A study of fecal coliform levels in Georgia recreational waters

A STUDY OF FECAL COLIFORM LEVELS IN GEORGIA RECREATIONAL WATERS
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
SOUTHEAST WATER LABORATORY TECHNICAL SERVICES ATHENS, GEORGIA
GEORGIA WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD ATLANTA, GEORGIA
September 1969

A STUDY OF FECAL COLIFORM LEVELS IN GEORGIA RECREATIONAL WATERS

,

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION

SOUTHEAST WATER LABORATORY

TECHNICAL SERVICES

ATHENS, GEORGIA

GEORGIA WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD ATLANTA, GEORGIA

September 1969

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tab 1es . List of Figures Recommendations Summary Authority Introduction
.. Methods of Study . Results and Discussion . References Cited . .
Appendices Appendix A Appendix B
Appendix C
. Appendix D
Appendix E Appendix F
. Appendix G
Appendix H

ii iii
1 3
4 5 8 10 16
Letter from Secretary Udall List of Freshwater Sample Station Locations and Descriptions List of Coastal Sampling Stations Waste Classification of the Individual Stations Summary of Station Data - MPN Summary of Station Data - MF Seasonal Comparison - MPN Summary of Coastal Station Data MPN

i

Table
I
II III
IV
V
VI VII

LIST OF TABLES

Title

Waters Classified for Recreation in Georgia

10

. . . . . Percentage Cumulative Frequency of Individual

MPN Counts for Different Water Types

10

Station Categories Meeting Different Arithmetic

Mean Fecal Coliform Levels - MPN .

12

Station Categories Meeting Different Geometric

Mean Fecal Coliform Levels - MPN .

12

Individual Stations that will not meet Various

Geometric Mean Fecal Coliform:Densities and

the Waste Classification Percentages

Represented

13

Effect of Season on Mean FC Density for each

Stream Reach . .



14

Effect of Surface Runoff on Mean FC Densities/

100 ml for each Stream or Reservoir Reach

15

;ii

Figure
~ 1 2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12

LIST OF FIGURES

Title

Follows Page No.

Waters Classified for Recreation

10

Sample Station Locations

10

Percentage Cumulative Frequency Freshwater

MPN Counts . . . . .

11

Percentage Cumulative Frequency for Reservoir

and Stream Counts . .

11

Percent of Stations Meeting Various Arithmetic

Mean Fecal Coliform Levels . .

12

Percent of Stations Meeting Various Geometric

Mean Fecal Coliform Levels

12

Percent of Stream and Reservoir Stations Meeting Various Arithmetic Mean Fecal Coliform Levels 13

Percent of Stream and Reservoir Stations Meeting

Various Geometric Mean Fecal Coliform Levels

13

Percent of Coastal Stations Meeting Various Fecal

Coliform Levels . .

14

Effect of Seasons on Fecal Coliform Levels

14

Effect of Streamflow on Geometric Mean Fecal

Coliform Levels

15

Effect of Streamflow on Arithmetic Mean Fecal

Coliform Levels .

15

iii

RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendat~ons are based on the general philosophy that the almost nonexistent incidence of waterborne disease reported in the State of Georgia precludec the establishment of fecal coliform criteria on an epidemiological basis. In the absence of epidemiological data, the suggested criteria are based on existing fecal coliform levels in high quality recreational waters.
These recommendations are applicable to inland and coastal waters of the State of Georgia. Application of these recommendatIons outside this spec(fic geographical area may be inappropriate.
1. The geometric mean will be used as the method of criteria expression. This technique will be applied to no less than four samples collected from a given sampling site over a 30-day period at intervals not less than 24 hours.
2. Coastal waters will be considered separate from freshwaters for the purpose of establishing numerical criteria. The coastal water fecal coliform level will not exceed a geometric mean.of 100/100 ml.
3. Reservoir waters will be considered separate from screams for the purpose of establishing numerical criteria. The reservoir water fecal coliform level will not exceed a geometric mean of 300/100 ml.
4. The freshwater stream fecal coliform level will not exceed a geometric mean of 500/100 ml.

2
5. High levels resulting hom storm runoff will be included in calculating geometric mean values.
6. Seasonal application of the criteria is not considered justified.
7. The use of sanitary survey information to identify potential pathogen sources will be emphasized as equal in importance to application of fecal coliform criteria.

WATER BODY

TABLE I
WATERS CLASSIFIED FOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA 1/
DESCRIPTION OF REACH

Chattahoochee River Chattahoochee River
Chattahoochee River
Chattahoochee River Chattahoochee River
Flint River
Flint River
Coosa River Tennessee River Basin
Hiawassee River (Including Lake Chatuge)
Nottely River (Including Lake Nottely)
Toccoa River (Including Blue Ridge Lake)
Savannah River Savannah River
Ogeechee River
Little Ogeechee River Other Coastal Waters

Headwaters to Buford Dam
D. S. Hwy. 27, Franklin, Georgia, to West Point Dam
Osanippa Creek to Columbus, Georgia, (14th Street Bridge)
Cowikee Creek to Great Northern Paper Co.
Ga. Hwy. 91 (Neal's Landing) to Jim Woodruff Dam
Ga. Hwy. 27 to Albany (Ga. Power Company's Dam at Lake Worth)
Bainbridge (D. S. Hwy. 84) to Jim Woodruff Dam
At the Alabama Stat.e Line
Headwaters to State Line
Headwaters to State Line
Headwaters to State Line
Ga.-N.C. State Line to Clark Hill Dam
Ft. Pulaski (Mile 0) to Open Sea and all Littoral Waters of Tybee Island
D. S. Hwy. 17 to Open Sea and Littoral Waters of Skidaway and Ossabaw Islands
South End of White Bluff Road to Open Sea
All Littoral Waters on the Ocean Side of Cumberland, Jekyll, St. Simons, Sea, Sapelo, and St. Catherines Island

1/ Predominant types of recreation include swimming, skiing, and boating.

TABLE Ir
PERCEN~GE CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF INDIVIDUAL MPN COUNTS FOR DIFFERENT WATER TYPES

COUNT/100 m1 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000

PERCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUAL COUNTS EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN ALL COUNTS* CLEAN ONLY STREAMS RESERVOIRS COAS~

56

71

25

75

83

65

78

40

80

93

72

83

49

85

95

76

86

56

86

97

82

91

64

90

97

83

91

65

90

98

83

91

66

90

98

85

92

70

91

98

85

92

70

93

98

87

.g4

73

93

98

87

94

74

93

98

88

94

76

93

98

88

94

76

93

98

89

94

78

93

98

89

94

78

93

98

90

94

79

93

98

90

94

80

93

98

91

94

82

93

98

91

94

82

93

98

91

100

82

93

98

*Freshwater only

FIG~E I
KEY
CI Recreahonal Cloe."aca,1OftI

GEORGIA

Island 51 Colherin.. Island

FLA.

N

t

SCALE IN MILES
1,0 0 10 20 50 40 5i0

St. S,..-s Island Jekyll Island
Cumberland Island
U. 5 llEIWlTloIIENT OF THE INTERIOIl FEORAL _TEll POLLUTION CONTIlOL ,--TIlATlON
TECHNICAL SEIlVlCES ATHEIIIS, GfDIlGIA
AlII)
GEOIlGlA _nil OUAUTY CONTIlOL _
ATLAN1Jl, GEOIlGIA

TENN

Blw lb.
80td R" Morino
LaIM Sid". LtItWr

.,..75-23 55&22
17-19 17-18
25~H7
IISMi S-I;"49
5-2422-14
524 2845 129-'
60-'
o GAINESVILLE
Fe-] Ft-I Holiday MOtmo

~tt/o ATLANTA
\\G fJ'
c-~
'....,t_-'!I&_.
GA
T-27
T-26

Lake

Clark HilI ~r
~

Blw R;d~ Lake
T-58
T-31
T-32 ~'34
T.:n
T-35

N-15 N-I'"

N-13

N

t

SCALE IN MILES 505
~ !!!S

,

,~; ~~-

F-2
Lake Blackshear
F-23 F-25
R...rvoir F.' ( ; Lake Worlh ALBANY 0 F-3
~JJ

c..

~\\~\

GEORGIA

FIGUR

Jim Woodruff Dam

Lake Seminole

FLA_

N

SCALE IN MILES

10

0

WiI'iI'ilI

10

20

t

u S 0(,..,...., 011 TIC INT[.
f(D1:UL _n. 'OUuTra COlITIQ. ...

.._......... a'.....1Ia.a

_fl_ - tIIIlIIaA

QUfIUT'r CGfIIIL I

AT\....... ~

SUMMARY
In approving the Georgia Water Quality Standards on July 18, 1967, the Secretary of the Interior requested a review of the bacterial criteria for recrea~iona1 waters. This review was in the form of a joint FWPCA-GWQCB study of existing fecal coliform levels in Georgia's recreational waters.
The lack of epidemiological data on waterborne illness among swimmers in Georgia precluded an epidemiologically-based criterion. Consequently, the recommended bacterial criteria for recreational waters are based on existing fecal coliform levels found in known high-quality waters.
Field studies to determine existing fecal coliform levels were initiated in August 1967 and terminated in November 1968. During the study period, 1,392 fecal coliform analyses were made from 910 samples collected at 136 freshwater and 27 coastal water stations.
To assist in the data analysis, sanitary surveys were made to determine the influence of wastes on the measured fecal coliform densities. These surveys categorized stations as: (a) those with no obvious wastes present (clean), (b) those affected by livestock, and (c) those affected by domestic waste discharges. Seventy percent of the sites sampled were designated clean, 14 percent affected by livestock wastes, and 16 percent by varying degrees of domestic wastes.
Specific recommendations for criteria are presented in the Recommendations section.

4
AUTHORITY
The study reported here was conducted under the following authorities:
o Under Section 5(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as Amended, the Department of the Interior is encouraged to cooperate with state agencies in studies relating to control of water pollution.
o Under Section 5(2 & 4) of the Georgia Water Quality Control
Act, as.Amended, the Georgia Water Quality Control Board is authorized to cooperate with agencies of the Federal Government and to survey the waters of the State of Georgia.

5
INTRODUCTION
Stream quality criteria for "Recreational Waters" were included in Georgia's Water Quality Standards in 1967. In a review of these standards, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA), U.S. Department of the Interior, expressed concern over the fecal
1/ coliform concentrations set forth as maximum permissible limits.Following discussions between FWPCA and the Georgia Water Quality Control Board (GWQCB), it was agreed a cooperative study would be conducted on Georgia's "Recreational Waters" by the two agencies. The Secretary of the Interior approved Georgia's Standards on July
2/ 18, 1967, with the understanding that the study would be conducted.-
The study was designed to determine the indicator levels for waters classified for recreational use by the State of Georgia. The waters included those of the highest quality found in the state. Sampling locations for this study were selected to: (a) reflect the bacterial quality of recreational waters with nearby municipal, agricultural and/or industrial waste sources; (b) reflect the bacterial quality of recreational waters with no known waste sources nearby; (c) reflect the bacterial quality of recreational waters over
1/
Bacteria: Fecal coliform concentrations for recreational waters not to exceed a mean of 1,000 per 100 ml (MPN) based on at least four samples taken over a 30-day period, and not to exceed 4,000 per 100 ml in more than five percent of the samples taken in any 90-day period.
2/ - Secretary's letter - Appendix A

6
a wide geographical area (entire state); (d) reflect the effects that surface water runoff has on bacterial densities in recreational waters; and (e) reflect the bacterial quality of different types of waters (fresh versus coastal waters, and streams versus reservoirs). Station locations, descriptions and waste classifications are found in Appendices B, C, and D.
It was anticipated that acquisition of current fecal coliform data, together with sanitary surveys, would provide a foundation on which Georgia's Standards could be reviewed by the two agencies.
Any bacterial criterion should be a guide to quality determination rather than merely a value never to be exceeded. Available sanitary survey information and microbiological data should be considered in final water quality determinations. Furthermore, bacterial criteria are interim rather than permanent numbers, since improvements in microbiological techniques and expanded epidemiological data may bring about future criteria changes.
The public is most concerned about the health-safety of recreational waters. Besides being extremely important, this is probably the most difficult aspect of recreational water use to define. The presence of "waterborne" infectious microorganisms is not necessarily the result of domestic waste discharges. They may result from an ever-present, uncontrollable animal population in an area or from the water user himself. For this reason, prevention of all potential infectious agents from entering a recreational water is impossible.
Evaluation of the relative safety of a recreational water from a health standpoint requires the use of a bacterial indicator of enteric pathogen presence. Although this is an indirect approach

7
of determining pathogen presence, the time required, lack of methodology, the complexities of existing methodologies, and the nature of pathogen presence, rule out direct pathogen measurement as an effective safety criterion. At present, the indicator of choice
is the fecal coliform group (Fe).
The relationship between illness among swimmers and water quality has yet to be fully established. Although some epidemiological evidence exists, the majority of information is not conclusive. Results of three studies conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service on illness among swimmers revealed that a slightly higher incidence of minor infections resulted from swimming in water where the total coliform density exceeded 2400/100 m1. (1) Swimmers, however, have a higher incidence of minor infections and irritations than non-swimmers regardless of the water quality. Presently, epidemiological evidence is lacking that will allow establishment of an indicator threshold level above which significant health-effects will result. No indicator level will insure a water user complete safety.

8
METHODS OF STUDY SAMPLING
All samples were collected near the surface using selected grab techniques. Most stream samples were collected at mid-stream unless waste source information warranted left and/or right bank collection. All samples were collected in sterile containers and placed in ice until analysis. Most samples were analyzed within six hours after collection, with the majority analyzed within four hours.
Most stations were sampled on several different days although not necessarily on consecutive days. Samples were taken to reflect both climatological conditions and seasonal bacterial variations.
Coastal sampling was handled primarily through the GWQCB, which established a long-term bacteriolog~cal studies contract with the Chatham County Health Department, Savannah, Georgia. The contract provided for weekly sampling of all stations during the recreational season. The Health Department's Engineering and Sanitation staff collected the samples and delivered them to the laboratory, usually within two hours of collection. The samples were processed immediately. FECAL COLIFORM ENUMERATION
The fecal coliform test procedure outlined in Standard Methods (3) for the MPN multiple tube dilution was used. The procedure employs the standard presumptive test using Lauryl Tryptose Broth followed by fecal coliform confirmation using E. C. Medium at an
elevated temperature of 44.SoC a.soc (waterbath).

9
Four hundred and eighty-two samples were split and fecal coliform densities determined using both MPN and membrane (MF) procedures simultaneously. The MF procedure used was that of Geldreich et al (4) which employs M-FC broth and an incubation temperature
of 44.5oC 0.50 C (waterbath).

10
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The study was initiated in August 1967 and terminated in November 1968. Table I lists those waters classified for recreation and Figure 1 depicts these areas.
Station locations and their waste-type classifications are contained in Appendices B, C and D and shown in Figure 2. During the study 136 freshwater and 27 coastal water stations were sampled for fecal coliform densities.
A total of 1,392 fecal coliform determinations were made on 910 samples from the freshwater stations. Of the 1,392 analyses, 910 were made using the MPN method and the remaining 482 were made using the MF method. Since the Georgia Standards specify the use of the multiple tube procedure-as the enumerative procedure of choice, only those results collected using this procedure are discussed.
A total of 341 FC analyses were made on coastal water sampled using the MPN method. Data from the coastal samples are treated separately from the freshwater data discussed in this report.
A summary of all fecal coliform data is contained in Appendices E, F and H. INDIVIDUAL COUNTS
Table II shows the percentage cumulative frequency for individual MPN values for several water-types and Figures 3 and 4 are plots of these values (excluding coastal data). When all freshwater MPN counts are combined, 56 percent of these counts are equal to or

11
less than 100 FC/100 ml. There is a gradual increase in count occurrence until the 500 FC/100 ml level is reached, after which a decided "leveling off" occurs (Figure 3). At the 500 FC/100 ml level, 82 percent of all the freshwater counts had occurred.
A comparison of counts for streams versus reservoirs shows 25 percent of the FC counts on stream samples were equal to or less than 100/100 ml, whereas, 75 percent of the reservoir counts were equal to or less than 100/100 ml (Table II and Figure 4). Reasons for differences in these bacterial densities are: contrast in retention time, dil~tion, possible dieoff rate and point source wastes in reservoirs versus that in streams.
Clean station counts and reservoir counts are similar in count frequency. Part of this similarity relates to the fact that most of the clean stations are also reservoir stations.
1/ From the plot (Figure 4) there appears to be a t1breakpoint"at the 500 FC/100 ml level after which any increase in count level results in only a slight increase in count occurrence up to the 1,000/100 ml level. Count occurrence for the coastal waters is shown in Table II. These data show 83 percent of all FC counts were equal to or less than 100/100 ml, and 98 percent equal to or less than 600/100 ml. Some of the coastal stations were affected by domestic waste discharges; however, as shown, the bacterial quality of the coastal waters is considered good.
1/
Breakpoint - a point on the cumulative frequency curve above which there is only a slight increase in count occurrence.

100
90I
Z 80
<t
J: I-
(f)
(f) 70
ll.J ...J
a: o
o 60
I...J
<t o~ 50
ll.J (f) ll.J ~
...J 40
~ oU.
I- 30 Z
ll.J
Ua:
ll.J
a.. 20
10
oo

n

0



()

)

CLEAN WATER COUNTS
o ALL COUNTS (FRESH WATER)

100

200

300







0

4_

U

0

()

0

I
PERCENTAGE CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY FRESH WATER MPN COUNTS

U. S. OJ::PARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
TECHNICAL SERVICES ATHENS, GEORGIA AND
GEORGIA WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD ATLANTA, GEORGIA

400

500

600

700

FECAL COLIFORM DENSITY / 100 ML (MPN)

800

900

1,000

FIGURE 3

10 )
9
Z 8
:I: f0-
CI)
CI) 7
W ...J
oCl:: o6
I-
...J
:)
~5
CI)
W
:)
...J 4 0 > uo...
~3
W U Cl:: W
Q. 20
10)
00

'Ill
4~

0 t.

..

.~

u

,

f

t\

\.J
,.\

9



RESERVOIR COUNTS

0

STREAM COUNTS

100

2 0 0 ~

~

300

PERCENTAGE CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY FOR RESERVOIR AND STREAM COUNTS

U S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINiSTRATION
TECHNICAL SERVICES ATHENS, GEORGIA AND
GEORGIA WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD ATLANTA, GEORGIA

4- 0~ 0~

5 0 0~

6- 00

700

8- 00

90- 0-

FECAL COLIFORM DENSITY /100 ML (MPN)

1,000

FIGURE 4

12
INDIVIDUAL STATIONS The freshwater stations meeting various mean fecal coliform
levels are shown in Tables III and IV and graphically presented in Figures 5 through 8. Both arithmetic and geometric mean treatments of these data are presented.
Figures 5 and 6 show the percentage of all freshwater stations meeting various mean fecal coliform levels. An increase in the percentage of these stations meeting the various mean densities is shown up to 600/100 ml and 700/100 ml for arithmetic and geometric presentations respectively. At these levels there are breaks in the curves; with 76 percent stations meeting the respective levels. These figures reflect a greater percentage of stations meeting the various mean levels where the geometric rather than the arithmetic mean is used.
After reaching the respective breakpoints, further increases in count level produce insignificant increases in the percentage of stations meeting these higher levels. A doubling of the 600 and 700/100 ml levels results in only an additional 7 percent and 4 percent of the remaining stations meeting these higher levels. EFFECT OF WASTE
Clean water stations and stations affected by domestic or livestock wastes are compared in Figures 5 and 6. A pattern similar to that exhibited by all the freshwater stations taken together is shown when only the clean water stations are considered. The only differences are a higher percentage of the clean water stations meets lower FC densities, and the breakpoints occur at lower densities.

MEAN/ 100 ML
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1500 2000

TABLE III
STATION CATEGORIES MEETING DIFFERENT ARTHMETIC MEAN FECAL COLIFORM LEVELS - MPN

PERCENTAGE OF STATIONS MEETING VARIOUS MEAN DENSITIES

ALL

CLEAN

STREAM CLEAN STREAM RESERVOIR COASTAL

STATIONS* STATIONS STATIONS

STATIONS

STATIONS

STATIONS

54

72

13

25

79

67

62

81

22

56

83

85

68

87

29

56

89

89

71

92

31

63

93

92

73

93

36

63

93

92

76

96

44

75

94

92

77

96

47

75

94

92

77

96

47

75

94

96

79

96

53

75

94

96

81

96

55

75

94

96

85

99

60

81

98

100

88

99

69

88

99

100

* Freshwater only

TABLE :m:
STATION CATEGORIES MEETING DIFFERENT GEOMETRIC MEAN FECAL COLIFORM LEVELS - MPN

MEAN /100 ml
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1500 2000

PERCENTAGE OF STATIONS MEETING VARIOUS MEAN DENSITIE~

ALL

CLEAN STREAM CLEAN STREAM RESERVOIR COAS1

STATIONS-/( STATIONS STATIONS STATIONS STATIONS STAT]

68

88

22

50

92

10C

73

92

37

69

94

10C

79

96

43

69

98

10C

81

97

48

81

98

10C

84

99

56

94

98

10C

87

99

65

94

98

10C

90

99

69

94

98

10C

90

99

74

94

98

10C

91

99

76

94

98

10C

93

99

80

94

98

10C

98

100

91

100

99

10(

98

100

93

100

99

10(

*Freshwater only

100

90I

C/)
L&J
E 80
C/)
Z
Lo&J

~ 70
C/)
o::> ir
~ 6)

C)
Z ~
~ 5' )
~

zC/)

Q
~

4I

r'

C/)

LL
o 30
L&J C)
~
Z
~ 20
a:
L&J 11.

0

0,:,

4_




~~
\J

()

4t
(
0

0

0

~

0
t'
U



--.,

0
(

4~

0

4~

~~

t>

.h
~ ~b t>

PERCENT OF STATIONS MEETING VARIOUS ARITHMETIC MEAN FECAL COLIFORM LEVELS

;II
t>

t> ~b
CLEAN STATIONS ONLY (97)
0 ALL STATIONS (136) (FRESH WATER)
t> STATIONS W/KNOWN WASTE (39)

U S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
TECHNICAL SERVICES ATHENS, GEORGIA AND
GEORGIA WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD ATLANTA, GEORGIA

20- 0

4~ 0- 0

600

8- 00

1,000

-- 1~ ,500

---,vvO

MEAN (ARITHMETIC) DENSITY /100 ML (MPN)

FIGURE 5

100
90)
'f)
LI
'f) 80 Z
LI :::l
:..>
.L 70
'f)
:::l
Q
~
~ 60
z~ f=
I1J
~ 50
zt/)
Q ~ 40
1e-n0
oL1..
LlJ 30
t!)
~
Z
~ 20
a:::
ILl
Q.
10)
0 0

. . 6 " .,

~

......

()

-~

~~

() 0

u

.1)

(

4~ t>

0

C>

.~

t>

4P t>

PERCENT OF STATIONS MEETING VARIOUS GEOMETRIC

4)

MEAN FECAL COLIFORM LEVELS
...... ? ...~ _ ..... ,.-- - - ..

-----

t>
CLEAN STATIONS ONLY (97)
0 ALL STATIONS (136) (FRESH WATER)
t> STATIONS W/KNOWN WASTE (39)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
TECHNICAL SERVICES ATHENS. GEORGIA AND
GEORGIA WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD ATLANTA, GEORGIA

200

400

60- 0-

8- 00

1,000

1. ,-5-0-0

MEAN (GEOMETRIC) FECAL COLIFORM DENSITY /100 ML (MPN)

2,000

FIGURE 6

13
The curves representing all freshwater stations are most influenced by the clean water stations which comprise about two-thirds of the stations.
The waste-affected stations show less defined curves than do the clean water stations (Figures 5 and 6). This is especially true in the arithmetic data presentation (Figure 5). A less erratic curve is shown with the geometric presentation due to a "smoothing" effect of the occasional high and low values.
Table V lists the individual freshwater stations that cannot meet various geometric mean fecal coliform levels and the percentage of wastes classifications represented. All stations unable to meet a geometric mean of 500/100 were influenced by some type of waste. STREAM VERSUS RESERVOIRS
A comparison of stream and reservoir stations meeting various FC levels is shown in Figures 7 and 8. The reservoir curves show breakpoints at mean FC densities of 300 and 400/100 ml for the geometric and arithmetic treatments, respectively. At these points, 98 percent and 93 percent of the stations were able to meet the respective levels. A doubling of these breakpoint levels results in 0 percent and 1 percent of the remaining stations meeting the higher levels.
Figures 7 and 8 show a gradual increase in the number of stream stations meeting various FC levels up to 2000/100 ml without a distinct breakpoint. At the mean FC level of 1000/100 ml, 55 percent and 80 percent of the stations meet this level for the arithmetic and geometric treatments respectively.

A.
1..3.
~
~
fl
(/) 7
~
~ zC) i=
IIJ
~5
(/)
oZ
~4
(/)
oII.. 3
~ ~z ~ 20
It: ILl 11.
I
-0

0

-p
t> (,
0
2- 0--0

4

0

0

0



0

.,
4P

n

4~ t> 4~ t> 4~

\)

4~ t> I'

t>

(

0

-

0

(

(

0
t'
U

PERCENT OF STREAM AND RESERVOIR STATIONS MEETING VARIOUS ARITHMETIC MEAN FECAL COLIFORM LEVELS
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION

o STREAM STATIONS (45)
RESERVOIR STATIONS (90)
f) CLEAN STREAM STATIONS (14)

TECHNICAL SERVICES ATHENS, GEORGIA AND
GEORGIA WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD ATLANTA, GEORGIA

4-0-0-

6--0-0

8-00-

_- ......

. ---

~ ,....",n;,0

MEAN (ARITHMETIC) FECAL COLIFORM DENSITY /100 ML (MPN)

FIGURE 7

10 0
9
en
w i= 8 0
en
Z
w
Cl
~ 70 en
o:J
i~r 6 0
(!)
~
~
W5 W ::::!:
zC/) Q4
~
~
C/)
Ii.
o 30
W
(!)
~ wZ 2 0
U Q::
Wa..
0
~o



4.



4~


t)

0
4P


t)

0
.~


t>

4~

'Ill
r'

~

41)
... 41.>

0
v

.-..

0
(

0

PERCENT OF STREAM AND RESERVOIR STATIONS MEETING VARIOUS GEOMETRIC MEAN FECAL COLIFORM LEVELS

0
o STREAM STATIONS (45)
RESERVOIR STATIONS (90)
t) CLEAN STREAM STATIONS (16)

U S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINiSTRATION
TECHNICAL SERVICES ATHENS, GEORGIA AND
GEORGIA WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD ATLANTA, GEORGIA

2- 0- -0

4-0--0

6- 0-0-

8-0--0

1. ,-0-0-0

I. , - - -

MEAN (GEOMETRIC) FECAL COLIFORM DENSITY /100 ML (MPN)

FIGURE 8

TABLE V
INDIVIDUAL STATIONS THAT WILL NOT MEET VARIOUS GEOMETRIC MEAN FECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES
AND THE WASTE CLASSIFICATION PERCENTAGES REPRESENTED

STATIONS* Gm 100/ 100 m1

NW LW DW 'IW

STATIONS~'(
GIn 200/100 m1

NW LW DW TW

CT-1, CT-1A, CT-2
N-14, N-15, N-16, N-17, N-18, N-18A, N-19, NR-12, T-33, T-32, T-31, T-30, T-29, T-38, T-26, T-27, T-28, 356-22, 17-19, 75-21, 602-20, 255-17, 115-16, S-1759, S-2422, 600-7, 52-4, FC-3, H-4, H-5, H-6, H-7, H-8, 72-9, CCII C-2, C-4, F-3, P-1, P-2

26% 42% 32% 74%

CT-lA, N-14, N-15,

N-16, N-17, N-18,

N-18A, N-19, NR-12,

T-33, T-32, T-31,

T-30, T-29, T-38,

T-27, T-28, 17-19,

75-21, 602-20,

255-17, 115-16,

15% 44% 41% 85%

S-1759, S-2422,

600-7, 52-4, FC-3,

H-4, H-7, H-8, 72-9,

C-4, P-1, P-2

Gm 300/100 m1

Gm 400/ 100 m1

N-14, N-15, N-16, N-17, N-18, N-18A, NR-12, T-33, T-32, T-31, T-30, T-29, T-28, T-38, 17-19, 10% 54% 36% 90% 75-21, 602-20, 255-17, 115-16, S-1759, S-2422, 600-7, FC-3, H-4, H-7, H-8, P-l, P-2

N-16, N-17, N-18, N-18A, NR-12, T-33, T-32, T-31, T-30, T-29, T-28, T-38, 9% 56% 35% 91% 17-19, 75-21, 602-20, 255-17, 115-16, S-1759, 600-7, FC-3, H-4, H-8, P-2

Gm 500/100 m1

Gm 1000/100 m1

N-15, N-16, N-17, N-18, N-18A, NR-12, T-33, T-32, T-31, T-29, T-28, 17-19, 602-20, 115-16, S-1759, S-2422, 600-7, FC-3, H-4, H-8, P-2

0% 52% 48% 100%

N-16, N-17, N-18,

N-1~A, NR-12, T-32,

17-19, S-1759, FC-3,

P-2

0% 50% 50% 100%

o.J:NW No Obvious Waste Source Present LW Livestock/Wildlife Refuge Waste Present DW Domestic Waste Present
TW= Total Percentage of Stations with Wastes Present

14
A comparison of stream stations and clean stream stations is shown in Figures 7 and 8. These curves show a step-like increase in stations meeting various FC levels. The primary breakpoint for the clean stream stations appears at density levels of 500 and 600/ 100 ml for the geometric and arithmetic presentations, respectively. At these points, the respective percentage of stations meeting these levels is 94 and 75. A doubling of these levels results in 0 percent and 2 percent of the remaining stations meeting these higher levels.
The difference in stream and reservoir water quality points to the need for separate consideration in any bacterial criteria selection. This separate consideration can be accomplished using separate stream and reservoir criteria. Such an approach might be permissible since about 95 percent of water-contact recreation occurs in reservoirs and coastal waters in Georgia. COASTAL AREAS
The percentage of coastal stations meeting different mean FC levels are shown in Tables III and IV, and Figure 9. The figure shows breakpoints at mean FC densities of 100 and 300/100 ml for geometric and arithmetic treatments, respectively. At these levels 100 percent and 89 percent of the stations meet the respective FC levels. SEASONAL INFLUENCES
Recreational season and non-seasonal FC densities for each stream reach are shown in Table VI. A similar comparison for each station is summarized in Appendix G. These data are also shown in Figure 10. These data show a slightly higher percentage of

10 0

90

(f)
w

i=
woizii

80

~ 7 ::>

(f)
:0
Q a:: ~ 6a

<z:>

I-

W W

5 ::>

~

z(f)

Q
t~;

4 ::>

11..
o 3 ::>
w
<:>
z~
W 2 ::>
Ua::
w
Q.

::>

b~

.

...



()

GEOMETRIC MEAN
o ARITHMETIC MEAN

5 0 ~~

1.~ 0- 0

-2-0-0

-3-0-0

-
6

0-

-
6

,

()

()

()

---

------

-

--- - - - - - - ---_._-

PERCENT OF COASTAL STATIONS MEETING VARIOUS FECAL COLI FORM LEVELS

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION

-

TECHNICAL SERVICES

ATHENS, GEORGIA

AND

GEORGIA WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

ATLANTA, GEORGIA

--4. 00

5--0-0

6 0 0 ~A~

7 0 0 ~~~

8 0 0 n~~

9 0 0 n~~

MEAN FECAL COLIFORM DENSITY /100 ML (MPN)

FIGURE 9

1,000

10 0

90
en
~
Een 80
Z
~
o u u.. 7 0
en
oa:>:
~ 60
z(!)
i= ~ 50
~
zen Q 40
I-
e~n uo.. 3
~ (!)
~ ~2
U 0::
~
Cl.
c
0o

()

)

(

0

.~

(

0


"4t

.-.


()
0



0

0

4~

)

0

.~



o SEASON 1968
NONS EASON 1967

2 0 0 ~

~

400

600

EFFECT OF SEASONS ON FECAL COLIFORM LEVELS

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
TECHNICAL SERVICES ATHENS, GEORGIA AND
GEORGIA WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD ATLANTA, GEORGIA

800

1,000

MEAN FECAL COLIFORM DENSITY /100 ML (MPN)

1,500

FIGURE 10

2POO

TABLE VI
EFFECT OF SEASON ON MEAN FECAL COLIFORM DENSITY FOR EACH STREAM REACH

STREAM REACH

ARI THMETIC MEAN

SEASON* NONSEASON

1968

1967

Chattooga River

390

490

Nottely River Above Nottely Lake

3300

2000

Nottely River

Below Nottely Lake

260

190

Toccoa River

Above Blue Ridge

890

Reservoir

6240

Toccoa River Below Blue Ridge Reservoir

1340

5800

Chattahoochee River

Above Lake Lanier

1220

710

Lower Chattahoochee

River

100

530

Hiawassee River

Above Lake Chatuge

550

520

Savannah River

Below Lake Hartwell

65

-

Lower Flint River

70

180

GEOMETRIC MEAN

SEASON NONSEASON

1968

1967

100

230

1225

640

20

30

480

1750

90

700

590

630

-

180

400

290

80

-

100

*Recreational Season - Memorial Day to Labor Day

15
stations meet the various levels during the seasonal period. These data seem to reflect the effect of surface runoff intensity rather than the effect of recreational use. In comparing seasons, the effect of surface runoff must not be confused with recreational effects.
Comparing seasonal and nonseasonal FC densities in the coastal areas show that recreational use had littl effect on the observed densities. Rather, tidal effect appears to influence the observed densities to a much greater degree than does either recreational use or season. EFFF~TS OF RUNOFF
Flows were determined at most stream stations during each of the study periods. Based on hydrograph examination, flow was classified into two categories -- stable or peaking. Although this is a crude attempt to categorize runoff, the indicator density difference for the respective categories give the method some merit.
The percentage of stations meeting various FC densities under different flow conditions is shown in Figures 11 and 12. These figures show a greater percentage of stations had lower FC densities during stable flow conditions than during peaking flow conjitions illustrating the adverse effect of storm water runoff on water quality. High fecal coliform levels resulting from occasional high runoff should, however, be included in computing means for criteria compliance. Stable flow and peaking flow effects on each stream reach is summarized in Table VII.

10 )

9 0H - -

wCJ)
~ 80 C;; Z
oW
~ 70
CJ)
o::> ~0: 6 0
(!)
Z ~ W 50 W ~
CJ)
z
Q 4)
I-
~
CJ)
ou. :3 0
W
(!)
~
Z W2
Ua:
W 11.

0

U

n
o

-2-0-0

0

.,

C) ~



--
(

n
~,)

0

n

c

EFFECT OF STREAM FLOW ON GEOMETRIC MEAN FECAL COLIFORM LEVELS

STABLE FLOW CONDITIONS
o HIGH FLOW CONDITIONS

U S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
TECHNICAL SERVICES ATHENS, GEORGIA AND
GEORGIA WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD ATLANTA, GEORGIA

400

600

800

1,000

1,500

MEAN (GEOMETRIC) FEI..-.:...L COLIFORM DENSITY / 100 ML (MPN)

2POO

FIGURE It

100
90

~-------1-._-----t--=+.-

1----

I

.

-

(f)

w

t::
(f)

80 f--_._..-

-----J--------

Z

oW

I

~ 701'-------+------+------.----+----
(f)

o

.~

o::J a~:: 601 - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - + - - - - - - - -

-

~a_~

--

()

--

<!l

Z

i=
w

50 ...

-+

W

::2:

z(f) 2 40
f-
~
(f)
IJ...
o 30
W <!l
~
Z W 20 U
a::
W Cl.
10

i
o
--
n

4.

0)

-+-

~~.----o--~()t......----_+_.--------.---+_------

--;

(,)

~~ 0

EFFECT OF STREAM FLOW ON ARITHMETIC
-----------1 MEAN FECAL COLIFORM LEVELS

STABLE FLOW
o HIGH FLOW

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
TECHNICAL SERVICES ATHENS, GEORGIA AND
GEORGIA WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

ATLANTA, GEORGIA

o

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,500

2,000

MEAN (ARITHMETIC) FECAL COLIFORM DENSITY /100 ML (MPN)

FIGURE 12

TABLE \TIl
EFFECT OF SURFACE RUNOFF ON MEAN FC DENSITIES/100 ML FOR EACH STREAM OR RESERVOIR REACH

NOTTELY RIVER ABOVE NOTTELY LAKE
NOTTELY RIVER BELOW NOTTELY LAKE
TOCCOA RIVER ABOVE BLUE RIDGE RESERVOIR TOCCOA RIVER BELOW BLUE RIDGE RESERVOIR HIAWASSEE RIVER ABOVE LAKE CHATUGE
CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER ABOVE LAKE LANIER
SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW LAKE HARTWELL
CHATOOGA RIVER
NOTTELY RESERVOIR BLUE RIDGE RESERVOIR LAKE CRA TTTGE LAKE LANIER
HARTWELL RESERVOIR CLARK HILL RESERVOIR FLAT CREEK EMBAYMENT
STALKING HEAD CREEK
GOAT ROCK LAKE
LAKE SEMINOLE LAKE BLACKSHEAR
FLINT RIVER

STABLE FLOW

CONDITIONS*

-X

Gm

930

580

90

20

490

310

5100 1500

530

300

510

305

60

30

130

90

1100

130

20

10

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

370

115

-

-

55

45

130

90

PEAKING FLOW

CONDITIONS*

-

X

Gm

6100

990

340

200

6400 1600

2900 130

530

250

2700 1300

260 750
4900 40
-
1200
-
190
250

100 150
4900 10
-
1200
-
120
120

ALL FLOW

CONDITIONS*

-

X

Gm

3900

790

230

80

3000

790

3200

140

530

270

1100

430

130

40

440

120

660

60

10

5

100

20

40

5

4

2

3

2

200

100

1900

860

550

120

290

110

90

60

210

110

*Determined by hydrograph examination.

16
REFERENCES CITED 1. Stevenson, Albert H., "Studies of Bathing Water Quality and Health,"
American Journal of Public Health, 43, pp 529-538 (May 1953). 2. American Public Health Association, Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater, Twelfth Edition, 1965. 3. Geldreich, E. E., Clark, H. F. Huff, C. B., and Best, L. C.,
"Fecal Coliform Organism Medium for Membrane Filter Techniques," Journal AWWA, 57, No.2 (February 1965).

APPENDIX A LETTER FROM SECRETARY UDALL

July 18, 1967

.......

co on bO

oM
Ql

os::: ..~ .......
on'OM bOMQl Ql CO s:::

D :m: ooon
1> II)
i II)...-l II)
Qcol M0

.s:::1> 1>S:::0

:;$00

00
tI)

>.

>.~

... ..j..:l :;$

M on Pi O...-l Ql

1>ctl~

0Ql::C1Y ... Hp...

M MO
onMQl ~ Ql s::: ..
+,OQl

...-lCllonO

sC::: O~tIII) )QMl

OQlonon on1>Sp., bOcoS Ql1>O D::f/.)OO

II)
Ql ...-l0
~~

bOM

lI)osn:::t,..0.j

Ql "0

~

.o..n-l Qcol ~~p.,

t,...jD:: p.,

+'
II)II)Ql ...

-~-~gMg.s:::

co co f/.) M

1>+>
QlC!)

.::Xon::

oM

M
0

+> II)



QlQlCIJM

tl)tI)<A

o o

Dear Governor Maddox:

I am pleased to inform you that we have comple~ed our review of the water quality crita'ia and implementation plan submitted by the State of Georgia for its interstate waters, and I am approving these criteria and plans as Federal standards under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. Your State is to be commended on the development of effective water quality standards.

We are concerned about the bacteriological criteria adopted by Georgia for public water supply, recreational, and other uses. However, we have been assured by the State Water Quality Control Board that these criteria will be reviewed by the State, working with the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration Regional Office in Atlanta. We have further been assured that, should this review indicate that more stringent bacteriological criteria are necessary, the present criteria will be modified accordingly. It is with this understanding that I am prepared to approve Georgia's water quality criteria at this time.

Successful implementation of the program s~t forth in these standards should achieve our mutual goals of protecting and enhancing the quality and productivity of Georgia's interstate waters. The staff of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration will be in touch with your water pollution control staff concerning ways in which we can cooperate in carrying out the objectives of this prQ~am.

Once again, I wish to congratulate you on a job well done.

Sincerely yours,

Stewart L. Udall

Honorable Lester Maddox Governor of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Secretary of the Interior

RWHanmer:ms - PFW - 7/14/67

APPENDIX B LIST OF FRESHWATER SAMPLE STATION LOCATIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS

CHATTOOGA RIVER

Station Nunlber

Descrition

CT,l

Ga. 28 bridge over Chattooga River.

CT-.2

Approxim",tely 2 miles downstream of Ga. 29 bridge over Chattooga River at point where Ga. 28 turn from NE- SW downstream to a NW-SW direction.

CT-3

Ga. 2 bridge over Chattooga River

CT-lr.

Approximately ~ Mile downstream of Ga. 28 just below the confluence of North Fork Chattooga and West Fork Chattooga Rivers.

NOTTELY RIVER AND NOTTELY RESERVOIR

Station Number

Description

N-13

Dirt road over Notte1y River near its junction with Richard B. Russell Scenic Hwy. (Ga. 348) just south of Harmony Church.

N-14

Ga. 180 bridge (dirt road) over Notte1y River upstream of its junction with Stink Creek.

N-15

Ga. 11 and US 19 bridge over Notte1y River near County Road S-975.

N-16

Dirt road bridge over Notte1y River near dirt road's junction with Ga. 19 approximately 2 miles south of Ga. Mtn. State Experiment Station.

N-17

Dirt road bridge over Notte1y River just off Ga. 19 near junction of Morgan Branch and Notte1y River.

NR-18

Ga. 2 bridge over Notte1y Reservoir.

NR-18A

Just downstream of junction of Butternut Creek and Notte1y Reservoir.

NR-19

Paved County Road bridge over Notte1y Reservoir just downstream from its junction with Welborn Branch.

NR-20

Paved County Road bridge over Odum Creek arm of Notte1y Reservoir near Providence Church.

NR-21

Immediately downstream of Notte1y Dam on Notte1y River.

N-22

Smith Bridge of County Road S-1005 over Notte1y River.

N-10*

Bridge over Wolf Creek on State Road S-975.

N-ll*

Bridge over Butternut Creek on Ga. 11.

N-12*

Bridge over Notte1y Reservoir on Ga. 11.

TOCCOA RIVER AND BLUE RIDGE RESERVOIR

Station Number

DescriEtion

T-28

Ga. 5 bridge over Toccoa River in McCaysville, Ga.

T-27

Toccoa River at Copperhill Recreation Center

T-26

County Road S-2332 bridge over Toccoa River.

T-25

County Road (running SW out of Mineral Bluff) bridge over Toccoa River.

BR-24

Immediately downstream from Blue Ridge Darn.

BR-34

First road to left wh~n heading south on US 76 from Blue Ridge Damo

BR-35

First road (dirt) on right when heading east on US 76 from its intersection with Ga. 60.

BR-23

Morgantown Point Recreation area.

T-29

County Road S-lOlO bridge over Toccoa Rivero

T-30

Rock Creek Road Bridge over Toccoa Rivero

T-3l

County Road bridge over Toccoa River near Fannin County and Union County line.

T-32

County Road bridge over Toccoa River turning right off Gao 60 near Gaddistown.

T-33

County Road bridge over Toccoa River just upstream from river's junction with Gilreath Creek and William"s Creek.

T-34,',

Bridge over Suches Creek Gao 60.

T-35",

Bridge over Canada Creek, Ga. 60.

T-36,',

Bridge over Mineral Springs Creek approximately 1 mi o before it enters the Toccoa River

T-37,',

Young Stone Creek, approximately 3/4 mi. before it enters the Toccoa Rivero

T-38

Shallowford Bridge over Toccoa River

T-39,',

Bridge over Dry Creek, Near Murphy junction.

UPPER CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER

Station Number

Description

75-25,'~

Small creek flaring out of Unicoi State Park. Sample 10-15 yards upstream from Ga. 75.

75-24"/~

Spoi1cane Creek just above junction with Chattahoochee River.

75-23

Chattahoochee River just above junction with Spoi1cane Creek.

356-22

Ga. 356 bridge over Chattahoochee River near intersection of Ga. 356 with Ga. 17.

75-21

Ga. 75 bridge over Chattahoochee River near intersection of Gao 17

602-20

Chattahoochee River just upstream of its junction with Sautee Creeko

602-19"~

Sautee Creek just upstream of junction with Chattahoochee River.

Gao 17 bridge over Mauldin Creek (county line between Habersham County and White County.)

255-17

Ga. 255 bridge over Chattahoochee River (county line between Habersham County and White County.)

115-16

Ga. 115 bridge over Chattahoochee River (count line between Habersham County and White County.)

S-1759-15

County Road S-1759 bridge over Chattahoochee River near View community (County line between Habersham County and White County)

S-2422-14

County Road S-2422 dead ends at Chattahoochee River in Habersham County just upstream of intersection of Habersham County, White County, and Hall County.

Soquee River at Hwy bridge 105, Habersham County.

17-19

Ga. 17 bridge over Chattahoochee River at Helen Ga.

LAKE LANIER

Station Number

Descri.E.tion

600-7

Belton bridge over upper extremity of ChattaL1Jochee River arm of Lake Lanier in Hall County.

129-6

Ga. 11 and US 129 bridge over Chattahoochee River arm of Lake Lanier just upstream of its junction with the Little River arm of Lake Lanier in Hall County.

284-5

Ga. 284 bridge over Chattahoochee River arm of Lake Lanier in Hall County.

52-4

Ga. 52 bridge (Lula Bridge) over Chattahoochee River arm of Lake Lanier in Hall County.

60-3

Ga. 60 bridge over Lake Lanier just downstream of the junction of Little River and Chattahoochee River in Hall County

53-2

Ga. 53 bridge over Lake Lanier near Gainesville Marina in Hall County.

141-1

Ga. 141 bridge over Lake Lanier in vicinity of Chestatee Bay near Hall County and Forsyth County line.

Marinas

See attached maps

FC-l

Mouth of Flat C~eek Bay, approximately 1 mile from mouth of Flat Creek.

FC-3

The point at which the flowing water of Flat Creek meets the still water at Flat Creek.

HIAWASSEE RIVER AND LAKE CHATUGE

Station Number

Description

H-4

Ga. 2 and U. S. 76 bridge over Hiawassee River.

H-5

Ga. 17 and Ga. 75 bridge over Hiawassee River near

intersection with Ga. 66.

H-6

Ga. 17 and Ga. 75 bridge over Hiawassee River near

Mt. Zion Church.

H-7

County Road bridge over Hiawassee River near interse=tion

of river and Owl Creek.

H-8

Ga. 17 and Ga. 75 bridge over Hiawassee River near Calvary

Church and just south of intersection of this road with

Ga. 2 and U. S. 76.

LC-9

Ga. 17, 2, 75 and US 76 bridge over Chatuge Lake by the Macedonia Church just north of intersection of Ga. 17 and Ga. 75 with Ga. 2 and U. S. 76.

LC-10

US 76 bridge over bay formed by Chatuge Lake and Shake Rag Branch.

LC-11

US 76 bridge over Chatuge Lake immediately outside of Hiawassee on northwest side of town.

LC-12

Point where County Road S-1707 dead ends into Chatuge Lake at end of large point northwest of Hiawassee.

H-9*

Soapstone Creek approximately 100 meters upstream from its confluence with the Hiawassee River.

H-10*

Hightower Creek at bridge approximately 700 meters upstream from its confluence with the Hiawassee River.

SAVANNAH BELOW HAR'lWELL

Statiun Number

Descri12. t i o n

601-8

Dirt road which dead ends at Savannah River turns East off Bobby Brown State Park road at Tater' Grove Church in Elbert County, Ga.

72-9

Ga. 72 bridge over Savannah River in Elbert County.

82-10

Ga. 82 bridge over Savannah River in Elbert County.

181-11

Ga. 181 bridge over Savannah River in Elbert County.

29-12

Ga. 29 bridge over Savannah River in sighc of Hartwell Reservoir in Elbert County.

HD-13

Immediately below Hartwell Dam in Savannah River in Elbert County.

BGC*

Big Generostee Creek immediately before its confluence with the Savannah River.

BDC*

Beaverdam Creek approximately l~ mile before its' confluence with the Savannah River.

CC*

Cedar Creek approximately ~ mile before its' confluence

with the Savannah River.

* - Streams contributing waste but not classified as recreational streams.

CLARK HILL RESERVOIR

Station Number

Description

CH-l

Pistol Creek arm of Clark Hill Reservoir near shoreline mileage marker 637.

CH-2

Newford Creek arm of Clark Hill Reservoir near shoreline mileage marker 621 0

CH-3

Junction of Pistol Creek and Newford Creek near shoreline mileage marker 628.

CH-4 CH;'5

Junction of Pistol Creek, Newford Creek and Broad River near shoreline mileage marker 615 0
Shore ling mileage marker 713 in Savannah River arm of Clark Hill Reservoir.

CH-6

Junction of Fishing Creek and Savannah River near shoreline mileage marker 6070

CH-7

Savannah River arm of Clark Hill Reservoir near shoreline mileage marker 704.

CH-8

Junction of Russell Creek and Savannah River near shoreline mileage marker 6940

CH-9

Savannah River arm of Clark Hill Reservoir near shoreline mileage marker 676.

CH-IO

Broad River arm of Clark Hill Reservoir near shoreline mileage marker 669.

CH-ll

Broad River arm of Clark Hill Reservoir near shoreline mileage marker 647.

CH-12

Ga. 79 birdge over Broad River arm of Clark Hill Reservoir o

CH-13

Savannah River arm of Clark Hill Reservoir near shoreline mileage marker 522.

CH-14

US 378 Bridge over Clark Hill Reservoir o

CH-15

US 378 bridge over Little River, South Carolina o

CH-16

Little River near shoreline mileage marker 890 0

CH-17

Savannah River near shoreline mileage marker 916 0

CH-18

Junction of Little River (S. C.) and Savannah River.

CH-19

Junction of Soap Creek and Savannah Rivero

Clark Bill Reservoir continued

Station !!:!I!!!?er

Descri,Etion

CB-20

Soap Creek near shoreline mileage marker 468

CH-21

County Road over Soap Creek near its junction with Dry Fork Creek.

CU;'22
CB-23

Dry Fork Creek near shoreline mileage marker 477.
us 378 bridge over Soap Creek.

CH-24

Soap Creek near shoreline mileage marker 496.

LOWER HARTWELL RESERVOIR

Station Number

Description

HR.-1

Public boat launching area in Watsad1er Creek arm of Hartwell Reservoir near Ga. 181 and US 29 on Georgia side of Lake.

HR.-2

Public boat launching area on southside of Long Point in Hartwell Reservoir. This area faces the bay formed by Powder Bog Creek on Georgia side of Lake.

HR.-3

Public boat launching area located at Carter's Ferry in Hartwell Reservoir. This area faces the bay formed by Little Lightwood Log Creek, Flat Shoals Creek, and Gun Branch Creek on the Georgia side of the Lake.

HR.-4

Public boat launching area located at Island Point near intersection of South Carolina 187 and US 29 on South Carolina side of Lake.

HR.-5

Public boat launching area located at Hartwell Dam Recreational area South Carolina. This area just upstream from Hartwell Dam.

HR-6

Ga. 181 and US 29 bridge over arm of Hartwell Reservoir just west of the town of Hartwell.

HR-7

Near shoreline mileage marker 59 on arm of Hartwell Reservoir Northwest of the town of Hartwell.

HR.-8

Ga. 51 bridge over Flat Shoals Creek arm of Hartwell Reservoir.

HR.-9

Public boat launching area of Hartwell Marina just north of the tuwu of Hartwell.

HR-lO

Channel buoy LLC-6 just east of Hart County Park on Little Lighwood Log Creek.

HR.-ll

Near shoreline mileage marker 86 and channel marker buoy LLC-4 on Little Lightwood Log Creek.

HR.-12

Channel marker buoy LLC-l-GB midway between Carter's Ferry and Long Point.

HR.-13

Samll bay on south side of Sadlers Creek State Park, South Carolina.

UPPER HAR.'lWELL RESERVOIR

Station Number

DescriE,tion

HR.-l4

Brookhaven Circle Road bridge over arm of Hartwell Reservoir.

HR.-l5

Narrow part of Eastanollee Creek just upstream from shoreline mileage marker 266.

HR.-l6

Channel marker EC 3 in Eastanollee Creek near Stephen Co. and Franklin County line.

HR.-17

Channel marker EC 2 in Eastanollee Creek arm of Hartwell Reservoir.

HR.-l8

Channel marker T-75-EC at junction of Eastanollee Creek and Tugaloo River.

HR.-l9

Channel marker T-77 in Tugaloo River arm of Hartwell Reservoir.

HR-20

Channel marker T-78 in Tugaloo River arm of Hartwell Reservoir.

HR.-2l

Channel marker T-80 in Tugaloo River arm of Hartwell Reservoir.

HR.-22

Channel marker T-73 at junction of Tugaloo River and Choestoea Creek.

HR.-23

Channel marker CHC 2 in Choestoea Creek arm of Hartwell Reservoir just above its junction with Tugaloo River.

HR.-24

Channel marker T-69 in Tugaloo River arm near shoreline mileage marker 254 of Hartwell Reservoir.

HR.-25

Channel marker T-65 in Tugaloo River arm of Hartwell Reservoir near Shelors Branch.

LOWER CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER

Station Number

Description

CC-I

Bartletts Ferry Dam - just upstream of Dam, River mile 177 .4

CC-II

Bartletts Ferry Dam - just downstream of Dam, River mile 177 .4

CC-III

Lake Oliver - City of Columbus waterworks intake - River mile 163.2

C-l

Lake Semcnole, Booster Club boat dock at launcing ramp.

C-2

Georgia highway 91 bridge

C-4

Georgia highway 62 bridge

C-5

u. S. highway 82 bridge

LOWER FLINT RIVER

Station Number F-l F-2 F-3 F-4 F-20 F-2l F-22 F-23 F-25

DescriE,tion Georgia Highway 257, Lake Blackshear U. S. Highway 280, Lake Blackshear Kinchajoonee Greek, Georgia Highway 91, Lake Worth. Chehaw State Park, dock at launch ramp, Lake Worth. Georgia Highway 27 Lake Blackshear-middle U. S. Highway 280 Georgia Highway 32 Lake Worth-middle

PIEDMONT WILDLIFE REFUGE

Station Number
P-l P-2

Description
Just outside the refuge on Stalking Head Creek.
First road crossing Stalking Head Creek outside the Refuge, up stream from station 1.

APPENDIX C
LIST OF COASTAL SAMPLING STATIONS

Station Number 3 4 5
102
15 16
29 30
31 32
34
35
41
43
44 J-l - J-6 S-l - S-6

LIST OF COASTAL SAMPLE STATION LOCATIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS
DescriE,tion
Savannah Beach at Highway 80 & Butler Avenue
Savannah Beach at End of 17th Street Savannah Beach at Tybee Creek - Public Boat Dock
Big Ogeechee River at U. S. Highway #17 bridge
Little Ogeechee River at Forest River & Coffee Bluff
Vernon River at Rose Dhu Road - Mosher's Boat Dock Vernon River at Beaulieu Avenue
Vernon River at Burnside River * A. W. Salter's
residence (Rio Vista)
Vernon River at Back (Moon) River & Wesley Gardens
Vernon River at Shipyard Creek - End of Strong
Road & Pin Point
Wilmington River at Skidaway River - Wymberly Yacht Club Wilmington River at Herb River - Bob Taylor's Fishing Camp
Wilmington River at Savannah Yacht and Country Club Bradley's Point
Wilmington River at South end of Island & Savannah
Gas Company
Half Moon River at Green's Boat Dock
Jekyll Island Saint Simon's Island

APPENDIX D WASTE CLASSIFICATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL STATIONS

STATION CLASSIFICATION BASED ON WASTE SURVEY DATA

STREAM OR RESERVOIR

STATIONS WI TH NO OBVIOUS WASTE
PRESENT

Hiawassee River & Lake Chatuge

LC - 10, LC - 11 , LC-12

Chatooga River

CT-1, CT-2, CT-3

Savannah River, below HD-l3, 29-12,

Lake Hartwell

82-10, 601-8

Hartwell Reservoir

HR-1, HR-2, HR-3, HR-4, HR-5, HR-6, HR-7, HR-8, HR-9, HR-10, HR-ll, HR-13, HR-14, HR-19, HR-20, HR-21, HR-22, HR-23, HR-24 , HR-25

Toccoa River &
Blue Ridge Reservoir

T-30, T-38, BR-23, BR-24, BR-34, BR-35

Chattahoochee
River & Lake
Lanier

75-23, 356-22, 129-6, 284-5, 60-3, 52-4, 53-2, 141-1 BR-1, BR-2, BR-3, BR-4, BR-5, H-1, H-2, H-3, H-4, H-5, H-6

Notte1y River &
Notte1y Reservoir

N-l3, N-14, NR-20, NR-21, NR-22

Clark Hill Reservoir

CH-1, CH-2, CH-3 CH-4, CH-5, CH-6, CH-7, CH-8, CH-9, CH-10, CH-11, CH-12, CH-13, CH-14, CH-15, CH-16, CH-17, CH-18, CH-19, CH-20, CH-21, CH-22, CH-23, CH-24

STATIONS WITH LIVESTOCK WASTE
PRESENT H-5, H-6, H-7, H-8
T-31, T-32, T-33, T-25, T-29 602-20, 75-21 115-16, 255-17
N-15, N-16, N-17, N-18, N-18A, N-12

STATIONS WITH DOMESTIC WASTE
PRESENT H-4, LC-9
CT-1A 181-11, 72-9 HR-12, HR-15 HR-16, HR-17 HR-18
T-26, T-27, T-28
600-7, 17-19, S1759, S2422 FC-1, FC-3
N-15, N-16, N18A, N-19

STATION CLASSIFICATION BASED ON WASTE SURVEY DATA

Condo STREAM OR RESERVOIR
Lower Chattahoochee River Lower Flint River Piedmont Wildlife Refuge

STATION WITH NO OBVIOUS WASTE
PRESENT
CC-I, CC-II, CC-III, C-l, C-2, C-4, C-5
F-l, F-2, F-3, F-4
P-l, P-2

STATIONS WITH LIVESTOCK WASTE
PRESENT

STATIONS WITH DOMESTIC WASTE
PRESENT

APPENDIX E SUMMARY OF STATION DATA - MPN

MPN DATA - FECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES AT INDIVIDUAL STATIONS COMPUTED FROM THE ENTIRE STUDY

AREA
til
o001-O<J o~
.j.J .0-1
..ccoj.J~
C,)

STATION
CT-1 CT-1A CT-2 CT-3

ARITHMETIC MEAN 170 1400 540 120

GEOMETRIC MEAN 110 250 130 80

MEDIAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM NO. SAMPLES

79

540

33

8

104

5400

70

4

185

3500

23

8

90

240

13

8

N-13

110

N-14

400

N-15

1700

I-<

'0-1
>0

N-16

I-<

OJ CI.l

N-17

OJ

~

3400 6000

>.

N-18

6500

.-l

OJ

.j.J .j.J

N-18A

11100

z0

"c8o

NR-19

1700

I-<

NR-12

1300

>OJ
.0-1 ~

NR-20

30

>.

.-l
OJ

NR-21

20

.j.J

.j.J

z0

NR-22

230

60

57

540

17

8

310

260

920

130

8

630

320

5400

130

8

1400

1200 13000

240

8

1700

1200 24000

200

8

1100

1110 35000

130

6

3400

3300 35000

330

5

230

260

4900

13

6

1300

1300

1400

1100

3

10

26

49

2

6

20

20

49

5

7

80

230

540

2

7

OJ ;::l
.-l
r:Cl

'0s:: l-I

ClI .0-1

0

>~

~
Ql

'0-1 CI.l

~ Ql

coo

~ Ql

o 00

0'0

0'0-1

H~

T-33 T-32 T-31 T-30 T-29 T-28

4900 4200 3600 1600 1800
580

790

230 16000

110

7

1400

1300 16000

130

7

980

1100

1600

23

7

440

330

9200

79

7

950

1040

4900

170

6

460

395

1300

230

4

MPN DATA - FECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES AT INDIVIDUAL STATIONS COMPUTED FROM THE ENTIRE STUDY

AREA

(1)
00 "0
.,-l
~

(1)

::l
~

~ $-I .,-l

"0
~

:0>

C1l $-I

(1)

$-I (J)

(1) (1)

:>~
.,-l

~

C1l 0 tJ tJ 0 E-t

STATION ARITHMETIC
MEAN

BR-23

10

BR-35

5

BR-34

10

BR-24

30

T-25

3500

T-26

3500

T-27

2400

T-28

2700

GEOMETRIC
MEAN
4 3 8 8 20 110 210 530

MEDIAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM NO. SAMPLES

2

23

2

7

2

13

2

6

7

33

2

6

2

130

2

7

7

24000

2

7

49

24000

23

7

130

16000

50

7

1600

16000

3

7

75-23

190

70

79

920

3

7

356-22

180

130

150

490

32

7

17-19

2600

1300

1100

7900

460

4

75-21

570

480

450

1100

210

7

$-I

(1)

.,-l
~

602-20

980

820

1000

1600

350

3

C1l

...:l

(1)

255-17

810

.lIl:

440

490

3300

130

7

C1l

...:l

115-16

1500

540

470

7900

110

7

"0

~

C1l

S-1759

2300

1300

1300

7900

170

7

$-I

(1)

:>
.,-l

S2422

980

~

710

920

2200

130

7

(1) (1)
..c

600-7

620

620

620

620

620

1

tJ

0
..0c

52-4

230

220

230

260

190

2

C1l

.I.J .I.J

284

..Cc1l

3

3

3

5

2

2

0

129-6

2

2

2

2

2

2

60-3

2

2

2

2

2

2

53-2

2

141-1

6

2

2

2

2

2

6

6

7

5

2

MPN DATA - FECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES AT INDIVIDUAL STATIONS COMPUTED FROM THE ENTIRE STUDY

!\REA

STATION ARITHMETIC MEAN

FC1

205

FC3

80,502

BR1

163

BR2

1,488

BR3

568

BR4

327

"0
t:: CIl

l-I
Q)
..:>..
P:::

Q)

Q)

,.C l-I

(J Q)

0 a

...
t::

,.C CIl

CIlH

.l-J

.l-J Q)

CIl~
,.C CIl

C,,)H

BR5 H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H-5

42 136 335 163
87 74 12 200

H-6

150

H-7

550

H-8

"0
t:: CIl
l-I
Q)
:>
.... Q)
P:::OO
;:l Q) .l-J
Q) CIl
OO,.C ooc,,)
CIl
~ Q)
..C..IlC~Il ::C:H
j

H-4 LC-9 LC-10 LC-11 LC-12

880 850 290
90 20 10

GEOMETRIC MEAN 76
11,500 21 33 59 42 11 26 65 27 16 25 7 130 110 370 550 510 80 60 10 4

MEDIAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM NO. SAMPLES

36

930

30

14

7,500 430,000

930

13

23

2,300

3

21

23

15,000

3

20

84

9,300

3

20

43

2,300

3

20

3.6

430

3

19

27

930

3

14

69

2,300

3

14

36

930

3

15

19

930

3

14

15

430

3

15

3.6

43

3

7

140

700

20

8

130

350

33

8

500

1300

80

8

560

2300

130

8

490

3500

130

8

40

1600

20

8

64

330

23

~

10

80

2

8

2

50

2

8

. Contd
AREA

MPN DATA - FECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES AT INDIVIDUAL STATIONS COMPUTED FROM THE ENTIRE STUDY

STATION ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC MEDIAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM NO. SAMPLES

MEAN

MEAN

CH-17

2

2

2

2

2

2

CH-18

2

$-I

.r-l

0
~

CH-19

2

Qj

to
rQ:x:j

CH-20

2

..-l ..-l

CH-21

2

"I%":

.!Ill

CH-22

2

$-I

t1I

..-l to)

CH-23

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

CH-24

2

2

2

2

2

2

HR.-I

2

HR.-2

2

HR.-3

2

HR.-4

2

HR.-5

2

HR.-6

11)

HR-7

5

$-I

.r-l 0

HR.-8

2

~

Qj to

HR.-9

2

r:Qx:j

..-l

HR-lO

2

..-l

Qj

B

HR-ll

2

$-I

t1f

I%:

HR-12

2

HR-13

2

HR-14

60

HR.-15

2

HR-16

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

8

10

8

7

2

4

5

7

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

60

60

79

49

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

Contd .
AREA

MPN DATA - FECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES AT INDIVIDUAL STATIONS COMPUTED FROM THE ENTIRE STUDY

STATION ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC MEDIAN

MEAN

MEAN

MAXIMUM MINIMUM NO o SAMPLES

HR-17

2

2

2

2

2

2

HR-18

2

2

2

2

2

2

HR-19

2

2

2

2

2

2

HR-20

2

I-l
.,-1

0
:>

HR-21

2

I-l

(lJ

Ul (lJ

HR-22

2

P::

...--I ...--I

HR-23

2

(lJ

;3

+J I-l

HR-24

2

::tcl:l

HR-25

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

MPN DATA - FECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES AT INDIVIDUAL STATIONS COMPUTED FROM THE ENTIRE STUDY

Contd. AREA STATION

ARITIIMETIC MEAN

GEOMETRIC MEAN

MEDIAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM NO. SAMPLES

~

HD-13

10

6

3

49

2

4

..-l l-l

<ll 'r-l
> ~ 0

29-12

20

10

8

99

5

7

l-l l-l

><ll <ll t/)

181-11

230

60

43

1100

3

7

.r-l <ll

r:x:r:x:

..c..-l

82-10

80

40

28

390

23

7

tll..-l

~ <ll

~~
>tll +oJ l-l

72-9

310

240

230

730

41

7

tll tll

tI.ll:I:

600-8

80

60

71

140

23

6

l-l

'r-l

>0

CH-l

3

3

3

5

2

2

l-l

<ll

t/)
<ll

CH-2

2

2

2

2

2

2

r:x:

..-l ..-l

CH-3

2

2

2

2

2

2

.r-l

l:I:

..!ll:

CH-4

2

2

2

2

2

2

l-l

tll

..-l
u

CH-5

Z

2

2

2

2

2

CH-6

2

2

2

2

2

2

CH-7

2

2

2

2

2

2

CH-8

10

6

10

17

2

2

CH-9

10

10

10

13

11

2

CH-10

2

2

2

2

2

2

CH-11

6

6

6

7

5

2

CH-12

10

7

10

23

2

2

CH-13

2

2

2

2

2

2

CH-14

2

2

2

2

2

2

CH-15

2

2

2

2

2

2

CH-16

2

2

2

2

2

2

MPN DATA - FECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES AT INDIVIDUAL STATIONS COMPUTED FROM THE ENTIRE STUDY

AREA

Q)
Q)
..uc::
0
..0c::
til +J +J
..tci:l:
C)

l-l l-l

Q) Q)

~o

:>
",-l

....:IP::

STATION ARITHMETIC MEAN

CCI

337

CCIl

431

CCIlI

100

C1

57

C2

372

C4

287

C5

1,316

GEOMETRIC MEAN 62 200 81 44 200 230 68

MEDIAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM NO. SAMPLES

30

2,300

30

10

101

2,300

30

10

30

4,300

30

10

30

230

30

12

220

2,300

30

12

205

750

150

12

63

9,300

30

12

+s:J:
,,-l
...-l ~

l-l l-l

Q) Q)

~o

:>
",-l

....:IP::

F1 F2 F3 F4 F-20

96 80 251 182 340

F-21

21

F-22

20

F-23

23

F-24

34

F-25

45

66

33

390

30

12

51

36

390

30

12

170

150

930

73

10

90

36

930

30

9

220

310

1,300

30

14

20

20

33

20

14

20

20

20

20

14

20

20

390

20

14

26

20

140

20

10

37

20

90

20

11

+J Q)
s::~ ~.,-l Q)
=' ...-l bO
't:l 't:l
Q)...-l ~
.,-l"" Q) l=4~P::

P-1 P-2

1,214 2,621

400

390

7,500

30

15

1,500

~,300

9,300

210

14

APPENDIX F
SUMMARY OF STATION DATA - MF

AREA
H
Q)
..:.>..
t::<::
cU
bJ)
0 0
.w
cU
.u..c:

..H...
0 :> H
Q) [JJ Q)
t::<::
,.>..,-.
Q)
.w
oW
o
Z
r,.:J
e
c;j
~,
(J)
.:..>.,
t::<::
,.>..,-,
(J)
.w .w
0 Z

Q)
,.;..:,l

P=l ..H...

"0 0 ~ :> cU H

(J)

H [JJ

(J) Q)

..:.>..t::<::

t::<:: Q)

bJ)

coU"..O...

u u

t::<::

0

H

MF DATA - FECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES AT INDIVIDUAL STATIONS COMPUTED FROM THE ENTIRE STUDY

STATION
CT-1 CT-1A CT-2 CT-3

ARITHMETIC MEAN
90 550 290
90

GEOMETRIC MEAN
70
160
no
60

MEDIAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM

80

220

10

80

2000

60

100

1600

20

70

220

12

NO. SAMPLES
8 4 8 8

N-13 N-14 N-15 N-16 N-17 N-18 N-18A N-19 N-12 N-20 N-21 N-22

100 170 870 1800
noo
4200 2400
930 970
8 18 150

80

90

180

18

8

130

no

470

50

8

450

260

3500

140

8

730

460

9500

190

8

590

450

5000

170

8

1000

1200 21000

120

6

1300

1300

5000

180

5

130

330

2500

2

6

890

780

1700

600

4

6

7

18

2

6

10

10

44

2

7

50

160

470

4

7

T-33

770

T-32

820

T-31

630

T-30

550

T-29

660

T-38

290

350

300

3200

70

6

580

660

1700

60

7

460

700

960

40

7

350

580

1300

40

7

410

500

1700

48

6

270

230

500

200

4

MF DATA - FECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES AT INDIVIDUAL STATIONS COMPUTED FROM THE ENTIRE STUDY

~EA

OJ bO "Cl
-p..:-:I:

OJ

;:l

.-l

P=1 ~

"Cl -..-I
cJo:: :0>

~

~ OJ

:O>J -p.:.-::I

til
pO::J:

co
0
()
u
0 H

STATION
BR-23 BR-35 BR-34 BR-24 T-25 T-26 T-27 T-28

ARITHMETIC MEAN 70 10 80 130 200 280 50 1300

GEOMETRIC MEAN 5 10 10 10 20 50 40 120

MEDIAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM

3

46

2

4

50

2

9

400

2

6

800

2

13

1300

4

36

1300

3

60

88

10

190

4900

4

NO. SAMPLES
7 6 6 7 7 7 7 7

75-23

30

20

18

90

8

7

356-22

70

60

80

120

17

7

17-19

1300

750

1100

2800

100

4

75-21

400

290

390

820

65

7

602-20

240

~

230

280

300

150

3

OJ

-.:.=-I;

255-17

450

co

300

260

1300

90

7

H

Q)

115-16

560

~co

260

300

2700

73

7

H

S-1759

700

"Cl

500

510

1500

80

7

cJo::

S-2422

580

~

370

360

1900

40

7

Q)

:> -p..:-:I:

600-7

250

250

250

250

250

1

Q) Q)
..uc:

52-4

170

140

170

270

70

2

0 0

284-5

~.w

3

3

3

3

3

2

...cwco:

129-6

3

3

3

5

1

2

u

60-3

3

2

3

3

2

2

53-2

3

2

3

3

2

2

141-1

4

2

4

5

2

2

MF DATA - FECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES AT INDIVIDUAL STATIONS COMPUTED FROM THE ENTIRE STUDY

AREA
l-l
OM 0
:>
l-l <ll til
p<::l:l
r-l r-l <ll ~
.j.J
l-l C1l
::r::

STATION
HR-9 HR-IO HR-ll HR-12 HR-13 HR-14 HR-15 HR-16 HR-17 HR-18 HR-19 HR-20 HR-21 HR-22 HR-23 HR-24 HR-25

ARITHMETIC MEAN
1 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

GEOMETRIC MEAN
1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

MEDIAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM NO. SAMPLES

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

3

4

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

I
I

MF DATA . FECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES AT INDIVIDUAL STATIONS COMPUTED FROM THE ENTIRE STUDY

AREA
QJ bO ;:l .l-J
til
..r:::
() QJ
,.!I:\ til
H "'tl s::: til
QJ QJ
0) 0)
as
:->
til
.~
:J:l
I-l QJ
>
.~
~
~
E
t>il
til
tI.l
I-l
.~
0
~
QJ
0)
QJ ~ .-l .-l
.~
:J:l
,.!I:\ I-l til .-l
()

STATION
H-5 H-6 H-7 H-8 H-4 LC-9 LC-lO LC-l1 LC-12 HD-13 29-12 181-11 82-10 72-9 600-8 CH-1 CH-2 CH-3 CH-4 CH-5 CH-6 CH-7 CH-8

ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC

MEAN

MEAN

140

80

130

110

560

440

610

390

510

380

290

120

100

40

20

10

10

6

3

2

10

10

180

50

20

20

260

160

90

60

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

MEDIAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM NO. SAMPLES

170

320

8

8

100

330

60

8

360

1700

60

8

560

2100

180

8

370

1600

180

8

200

780

10

8

23

550

10

8

11

60

2

8

5

48

2

8

2

7

2

4

7

25

4

7

74

870

3

7

13

90

10

7

160

1000

30

7

80

260

20

6

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

AREA
..,....
0:,>..
Ql ell Ql
p::
~
~ ....
::c
~,..
ClI
~ t.)
..,....
,0:.>.
Ql ell
~
~ ~ Ql
~ ,)..
::CclI

MF DATA - FECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES AT INDIVIDUAL STATIONS COMPUTED FROM THE ENTIRE STUDY

STATION

ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC

MEAN

MEAN

MEDIAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM NO. SAMPLES

CH-9

3

3

CH-10

2

2

CH-ll

6

5

CH-12

10

10

CH-13

7

5

CH-14

2

2

CH-15

2

2

CH-16

2

2

CH-17

2

2

CH-18

2

2

CH-19

2

2

CH-20

2

2

CH-21

2

2

CH-22

2

2

CH-23

2

2

CH-24

2

2

HR-1

2

1

HR.-2

2

1

HR-3

3

2

HR.-4

2

2

HR-5

2

1

HR-6

2

1

HR.-7

2

1

HR.-8

1

1

3

4

2

2

6

10

9

12

7

12

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

3

1

3

1

6

2

3

1

3

2

2

2

2

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

6

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

3

1

3

1

3

1

3

1

3

1

2

1

2

1

2

MF DATA - COMPARISON OF FECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES AT INDIVIDUAL STATIONS BASED ON SEASONS

AREA
l-<
Q)
..>...
~
tciol
0 0 +J til
..c::
C,)

..l.-.I.
0
>
l-<
Q) Cf.l Q)
~
>.
..-I Q) +J +J 0
Z
"0
I=l
til
l-<
Q)
..>...
~
>.
..-I Q) +J +J
z0

"0
I=l
til ..l.-.I.

l-<

0

..>Q...)

cQo)

>
l-<
Q)

~ "0 Cf.l

..... Q)

tIl~~ 0

() Q)
() ::l 0..-1 HP::l

STATION
CT-1 CT-1A CT-2 CT-3
N-13 N-14 N-15 N-16 N-17 N-18 N-18A N-19 N-12 N-20 N-21 N-22
T-33 T-32 T-31 T-30 T-29

ARITHMETIC MEANS

SEASON 1968 a

NON-SEtSON 1967

100

80

550

*

50

520

40

140

GEOMETRIC MEANS

SE1A9S6O8Na

NO1N9-S6E7AbSON

90

60

160

*

50

270

30

120

80 160 1200 3100 1700 6200 1700 1800 970 10 20 140

110 170 540 590 570 200 5000 20
*
4 10 160

80 140 660 1300 940 2500 960 1500 890 10 10 70

80 110 310 400 370 180 5000 10
*
3 10 40

990

340

1100

440

730

500

600

480

850

460

450

210

970

290

680

280

600

170

660

250

MF DATA - COMPARISON OF FECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES AT INDIVIDUAL STATIONS BASED ON SEASONS

AREA

<ll bO
"0 -.-I ~

<ll

::l

..-l

~

H

"s0::
Cd

-.-I
:0>

H

H <11

<ll rJ)
:> <ll
-.-I ~

~

Cd 0 0 0 0 E-i

H
s<:l:l
-.-I ~
o-l
<ll ~ Cd
o-l
"s0::
Cd
H
:<>ll
-.-I ~
<ll <ll
..s:::
0 0 0
..s:::
Cd
~ ~
Cd
..s::: c.:>

STATION
T-38 BR-23 BR-35 BR-34 BR-24 T-25 T-26 T-27 T-28
75-23 356-22 17-19 75-21 602-20 255-17 115-16 S1759 82422 600-7 52-4 284-5 129-6 60-3 53-2

ARITHMETIC MEANS

SEASON 1968a

~ON-SEASON
1967b

290

*

10

7

6

30

20

200

4

300

10

450

70

450

60

40

2200

170

30

10

90

30

1300

*

420

230

*

230

580

120

850

130

680

860

660

440

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

GEOMETRIC MEANS

SEASON 1968a

NON-SEASON 1967b

270

*

4

6

10

10

8

40

3

120

9

80

50

50

50

30

200

60

20

10

90

30

750

*

320

160

*

210

410

110

270

120

440

660

310

430

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MF DATA - COMPARISON OF FECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES AT INDIVIDUAL STATIONS BASED ON SEASONS

AREA
Ql
bO ::l -I-J
,.IcII: u
Ql
..!Ill III
~
"1::l ~ III
~ Ql
>
..-l ~ Ql Ql
fI) fI)
III
~
.-1
lJ:l
~
..-I Ql
.0
~
Q >.l..-.1-l
.-1 Ql
~~ ,.c: ~
III III
~lJ:l ~
III Ql
~~
tf.l~
~ .-1
0
~
Ql fI) Ql ~ ..-I ..-I .-1
lJ:l ..!Ill
~
III
..-I
u

STATION
H-5 H-6 H-7 H-8 H-4 LC-9 LC-10 LC-11 LC-12
HD-13 29-12 181-11 82-10 72-9 600-8
CH-l CH-2 CH-3 CH-4 CH-5 CH-6

ARITHMETIC MEANS

SE1A9S6O8Na

NON-SEtsN 1967

160

110

110

150

860

250

980

250

460

560

140

450

160

40

30

10

20

4

GEOMETRIC MEANS

SE1A9S6O8Na

NON-SEASON 1967b

140

50

100

120

580

330

820

190

420

350

60

260

50

30

10

7

10

3

*

*

*

*

10

*

9

*

30

*

10

*

20

*

20

*

170

*

160

*

100

*

60

*

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

MF DATA - COMPARISON OF FECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES AT INDIVIDUAL STATIONS BASED ON SEASONS

AREA
l-I
.,...l
e0
OJ
C/)
OJ ~ .-I .-I
.,...l
::t:
.!lcl l-I til
.-I
0
l-I
.,...l
e0
OJ
C/)
OJ ~ .-I .-I OJ
~
l-I til
::t:

STATION
CH-7 CH-8 CH-9 CH-10 CH-ll CH-12 CH-13 CH-14 CH-15 CH-16 CH-17 CH-18 CH-19 CH-20 CH-2! CH-22 CH-23 CH-24
HR-1 HR-2 HR-3 HR-4 HR-5 HR-6

IARITHMETIC MEANS

IsEASON

NON-SEASON

1968a

1967b

*

2

*

2

*

3

*

2

*

6

*

10

*

7

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

GEOMETRIC MEANS

SEASON 1968 a

NON-SEASON 1967b

*

2

*

2

*

3

*

2

*

5

*

10

*

5

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

3

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

MF DATA - COMPARISON OF FECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES AT INDIVIDUAL STATIONS BASED ON SEASONS

AREA
1-1
.,-l
>0
1-1
Q)
Cf.l
Q)
~ .-I .-I
Q)
~ ol-l 1-1
::tcil:

STATION
HR-7 HR-8 HR-9 HR-l0 HR-ll HR-12 HR-13 HR-14 HR.-15 HR-16 HR-17 HR-18 HR-19 HR-20 HR-21 HR-22 HR-23 HR-24 HR-25

ARITHMETIC MEANS

SE1A9S6O8Na

NON-SEASON 1967b

*

2

*

1

*

1

*

1

*

1

*

1

*

1

*

3

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

GEOMETRIC MEANS

SE1A9S6O8Na

NON-SEASON 1967b

*

2

*

1

*

1

*

1

*

1

*

1

*

1

*

3

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

'*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*-Denotes insuffcient data to obtain mean a-Recreation season-May 30th - September 2nd b-Non-Recreation season-September 3rd - May 29th

APPENDIX G SEASONAL COMPARISON - MPN

MPN DATA - COMPARISON OF FECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES AT INDIVIDUAL STATIONS BASED ON SEASONS

AREA
Ie-ul :>
.~
~
C1l bO 0 0
ol-l
..Cc1::l
C,,)

STATION
CT-1 CT-1A CT-2 CT-3

ARITHMETIC MEANS

SEASON

NON-SEASON

1968*

1967*

70

270

1400

*

70

1000

30

200

GEOMETRIC MEANS

SEASON

NON-SEASON

1968*

1967*

60

180

250

*

50

320

30

190

I-l
.~
:0> Ie-ul reIul
~
>.
~
<Ll ol-l ol-l
z0
'ts::l:
C1l
I-l <Ll
:>
.~
~
>.
~ eu
ol-l ol-l
z0

eu

::l

~

j:Q

I-l
S .~

I:e>-ul

:0> Ie-ul

.~ rIl
~ eu ~
Co1l eu

() bO

o()'t:l .~

E-l~

N-13 N-14 N-15 N-16 N-17 N-18 N-18A N-19 N-12 N-20 N-21 N-22
T-33 T-32 T-31 T-30 T-29 T-38

80 320 800 4200 5100 9400 9900 3400 1300
30 20 260
540 1000 940 370 1900 580

150 500 1500 2700 6700 530 16000
30 * 20 20 190
10700 8400 7100 3200 1800 *

60 230 960 2300 , 1800 2000 2300 2300 1300
30 20 20
270 80
800 360 930 440

50 410 410 920 1700 340 16000
20 * 6 20 30
3200 2700 1300 560
980 *

MPN DATA - COMPARISON OF FECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES AT INDIVIDUAL STATIONS BASED ON SEASONS

AREA

<ll 0() 't1
.,-l
P::

<ll ::l .-l I-l P=l .,-l

0

'ts1::

::I-l

til <ll

rIl I-l <ll

:<:-llP::
.,-l

P::

til 0 0
0 0 H

STATION
BR-23 BR-35 BR-34 BR-24 T-25 T-26 T-27 T-28

ARITHMETIC MEANS

SEASON

NON-SEASON

1968*

1967*

5

10

5

3

10

5

2

70

5

8100

50

8000

100

5400

5200

1600

GEOMETRIC MEANS

SEASON

NON-SEASON

1968*

1967*

3

4

3

3

10

4

2

50

3

280

40

390

90

650

240

1500

75-23

80

356-22

210

17-19

2600

75-21

370

I-l <ll

602-20

*

.,s-::l

til
...:l

255-17

1000

<ll

~
til

115-16

2200

...:l

'"8

S-1759

2500

til

I-l
:<:l-l

S-2422

820

.,-l

P::

600-7

*

<ll

..<cl:l
0

52-4

*

0

..0c:
til

284-5

*

~

~

.u.tci:l

129-6

*

25 90 * 1100 680 290 290 1900 1300 * * * *

80 150 1300 330
* 500 750 1100 500
* * * *

120 70 *
1000 590 240 230 1500 1300
* * * *

MPN DATA - COMPARISON OF FECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES AT INDIVIDUAL STATIONS BASED ON SEASONS

AREA
."....,
"0
+s.:.:I
u0
'-' l-I
~ .-1
s::
C\l ...:l
~ ~
C\l ...:l
"s0::
C\l l-I
Q)
>.-1
~ Q)
..~ uc
0 0
~
+..I +..I
.u.Cc\l

STATION
60-3 53-2 141-1
FC1 FC3
BR1 BR2 BR3 BR4 BR5 H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6

ARITHMETIC MEANS

SEASON

~ON-SEASON

1968*

1967*

*

*

*

*

*

*

48 120,983

268 62,567

68 2,639
814 300
22 188 466 241 119 103
14

371 47 112 375 76
6 7.7 12 8 16 3

GEOMETRIC MEANS

SEASON INON-SEASON

1968*

1967*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

145

*

10,000

21

24

46

14

77

33

43

32

8

13

56

*

142

*

64

8

240

*

28

11

8

*

MPN DATA - COMPARISON OF FECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES AT INDIVIDUAL STATIONS BASED ON SEASONS

AREA

STATION

QJ
bO ;::l
.j.J
..Cc:l:l
C,)
QJ ~
Cll ,..:l
"st:l:
Cll
1-1
QJ
>
.,-l
~
QJ QJ C/) C/)
Cll ~ Cll
::c.,-l
~
..-I QJ
..0
1-1
>Q.J..-.1-I
.,-l QJ ~~
.j.J
..c:: 1-1
gCll::Ccll
Cll QJ >~ Cll Cll tf.l,..:l

H-5 H-6 H-7 H-8 H-4 LC-9 LC-lO LC-ll LC-12
lID-13
29-12 181-11 82-10 72-9 600-8

..-I
..-I 1-1
.,-l.,-l
::c >0
~ 1-1 1-1 QJ Cll C/)
..-I QJ C,)~

CH-l CH-2 CH-3 CH-4 CH-5

ARITIIMETIC MEANS

SEASON

NON-SEASON

1968*

1967*

230

230

140

160

780

310

1100

700

500

1200

110

480

120

50

30

10

15

5

*

*

5

*

30

*

30

*

170

*

90

*

*

3

.*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

GEOMETRIC MEANS

SEASON NON-SEASON

1968*

1967*

140

120

100

130

500

280

830

360

460

560

60

120

70

50

10

50

6

3

*

*

7

*

10

*

30

*

190

*

80

*

*

3

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

MPN DATA - COMPARISON OF FECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES AT INDIVIDUAL STATIONS BASED ON SEASONS

AREA

STATION

CH-6

CH-7

CH-8

CH-9

CH-10

CH-ll

CH-12

CH-13

CH-14

CH-15

CH-16

CH-17

CH-18

I-l
.,-l

CH-19

>0

I-l Ql

CH-20

C/)

Ql

P::

CH-21

.-I

.-I

.,-l
::t:

CH-22

~

I-l III

CH-23

.-I

0

CH-24

I-l
.-I .,-l
.-I 0
~~
.j.J Ql I-l C/) III Ql
::t:P::

HR-l HR-2 HR-3

ARI THMETIC MEANS

SEASON [NON-SEASON

1968*

1967*

*

2

*

2

*

10

*

10

*

2

*

6

*

10

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

GEOMETRIC r-mANS

SEASON

~ON-SEASON

1968*

1967*

*

2

*

2

*

6

*

12

*

2

*

6

*

7

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

MPN DATA - COMPARISON OF FECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES AT INDIVIDUAL STATIONS BASED ON SEASONS

AREA
l-l .-1
>0
l-l OJ
C/)
rO:xJ:
.-4 .-4 OJ
~
l-l
:Iz1:l

STATION
HR-4 HR-5 HR-6 HR-7 HR-8 HR-9 HR-10 HR-ll HR-12 HR-13 HR-14 HR-15 HR-16 HR-17 HR-18 HR-19 HR-20 HR.-21 HR-22 HR-23 HR-24 HR-25

ARITIIMETIC MEANS

SEASON NON-SEASON

1968*

1967*

*

2

*

2

*

10

*

5

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

60

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

GEOMETRIC MEANS

SEASON NON-SEASON

1968*

1967*

*

2

*

2

*

8

*

4

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

60

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

*

2

MPN DATA - COMPARISON OF FECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES AT INDIVIDUAL STATIONS BASED ON SEASONS

AREA

Q)
..Qc:)
u
0 0
~
-IJ
-IJ
..Cc\:l
CJ

l-l l-l

Q) Q)

o~

:>
.,-l

,..;]~

STATION
C1 C2 C4 C5 CCI CCII CCIII

ARITHMETIC MEANS

SEASON

NON-SEASON

1968*

1967*

46

60

150

445

330

270

52

564

30

469

77

735

30

1,150

GEOMETRIC MEANS

SEASON

NON-SEASON

1968*

1967*

*

40

*

200

*

210

*

88

*

120

*

235

*

370

-rI:J:
.,-l
.-l ~

l-l l-l

Q) Q)

~o

:>
.,-l

,..;]~

-roI:J: Q)
S 00
"'0 ::l Q)~
.,-l OJ p.,~

F1 F2 F3 F4
P1 P2

72 30 130 33
740 4,275

103 97 302 224
1,454 2,073

*

63

*

58

*

200

*

80

*

600

*

1,100

APPENDIX H SUMMARY OF COASTAL STATION DATA - MPN

COASTAL WATERS
MPN DATA - FECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES OF INDIVDUAL STATIONS COMPUTED FROM THE ENTIRE STUDY

AREA

,.d

ssti::l

I-l Q)

t:>il

:>
.~

tIl~

t/)

Q)

Q)

,.od
Q)

I-l
:Q>)

Q) .~

bO~

0

Q)

Q) Q)

...-l,.dl-l

oW oW

0
Q)

:Q>)

.~ Q) .~

H bO ~

0

sso::

I-l Q)
:>

I-l .~

Q)~

:>

ARITHMETIC STATION MEAN

3

10,100

4

41

5

39

GEOMETRIC

MEAN

MEDIAN

40

20

28

20

29

20

MAXIMUM
160,000 230 230

MINIMUM
20 20 20

NO. SAMPLES
17 22 22

102

222

90

80

2,400

20

22

15

28

23

20

80

20

22

16

53

28

20

490

20

22

29

30

23

20

130

20

22

30

780

23

20

16,000

20

21

31

28

21

20

80

20

21

32

109

41

20

790

20

22

34

311

45

45

5,420

20

22

s:
0 oW

35

113

68

70

700

20

22

bp-OlQ-l)

s.~ :> .~

41

150

48

30

1,720

20

22

...-l~

.~

~

43

100

46

20

490

20

22

s:

0

0
;:E: I-l
Q)

44

148

50

20

1,300

20

22

4-l :>

...-l .~

::tri:l ~

AREA
'Us::
tll
.-l 00
H
.-l .-l
Q Q)
OJ
'Us::
tll
.-l 00
H 00
s::
~
or-! til
+s:J:
or-! tll til

ARITHMETIC STATION V..AN

J-1

<20

J-2

<20

J-3

<20

J-4

<20

J-5

<20

J-6

<20

GEOMETRIC

MEAN MEDIAN

---

<20

---

<20

---

<20

---

<20

---

<20

---

<20

MAXIMUM <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20

MINIMUM <20

NO. SAMPLES
1

<20

1

<20

1

<20

1

<20

1

<20

1

S-l

<20

S-2

<20

S-3

<20

S-4

<20

S-5

<20

S-6

<20

---

<20

<20

---

<20

<20

---

<20

<20

---

<20

<20

---

<20

<20

---

<20

<20

<20

1

<20

1

<20

1

<2Q

1

<20

1

I <20

1