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 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 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_~ -- () -- 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)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 ~ 0 29-12 20 10 8 99 5 7 l-l l-l >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 ",-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 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 H H <11 ll -.-I ~ 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 ~ >. ~ .~ ~ >. ~ 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 .-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