••• 0w ••w •';" ~ z

~ .u••

'50

'0,000"'------------ ::1EXPLANATION

~ Wo'" dl.t"'Qt

[j C~lo"d. di".o,g.

D D; ...\v ••-OOIo~• • ',,".r.ol000I:: --i

'"

"

1962

Figure 13

Monthly Woler, Chloride, and Dissolved-Solids Discharges,

Salt Prong Hubbard Creek near Albany,

February to September 1962

US GeoloCjicol Survey ,n cooperation wilh the lnos WahH CommiSSionand the West Crlll.ol luas Mun,clpal Worer D'SlriC!

- 24 -

f ....." ...... .~, ... I ... ... ...·t.., ",,- ~,- .......,,, --- ......" , . ...... ..",I I -r I r "" 1 T r I I' " I I I "" I 1'" I TIl I I 'I 1 'I "" '=

I ::" -::! .. " ..,,,; "r-.---1. -~ \-1\./' .. _\ '( •.~; ~ \(.~"..._..".".. I( 1/\ l( ("~I" ......".'1.. -

,•••o;o

••••·•o",

•,!o

"

•,••

,~

-

;j"'0

,...,-jlO

.0'"00'

--.:1'000

.....,roo".,.-'-'.-l-WJ-l......;_LLI•••••••0........'N ........'0.....,I ••' .....,...."J."

.' , ,-i! : \.\ !: l--S-·"l" '''''''''r ~"" """ . ,:' \." '"'\j". =",·V , •. ''''~l "' "0 ~ '. ,.-:. '0',,+ r _ ,,-'. ,__,'. , \"" •• 0 \\ , ..' \

\ ,~: ~• "1 "I ", ,

V." I

\

i j', ', ', ,. ,• •,,,,,,,, '",..'",.iJ:...LL.L..l

..., I J••••

'\,'.,,,

".t"

!"

i! I I" I "I I li '1

---r----r--o' "I:! I "I. I '.t , C I ,

o,,, ••,,."'"'L.' • ~ , ,\ ~ ::\ ~ , I"I, "'. 'I ~ \

" ,

\v

"uo"rl'" •.,onl .",-.u~"'!:r.~,••" I ....

."

., ... -....... ,., ".~ ......,

I~,,I,, '-

."J~ I P

, \

....

.... ---\,':-r"-~~=t----,{-+

--

_.

• eo '" " " , ...

[XPLAI

czouw~

•~

u..~

u

z.

w0 ~••x

u~

Q

•w"•., •

"o ww•

00

October November Oecember January FebruGry I Moreh April°fO I ITT

I

TTl II , , , I , I , , '" ""::i= =~ -e- -e- nOIIO.~ - no Ilow -) ..,r- ~nOfIOW:=

~~:: nOIIOW" :::- \.-. -- -Chloride concentrolion

- -

0=,

::::::J= ...

I- ~.I- ~

III ,OF~1=

l= ~ojl- i~

5Wotet d,selloflle ~I

I I, ,L

f= II~

I,l- I,

.;.~ ,,!,~

, .;., , n r,i " , ,;.

,, " "

', " , Ii, " , , , , ,I:, , , l: , , " " , " "I, 0:5 D 1:5 202:5 :5 I015202!i :51015Z025 :5 1015 20 25 5101S20 5101:5202.5 :5 101520 2.:5October November December January February Morch Ap 'II

zo

"••"z '0wuzou

,opO~~~

>

•w~

~

"Ix: 1000~

wc

•9xu

Figure 16

Chloride Concentration and Water Discharge of

near Maran, October 31, 1962 to Apri 1 30,

Deep

1963

Creek

U 5 GeoloQlcol SUfvty ,n cooperal,on wilh rhe TUGS Wole. Commiuion

ond Ihe WI!5! Cenlrol Tuos Munu;IPol Wole. Dlstricl

".

-- 27 --

z

-o

u

'""u

-II II I:I 101.52025 0 .1

April:I 10 15202

Februory

1111111111:I 1015 20ts

MarchJanuary

:; 10152025

December

510150025

November

}

f': ,: /W01U discharge r

~---*f---__+----+__---+_----__+----i'=lLO~ ,I:' ~F -,',",f=f-- ,-/ ~ ,-~_ .. \ ~ .J\ __ ----- ..... ~~,', r\ ,', r'. r-'" t"=_r:= \~" ---,,---- .- ~-, .._--_. ,- -,-f--

""I "'" 1111':I 10 152025

'O'=----+-----+----+---+----+---~Ia

F~~~

f--

'001:::----+_---__+----+__---+_-----+----=1:::100 ~f= = ~~ = ~r ~f- - ~~ - ~

~

~~

~

o

3xu

fjN:O~'j.~m~b['¥'¢~O='~'j.~m~b~"¥:+=}J~O~"~",~'~'~+~Fj'~b~,"~O~"~H~M~O~"]h~~4jjA~'~'ij;'p~z IQPOOl:51015Z025 5101$2025 510152025 510152025510152025 510152025o FilII"'" "" "'" 11111 111'=j ~ ='" I-~:-----f-------t\--t--i---t--l-rl; ~ \ ~Cl: 10001:::----+_---__+--\---+__---+_-----+----=1~ ~ \ =z ~ ~ =r- Chloride concentration -

~ -~ -

Figure 11

Chloride Concentration and Water Discharge of North Fork Hubbard Creek

near Albany, November I, 1962 10 April 30, 1963u. S GeoloQlcol Survey In cooperotlon WIth the Tuas Wale, Commissian

ond the Wut Central Te~as Mumcipal Water Distflct

'"

- 28 -

Percentage of water, dissolved solids, and ~hloride from the area a~ovethe North Fork Hubbard Creek station and from the remainder of the area abovethe station on Salt Prong Hubbard Creek are shown on Figure 18.

Relation to Base Flow

During the winter of 1961-62 personnel of the U. S.two field investigations in the Hubbdrd Creek watershed.lected at 62 sites. Locations of the sites and the dataFigure 19 and Tables 2 and 3.

Geological ~urvey madeSamples were col-

obtained are shown in

The first field investigation was made in December 1961. Potentialsources of contamination and evidence of contamination were observed. TheDecember survey was made during a low-flow period and most of the samplingsites had discharges of less than 1 cfs. The water samples varied from brinescollected west of Albany that contained more than 20,000 ppm chloride to waterof excellent quality (16 ppm chloride) in Lake Cisco.

Another low-flow investigation was made in January 1962. A water samplewas collected at each streamflow station, at some of the December samplingsites, and at new sampling sites. At most of the sites chloride concentrationswere higher than in December. Results of the low-flow investigation are givenin Figure 20.

Relation to Geology

Chloride contamination of the streams in the watershed is so widespreadthat the quality of water of most of the streams has only a minor relation tothe types of rocks cropping out at the surface. However, the quality of waterin many small streams and in the numerous stockponds scattered throughout thearea reflect the effect of these rocks.

As a part of the study of salt-water contamination of the Hubbard Creekwatershed, Conselman, Jenke, and Tice (written communication, May 1962) col-lected and analyzed water samples from many small streams and stock tanks.At the time the samples were collected, no appreciable runoff had occurred forseveral months. Consequently, the quality of water in the small streams andstockponds was probably of poorer quality than the average for runoff fromthese virtually uncontaminated areas. Although the chloride values may notbe representative of the average runoff, we can assume, with confidence, thatthey approximate the maximum chloride concentration of the average annualrunoff. Chloride concentrations shown on Figure 21 strongly indicate that theconcentration of chloride in the natural runoff of the watershed would not bemore than 35 ppm and probably would be less.

Only one natural spring containing a high concentration of chloride isknown to occur in the watershed. The site of this spring, near the head ofone of the tributaries of Salt Prong, is known as the "Old Albany Salt to/arks."The exact date of its first use as a local source of salt is unknown, butearliest records mention its use.

Samples of water collected at different places in the seepage area nearthe salt works by U. S. Geological Survey personnel on July 13, 1940, contained

- 29 -

-EXPLANATION

H,droI09;C Ilolioni O,oinOQt ......(Iq. mi.l

Notfh flIrk ~bord C..... ntar Alb>", 38.4

Sail ~f\tj Hubbard C'ttk "'0' Albany 116

4 MIL[S

I-"'-

~>

,>---h d>....' ""~'

-...!~~':> ,--,.,f~u--_...-'

/

•

~

s/""~..., Mee,,,!/'),

)

,~

"'~f

\,..'"I

l,

'""

(

"'-67%48%26%19%

~

r

----, I

'~a 33%hb :52 0/ • ......... ,""-C 74%d 81%

W.iQht.cl·a....oQ.chlorl'" (ppml

"'01610

'"176P.U:."IoQ' 01 10101 10' tub_bali"

a 33~. 01 d.olnOQ' Or.a

b 52"10 01 .ott< dlHho'Qt74"10 01 diuolUd-talldt ditCho'Qt

d 81"10 01 chlo,id. dilchorQ'

Inl ...."'I..Q a

T••'. l. ..".", .... ,., , "

..I

~,

,

•

··

,

··;

,

,

..

•

••

·,

,

"·

•

!

•

,•,

··

,

:

=

,

···•••

:

•

••·

,

!

:

,

,

•

I

:

!

•,

,

•,

··

·

I

,

,,•·

r--~l•

I:

I,

,··

•

,I~•

~

: I:

Jj~j

1,j!

;.~!

i,.i

l,

,,

!j, .~ !, -,

e

I..

- 35 -

..

,

,

•

•

•

•

•

e

•

4)150 and 17)050 ppm of chloride.Tice on March 13) 1962, contained

A sample analyzed by Conselman, JeOl~e1 ilnd1,075 ppm chloride. •

In his study of the salt area in 1940, W. H. White of the U. S. GeologicalSurvey (written communication) concluded that the source of the salt was notextensive and that the salt water originated by slow movement of ground waterthrough limestones which crop out to the east and dip beneath the site.

In 1962, ConseLman, Jenke) and Tice (~itten communication) independentlyarrived at essentially the same conclusion. They conclude that "The apparentlyunique character of this salt spring, and the unmeasurably low volume of theseepage indicate that this salt deposit results from leaching of a small areaof capped Valera lnot shown on Figure 2) within which a saline pocket appar-ently is located. Such pockets are rare. The combination of structure andtopography necessary to permit seepage is also rare. It is therefore highlyunlikely that salt springs would be either numerous or qualitatively importantin this area."

An additional indication of the low level of natural contamination in theHubbard Creek watershed is the low sodium-chloride ratio of water from HubbardCreek near Breckenridge. Figure 22 shows the relation of the sodium-chlorideratio to the chloride concentration for a stream affected by natural-salt con-tamination, and for Hubbard Creek near Breckenridge. In 1958, Burdge Irelan(~itten communication) stated that the characteristics and concentrations ofindividual ions were different in water from saline springs and in oil-fieldbrines. A study by Leonard and Ward (1962, p. 126-127) of the sodium-chlorideratio, in parts per million, in brines from springs in Oklahoma showed a uni-form ratio of 0.64. The combining ratio of sodium and chloride J in parts permillion, is 0.65. Chemical analyses of 30 oil-field brines from the samegeneral area conSistently showed sodium-chloride ratios of less than 0.60 andthe average of the ratios for the 30 samples of oil-field brine was 0.50. InFigure 22 the sodium-chloride ratio of the Salt Fork Brazos River near Asper-mont, which is affected strongly by brine inflow from springs (Baker) R. C,)Hughes, L. S.] and Yost] I. D.] 1964] p. 1)] agrees well with the natural brineratio of 0.64 found by Leonard and Ward] except for the dilute waters of highflow. The ratio of sodium to chloride for Hubbard Creek near Breckenridge wassubstantially less than 0.60, except for dilute waters containing less than 80ppm chloride. The contrast between the sodium-chloride ratio of water fromHubbard Creek and from Salt Fork of Brazos River probably would be greater ifthe flow of Hubbard Creek near Breckenridge was not diluted by inflow fromrelatively uncontaminated tributaries.

WATER QUALITY AND USE

The chemical quality of the water of Hubbard Creek Reservoir is a majorfactor in determining the value of the water supply to the consumer. The waterin the streams is of fair to poor quality and may be undesirable or only mar-ginal for some uses. However, most of the water to be used will be withdrawnfrom the reservoir, where mixing will improve the quality.

Domestic

Water to be used in the home should be clear, pleasant to the taste) andfree from pathogenic organisms. The recommended limits for most substances

- 36 -

""

D.O' .,.900 n ... '0.01 '.d .01

BRECKE"'RIDGE

5.93

found in water are listed in the Public Health Service Drinking .later Standards(1962, p. 7). These standards apply only to waters used on common carriers ininterstate traffic, but the limits given are normally accepted as the standardfor drinking water in the United States.

Some 7 years of record at the station on Hubbard Creek near Breckenridgereveal that concentrations of fluoride and nitrate are less than the acceptedmaximums. The nitrate concentration rarely exceeds 5 ppm and fluoride concen-tration averages less than 0.5 ppm for the period of record. The recommendedlimits for nitrate and fluoride are 44 ppm and 1.2 ppm (fluoride limit appli-cable only to this area), respectively.

Hardness is the characteristic of water that receives the most attentionin domestic use. As the hardness of water increases the quantity of soaprequired to produce a lather also increases. The use of hard water is alsoobjectionable because it contributes to the formation of scale in water heaters,radiators, and pipes. Calcium and magnesium are the principal causes of hard-ness of water. Several other elements also cause hardness but rarely occur insufficient quantities to have any appreciable effect. The following table isused by the U. S. Geological Survey in classifying water hardness by numericalranges.

Hardness range Rating(ppm)

60 or less Soft

61 to 120 Moderately hard

III to 180 Hard

More than 180 Very hard

Present data indicate that water from Hubbard Creek Reservoir will range fromhard to very hard.

Water containing large quantities of sulfate usually has a laxative effect.Sulfate, however, will be no problem in the Hubbard Creek Reservoir and shouldbe well below the recommended limit of 250 ppm set by the U. S. Public HealthService.

For most people the chloride-taste threshhold occurs at about 250 ppm andwater with a chloride concentration of 500 ppm has an unmistakable and charac-teristic salty taste. Also, chloride concentrations below 500 ppm may causecorrosion in home water heaters and appliances. The recommended limit by theU. S. Public Health Service for chloride is 250 ppm and water in Hubbard CreekReservoir may equal or exceed this limit, especially during drought periods andif pollution by oil-field brine is not reduced.

Annual weighted-average concentrations and extremes for the period ofrecord at Hubbard Creek station near Breckenridge are given in Table 1.

- 38 -

lOO,OOOC::T-,,-,,--,-,----,-,,-,-,-=::J

Ii,

. I..,'":.

,o.ooof-----------'1,i-,----------=::1.it.j! ..'..

••""••••••• '000••w••9•u

'.'.1 ••

, ... ' ..: '..; .;. :'; ".:

"'II SDIt ""'"" ........ l'lNw'1:,/"''''' AOiMf_. fn..1:,',,·:i.··'i;".. ;

.;.

' .

. :::: ..• 1' ,

• o·'. :: : 'i ...... l'\Ibbord C.Hk ...0. Brteh"""IJI. f.-.I" ..,..-

';i:." :.1', I"

'OOI----~7~~~c:------------_1"

.1". , ..

•

,o.';;;:--'---;;-';;;-...L~;;;--'--~;;;--'---;;';;;--'---~;-L....~;-'-~0_30 0.-40 O.~ 0 &0 0.10 0.80 0.90 I 0

SOOIUIII (""III)

CIlLOIIiOE (""WI

Figure 22

Relation af Sodium-Chloride Ratio to Chloride Concentration

for a Stream Affected by Notural Contamination ond

for Hubbard Creek near Breckenridge

u S Geolo~lcol s""~" In tOOO"OI,on .,I~ I~' f"05 Wolf. CommiSSionond I~ WISI C'nl'OI f"05 lII",n'tllllll Wgler O"Ir'C1

- 41 -

Industry

Because of the many different uses of water by industry] there are manydifferent requirements in regard to water quality. Often the quality of wateris of more importance than the quantity; water treatment may be more costlythan development of sources of water supply. An individual element orcharacteristic may determine the value of the water supply for one application]while water of uniform quality is necessary to another. Uniformity of waterquality may be difficult to maintain in the water supplied by the Hubbard CreekReservoir because of the sporadic rainfall on the watershed and the probabilityof long droughts.

The primary concern of most industries using Hubbard Creek Reservoir as awater supply will be the hardness of water and the chloride concentration.Hardness is objectionable because of the formation of scale in pipes] boilers]and other containers where water is heated or evaporated. Formation of thecalcium carbonate scale causes loss of heat transfer and loss of flow. How-ever] this scale is also a protective coating against corrosive properties ofthe water. A high chloride concentration in industrial water is objectionablebecause of its corrosive properties.

The Hubbard Creek Reservoir water supply will probably be suitable formany industrial purposes] with or without minor treatment] but the chlorideconcentration and hardness could limit the water for some industrial applica-tions.

Irrigation

The total concentration of soluble salts and the sodium ion and its rela-tion to other ions are the characteristics of water of most concern in irriga-tion water. High concentrations of dissolved solids or sodium ions in watermay reduce crop yields by decreasing the ability of plants to take water andby adversely affecting the soil structure. The U. S. Salinity Laboratory Staff(1954] p. 80) introduced the sodium-adsorption ratio (SAR) as a measure of thesodium hazard in water for irrigation. Figure 23 is a diagram for classifyingwater with respect to salinity hazard and sodium hazard on the basis of speci-fic conductance and SAR. Annual weighted averages (1956-62) for Hubbard Creeknear Breckenridge are plotted on the diagram.

The water in Hubbard Creek Reservoir probably would be classified asmedium to high salinity and low sodium. This classification should be used onlyas a guide because there are many other factors involved in determining thevalue of a water supply for irrigation. A few of the factors to be consideredare the type of soil] drainage] rainfall] and salt tolerance. With the annualaverage rainfall of 25 to 26 inches, the Hubbard Creek Reservoir water shouldbe satisfactory for irrigation of crops with moderate salt tolerance. Duringdroughts] when the rate of evaporation from the reservoir equals or exceeds theinflow, the water supply may be marginal for irrigation of most plants.

- 42 -

SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE, IN MICROMHOS AT 25-C

100 2 3 4 5 678 KXlO 2 3 4 5000>. ,'. 30 30"- ..• '"28

EXPLANATION• Annual weiQhled averoge to<

Hubbard Cr~k neor

26 Breckenridge (1956-1962)

••• '" 24'"22

00 -20 20a: ~'" a:N'" zl8I

Q

,

•

1

REFERENCES

Baker, R. C., Hughes, L. S., and Yost, 1. D., 1964, Natural sources or salinityin the Brazos River, Texas, with particular reierence to the Croton and SaltCroton Creek basins: U. S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper l669CC.

Leonard, A. R., and Ward, P. E., lY62, Use of NajCl ratios to distinguish oil-field from salt-spring brines in western Oklahoma, in Geol. Survey Research1962: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 450-B, no. 52:-p. 126-127.

Lowry, R. L., Jr., 1960, Monthly reservoir evaporation rates for Texas J 19~Othrough 1957: Texas Water Commission Bull. 6006.

Texas AlmanacJ 1961-l962J A. H. Belco Corp'J Dallas J Texas, 704 p.

U. S. Publicstandards:

Health Service, 1962, Public Health Service drinking waterPublic Health Service Pub. 956 J 61 p.

U. S. Salinity Laboratory Staff, 1954, Diagnosis and improvecent of saline andalkali soils: U. S. Dept. Agriculture Handb. 60 J 160 p.

- 45 -

•

t, •.,.'I".,o·".."

-I

U 5 Geoloq,col Survey In cooperOloon wIth fhe Tuos WOltt Comm,u,onand The Wesl CenTrol Texos hhl1llOPQI WOltr D,5l'1C1

..-.__ .......---'-~' ._ --_.-._ ~

_.

"'_-II--S'-_~ ..

---~..--.-

Figure 19

Mop of Hubbard Creek Watershed Showing

Chloride Concentration of Surface Water

at Chemical-Quality Sampling Sites

_ _ .. _ ... _.u·..._:1!1 ......_ ......._ ... _

0"

... _..... __..--

."

EXPLANATION

"1 C"""'h 0"""0"'0,"0'" ," po,," ~, .. ,,100"

0,10, 9.' r·.~

.:"....

..

..

..

'"

Figure 21

Mop of Hubbard Creek Watershed Showing Natural Chloride Concentration

of Surfoce·Waler Runoff

u. s. Geolo91col Survey in cooperolion with lhe Tuos Waler Commissiongnd Ihe WU! Cenlrol Tuos Municipol Woler Oislricl